Vouchers for Public School: Who Benefits?

Taking Tennessee taxpayer funds away from public schools and giving those funds to private schools - whether you call it "vouchers" or Opportunity Scholarships" - doesn't add up.

A good overview of the plans can be found here at Metropulse.

Other phrases being used in debates include "reform" and "choice" but the bottom line is - does this voucher plan aid students or private schools most?

State Democrats, via Roy Herron, offered the following this week:

"Tennessee is making gains in graduating high school students. Between 2002 and 2010, the state graduation rate went from 59.6 to 80.4 percent, gaining an average of 2.45 percent a year between 2006 and 2010. [Commercial Appeal, 2/25/13]

"And what are these “good schools” they’re talking about giving (with our tax dollars) “scholarships” to? They are private schools.

"Now, if it’s “school choice” you want, we’ve already got that in Tennessee. Nancy and I had the “choice” to send our children to any number of schools, including any number of public and private schools. That’s legal in Tennessee right now.

"We’ve got Governor’s Schools, Magnet Schools, STEM schools, public charters, private schools, and regular public schools like our three sons attended. And I know something about the quality of education they got—and so do their college professors."

TN Legislators Back Sweeping Changes to Internet Privacy via CISPA Bill

In stark contrast to the widespread awareness and opposition to the recently failed PIPA and SOPA bills, awareness of the vast and fundamental changes to internet privacy created in a new bill, called CISPA, is very low.

Part of the reason for this is that this new bill is framed as a must-have tool to protect vital computer operations from attack, a tactic Tennessee's legislative coalition is pushing, as presented in this article from the Tennessean, headlined "TN Seen As Likely Cyber Target":

"Tennessee Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper and Republican Reps. Marsha Blackburn, Chuck Fleischmann and Phil Roe have signed on to legislation that would encourage the intelligence community and private sector to share certain information to better protect computer networks from cyberthreats.

"The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act would allow private companies and the government to share any information “directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to,” a computer network. Currently, the government can’t share classified intelligence on cyberthreats with the private sector.

“Because our Pentagon and other government agencies are attacked thousands of times a day, we have learned ways to help American business and individuals guard against identity theft of their customers, disruption of electricity and water service, and other threats to daily living,” he said."

But  there is far more is at stake here, and private businesses already are further ahead when it comes to security measures, since their businesses depend of secure operations.

Opposition to the legislation and the wide range of powers it creates gets a presentation here, noting that this legislation creates several problems:

• An overly broad, almost unlimited definition of the information can be shared with government agencies. And because that info is shared “notwithstanding any law,” CISPA trumps any federal or state privacy law that currently prohibits disclosure.
• Enactment is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications.
• It could shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the NSA.
• It creates a backdoor wiretap program because the information shared with the government isn’t limited to just cybersecurity, but could also be used for other purposes, such as law enforcement or by intelligence agencies.

Pages and pages of rules and regulations such as this are akin to the long and confusing paragraphs for the average Terms of Service Agreements which the average internet user encounters and OKs without really reading. Forcing private business to give their information about you to an intelligence agency may well be the norm if this bill passes - and most internet users will never even know it's happening.

Schools Reforms: No Science, No Baggy Pants

via The Chattanooga Times Free Press

Gov. Haslam says he'll sign into law a bill about how science is taught in Tennessee ... even though it "changes nothing" about how science is taught in Tennessee.

What??

As reported by Andy Sher:

"Haslam said he has had discussions with State Board of Education officials on “does this affect our curriculum and what we teach regarding evolution in the schools and the answer is no. Does it change the scientific standards that are the ruling criteria for what we teach in schools and the answer is no.”

So what in the heck is this law anyway?

Only one thing is certain - supporters of this law deny it has anything to do with allowing religious and political views to be presented in science classes, even though that is exactly what this law allows:

"These bills misdescribe evolution as scientifically controversial,” the statement says. “ As scientists whose research involves and is based upon evolution, we affirm — along with the nation’s leading scientific organizations ... that evolution is a central, unifying, and accepted area of science. 

“The evidence for evolution is overwhelming,” the statement continues. “There is no scientific evidence for its supposed rivals (‘creation science’ and ‘intelligent design’) and there is no scientific evidence against it.”

Yes, the legislature is deeply concerned with education - at least when it comes to devaluing science and with whether or not students wear baggy pants. That's because a new law about school dress codes apparently was needed even though every school already has dress codes and policies on what is acceptable and what is not. The aim though, is for a State Dress Code:

"The only bit of discussion before the vote last night came from another Memphis Democrat, Rep. Antonio Parkinson, who applauded Towns for bringing the bill, but lamented its narrow scope. He said the prohibition should be statewide and vowed to join Towns in working toward that end next year."

Bachmann and Blackburn Stir Fear With Fake Light Bulb Ban

"The cost per each new high-efficiency bulb does tend to be a bit higher, Appliance Standards Awareness Project executive director Andrew deLaski said, but the savings achieved through lower energy costs evens that out in an average of six months.

In total, Americans stand to save $12.5 billion a year under the news standards." (via)

Tennessee's Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn is promoting a frenzied warning that your American Freedom is under attack by Evil Liberal Light Bulb laws -- and she is totally wrong.

She's making bogus claims that incandescent light bulbs are about to be illegal, banned, and instead everyone will be forced to buy only compact flourescent (CFL) bulbs -- in her email she hysterically and wrongly says:

"In 2007, Congress passed legislation known as the "Energy Independence and Security Act" which contains a subsection that bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012.

"The banning of incandescent light bulbs is another attack on the basic individual freedom of every American.

And then she pushes a petition for you to sign, which reads:

"I strongly object to the attempts of liberal Democrats to take away yet another or our individual freedoms! I wholeheartedly support Congressman Blackburn in her efforts to repeal that section of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which will ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. I demand the right to continue to purchase incandescent light bulbs - one of Thomas Edison's greatest inventions."

Her claims are false.

Blogger Southern Beale calls her out in this post There Is No Light Bulb Ban.

How about a few facts to counter the lies of folks like Rush Limbaugh and presidential wanna-be Michelle Bachmann?

"There’s a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly,” said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. “There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”

The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting’s Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.

But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.

The line, for now sold exclusively at Home Depot and on Amazon.com, is not as efficient as compact fluorescent light bulbs, which can use 75 percent less energy than old-style bulbs."
---
"Given how costly the new bulbs are, big lighting companies are moving gradually. Osram will introduce a new line of incandescents in September that are 25 percent more efficient. The bulbs will feature a redesigned capsule with higher-quality gas inside and will sell for a starting price of about $3. That is less than the Philips product already on the market, but they will have shorter life spans. G.E. also plans to introduce a line of household incandescents that will comply with the new standards.

Mr. Calwell predicts “a lot more flavors” of incandescent bulbs coming out in the future. “It’s hard to be an industry leader in the crowded C.F.L field,” he said. “But a company could truly differentiate itself with a better incandescent.”

(source)

Also, Reps. Blackburn, Bachmann seem to be focused on preventing innovation and facts:

"The hubbub has been deeply irritating to light bulb manufacturers and retailers, which have been explaining the law, over and over again, to whomever will listen. At a Congressional hearing in March, Kyle Pitsor, a representative from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents makers of light bulbs, among others, patiently but clearly disputed claims that the law banned incandescent bulbs. He restated the law’s points and averred light bulb makers’ support for the law. As usual, it seemed as if no one was paying attention.

Last week, for example, in the middle of Lightfair, an annual trade show for the lighting industry, Philips unveiled a winged LED bulb with a promised life span of 25,000 hours and a price tag of $40 to $50. The Associated Press reported its cost as $50, and Fox News ran the story with the headline “As Government Bans Regular Light Bulbs, LED Replacements Will Cost $50 Each.” Mr. Beck, Rush Limbaugh and conservative bloggers around the country gleefully pounced on the story, once again urging the stockpiling of light bulbs.

Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the electrical manufacturers association, offered his take on the situation: “Unfortunately people do not yet understand this lighting transition, and mistakenly think they won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. This misinformation has been promoted by a number of media outlets. Incandescent light bulbs are not being banned, and the new federal energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs do not mandate the use of CFLs. My hope is that the media can help the American people understand the energy-efficient lighting options available, as opposed to furthering misconceptions.”

---

The law does not ban the use or manufacture of all incandescent bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of compact fluorescent ones. It simply requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work a bit better, meeting a series of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014.

Furthermore, all sorts of exemptions are written into the law, which means that all sorts of bulbs are getting a free pass and can keep their energy-guzzling ways indefinitely, including “specialty bulbs” like the Edison bulbs favored by Mr. Henault, as well as three-way bulbs, silver-bottomed bulbs, chandelier bulbs, refrigerator bulbs, plant lights and many, many others."

As was noted in a post at the Frum Forum:

"Major lighting manufacturers helped draft the new standards so that they could avoid a patchwork of state standards. They are fighting the repeal proposal because it threatens to strand the investments they have made to retool and produce lighting products that meet the standards.

In addition to claiming that the incandescent bulb is being banned and that we are all going to be forced to use compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), Barton is also saying that bulbs meeting the new standards are cost prohibitive.

Again, not true. A Philips incandescent bulb that meets the new standards currently sells for $1.49, lasts about 50 percent longer than older incandescent bulbs, and saves consumers more than $3.00 in energy expenditures. For four bucks you can buy an incandescent that lasts 3000 hours and nets you more than $10 in energy savings.

If you want to save even more energy you can buy CFL or LED bulbs. While LEDs cost more, the energy savings are about $150 per bulb and they last so long you might want to bequeath them to your children.

Barton’s irresponsible and embarrassing legislation would accomplish nothing good. It would provide consumers with inferior products that burn out faster and result in higher energy bills. It would threaten the lighting industry’s investment dollars. It would waste energy and result in more pollution.

And for what, a fanciful narrative about how the big bad government is taking away our lighting choices?

Legislation establishing common-sense efficiency standards for energy-using equipment has traditionally enjoyed overwhelming support from conservatives. The first such legislation was signed into law 25 years ago by President Ronald Reagan. Thanks to the legislation enacted by Reagan and similar laws signed by his successors, Americans are saving billions of dollars on their utility bills."

Thank The State Lawmakers For Ending Session Early

It's far too beautiful a day to talk too much politics, but I did want to share a few thoughts about the current session of the TN Legislature which has now ended. First, thank the Good Lord they stopped before they made things any worse than they already did.

Corporations got excellent representation and more rights, the average citizen ... meh, not so much. Not a surprise since the so-called Tea Party Conservative Republicans were highly funded corporate puppets who pretended to be 'jes folks to voters.

I was happy myself to see an issue I wrote about often here, a proposal to reduce public notices of foreclosure, died as it should have. In the end, the state did alter the law by declaring just what specific information must be included about the property to be foreclosed, which will reduce the costs of running such ads. But realize too, the banks and their attorneys were the ones who took the original foreclosure law designation - "a brief description" of the property - and ramped it up to a very long and detailed document which cost already struggling homeowners more money.

In truth, however, I don't think the state backed off their plans because of concern about struggling homeowners. I think that once it became very clear that this law would also apply to commercial property too, then businesses quietly voiced their total opposition to such a plan.

And the concept of public notice is not and was not designed to be a "revenue stream" for newspapers. Public notices remain the only accountability in the foreclosure process. As I noted before, the vast majority of mortgages for homes and businesses, already include specific details on the number of public notices required prior to a foreclosure process. Public notices in general remain under attack in the legislature - and it will now cost much much more for anyone to even request and receive public documents.

It's sad how the public has to pay and pay and pay for the duties elected and appointed officials are already supposed to do.

R. Neal at KnoxViews makes some great points today too about what this session of lawmakers have done:

"Us commie liberal bloggers tried to warn you, but voters were fooled anyway by Republican talk of jobs and improving our state's economy. Instead, they got a fantasy smorgasbord of conservative social engineering:

• Tort "reform," taking away your right to seek just compensation for injury or death due to negligence. (They say this is a "jobs" bill. Do we really want employers lured to the state just so they can avoid responsibility for their actions?)

• Made it harder for employees to seek compensation for workplace injuries. Will also allow employers to present uncorroborated, made up evidence when denying unemployment claims.

• Attacks on public education and teachers. Your tax dollars will fund private schools run by drive-by dilettantes for wealthy families, while hard-working teachers and professional educators are shut out of the discussion and subjected to greater political pressure and special interest influence to keep their jobs.

• Authorized contractors to discriminate against gay people when doing business with local governments. Set the stage for banning education about homosexuality in schools.

• Invoked the 10th Amendment to opt out of federal health care programs and regulation.

• Passed a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to take away a woman's right to make her own decisions about reproductive health. Bonus: it will get even more conservative fundamentalist voters to the polls during the next election when it appears on the ballot for voter approval.

• Enacted a meaningless "anti-terrorism" law aimed at persecuting Muslims.

• Attacked free and fair elections by banning voter verifiable voting machines. They also made it harder for the elderly, disabled and economically disadvantaged to vote while at the same time allowing corporations to now make campaign contributions.

Still, Tom Humphrey at the KNS points out a few items which were at least a little bit helpful in their $30 billion dollar budget:

--$71 million for disaster relief from recent storms and flooding.

--$45 million in funding for Higher Education capital projects.

--$20 million to allow lottery scholarships to be used during summer school.

--$16.5 million to issue bonds for the potential expansion of the Hemlock Semiconductor plant in Clarksville.

--$16 million in nursing home funding.

--$8.5 million to restore previously scheduled rate reductions to TennCare mental health providers.

--$33 million for TennCare services like labs, X-rays, dental and transportation.

But legislation is never simple, easy or direct. Go read Southern Beale's post and you'll see what I mean.

"All of this, of course, masks the true agenda, which is to transfer power from the people to corporations.

Along those lines, this legislative session allowed corporations to donate directly to political campaigns and operate “virtual schools” (whatever the hell that is). We’ve exempted insurance agents and brokers from the TN Consumer Protection Act, and yes we’ve passed “tort reform” ....

Keep in mind, of course, that all of this pro-corporate stuff comes straight from the industry-funded ALEC, which has identical legislation in state legislatures all across the country. But if you want to still believe the fairytale that Tennessee legislators are rugged individualists who don’t take their marching orders from anyone, least of all Washington, D.C., well here’s a glass of Kool-Aid for you."

As much overblown, overtalked nonsense which tumbles out of our state legislature as they invoke this or that part of the state's constitution, I wish they would keep in mind the very first section - Article One, Declaration of Rights:

"Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness ...

Foreclosure Chances 38% Higher In Tennessee

72 Tennessee legislators said YES to shorten the amount of public notices published for home foreclosures this past week - despite information which indicates that such practices have very negative economic reactions - for homeowners and commercial property owners - and for the state's economy in general.

Tennessee is one of only 5 states (Michigan, New Hampshire, Tennessee Utah, and West Virginia) which do not offer a judicial review of foreclosures (25 states offer the option of either having a judge review the process or for a non-judicial review). While it is true such judicial reviews can offer greatly lengthen the foreclosure process, that's a result of offering greater consumer protections.

Since TN does not offer that option, some striking statistics emerge in recent studies:

"What we found is not only do these neighborhoods that do not require a judicial process have higher rates of foreclosure but as a result, they have a much steeper decline in housing prices and real outcomes”, says Mian. “It’s possible that the further decline of the broader economy makes people feel less wealthy and so they start becoming more cautious with new investments and buying debt.”

The researchers collected data from RealtyTrac.com, Fiserv Case Shiller Weiss, Zillow.com, and Equifax to study foreclosures, house prices, and delinquency rates by zip code, respectively.

The rate of foreclosure per delinquent home in 2008 and 2009 is twice as high in non-judicial states. A delinquent home has a nineteen percent chance of being foreclosed in a judicial state, but thirty eight percent in a non-judicial state."

As noted in last week's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the bill, mortgage attorney Steve Baker, "There is no compelling reason to shorten the time for publication of public notices," and further, "The more notices published for a sale, the more it helps to create a better market" for potential buyers.

Sen. Jack Johnson, sponsor of the bill, noted in his testimony "... it may be considered I have a personal interest in this bill" as he is a board member for a state bank. Other comments, from the Tennessee Bakers Association, said "banks pay the fees for the public notices if a mortgage holder can not." It's safe to say if a mortgage holder cannot pay their bills, then they will be unlikely to pay any publication fees.

Sen. Jerry Jones noted in her opinion piece in The Tennessean:

"We are facing economic challenges not seen for decades. But instead of helping Tennessee residents hold onto their homes and get back on their feet, this legislation will make it easier to foreclose and harder on working families to recover from hard times."

House sponsor of the bill (HB1920) Rep. Jimmy Matlock, also a banker, said in an opposing editorial:

"But it is a complicated issue and at any rate is nothing but a red herring to divert attention away from the real issue — money."

TN Legislature Pushes Forward on Bills Changing Public Record Laws, Foreclosures, Teachers Unions

As mentioned previously, a wide range of bills creating many changes to the state's laws on

-- Citizen requests for public records
-- Shorten the number of public notices for foreclosures
-- Eliminating collective bargaining for Teachers Unions

and many others remain under consideration, with some hearings to be held today. UPDATE: the House version of the foreclosure law (HB1920) was passed today on a vote of 72 Yes and 19 No.

There was some lengthy and often contradictory debate this week on a proposal being pushed by the Tennessee Bankers Association to reduce the number of public notices of foreclosures currently required. This bill not only affects homeowners, but all commercial property mortgages as well.

The bill (SB 1299) was approved on a vote of 5 to 4. However, it is most notable that the Senate sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jack Johnson, and two members of the Senate committee considering the bill, Sen. Doug Overbey and Sen. Brian Kelsey, all invoked what's called Rule 13. Rule 13 requires that voting members must state if they have a potential "personal interest" in the legislation being considered.

Rule 13 does not require them to not vote, just to state out loud: "... it may be considered that I have a degree of personal interest in the subject matter of this bill, but I declare that my argument and my ultimate vote answer only to my conscience and to my obligation to my constituents and the citizens of the State of Tennessee."

If such personal interests did require them to abstain from voting, the measure would have died.

During the debate, one aspect of the bill received wide approval, that of defining specifically what information describing the property to be foreclosed. Current law simply says "a brief description" and over the years, that has turned into an often very lengthy legal description, which is costly to create and to publish.

But it's the issue of reducing the number of times the notice would be published from 3 to 2 (the original bill would have made only 1 publication mandatory) which has the biggest impact. The cost of the publication also is disputed. TBA officials claim the notices serve little function, as most mortgage holders already know if they are behind in payments and facing foreclosure. But mortgage attorney Steve Baker refuted that, saying more notices means more people will and do attend public auctions of foreclosed property, and further, that since the state does not require any court oversight of foreclosures, public notices insure the most possible exposure to attract buyers and creates a more robust market for sales.

"There's no compelling reason to shorten the time for public notice," he said, adding "Tennessee already has one of the fastest and least expensive foreclosure processes in the country."

The TBA also claims the cost of publication is around $3000, though they offered no average cost figures. Newspaper publisher Eric Barnes testified the cost was only $212 per notice, currently making the cost just over $600, and added that in his area of West TN, banks will often publish notices in publications which charge the banks more. Further, the shorter descriptions being considered will also drop the costs of public notice publication by 30 to 40 percent.

Senators Overbey, Kelsey, Campfield, Bell and Yager voted in favor of the bill, while committee chair Sen. Beavers voted no, along with Senators Barnes, Ford, and Marrero.

Other bills which continue to get legislative approval include:

• SB0326: Opts out of Medicare and Medicaid and establishes state program funded by federal funds formerly spent on Medicare and Medicaid.

• SB0932 Weakens wage and hour and workers' compensation laws, makes it easier for employers to deny future medical claims for workers' compensation settlements, establishes presumption of natural/aging cause for workplace injury unless proven otherwise by injured worker, with additional special requirements for proving work related hearing loss and carpal tunnel syndrome.

• SB 1915: Increases campaign contribution limits, allows corporations to contribute to candidates; allows members of the general assembly and the governor to fundraise as candidates for other elective offices during session.

• SB0940: Makes it more difficult for whistleblowers and victims of discrimination to prove their cases against employers.

• *HB1875: Allows state officials to charge a fee for viewing or producing public records. (NOTE: The bill will create a new cost for public records requests based on the hourly wages of any and all employees who work to fill that request and for all the time they claim they require to locate, preview, redact, and copy the records being requested.)

• HB 0130: Abolishes teachers' unions ability to negotiate terms and conditions of professional service with local boards of education. NOTE: has already passed Senate, this is a special committee hearing in House. (NOTE 2: House Speaker Beth Harwell decided to cast a vote on this bill in order to break a tie vote, which would have killed this legislation.)

Shoot-Out Or Opt Out?

Thanks to the short-sighted, political goofballery of the Tennessee State Legislature, any community in the state which has a public park has been forced to formulate a policy on whether or not folks can tote their guns with them when they head out to the park. It's the great Opt-Out Debate of '09.

Thanks, state legislature, really. THANKS.

Meanwhile, some good writing and thinking on this issue for the city of Rogersville comes from DeMarCaTionVille:

"Folks, I’m a gun owner. Hell, I’m a gun lover. I am also a strong defender of Second Amendment rights – yep, another one of those “pry it out of my cold, dead hands” types. But before all else, I am a mother, a volunteer and an advocate for the children of this community.

While I’d like to believe that only the most responsible gun owners would be packing heat at the T-ball games – you know to pick off the zombies, I sincerely doubt it would happen this way.

My husband and I are very involved with the local AYSO region. We have also participated or volunteered in most programs offered by the city. Over the years, we’ve dealt with our share of negative sideline behaviors, angry spectators, verbal disputes that have escalated to shoving matches or fist fights, and the occasional group teen vandals. We know firsthand that even the most responsible, level-headed person can become completely irrational if they feel their child has been attacked or treated unfairly by another adult.

I can also tell you that approaching these people to discuss a behavior they need to curtail, particularly when they’re already angry, is scary enough without adding firearms to the mix.

Therefore, I fully support the proposal to opt out. I’d also remind Pop and his cronies that their grandchildren play baseball, softball, soccer, tag and pin the tail on the donkey in that park. So, for me, this isn’t a battle against the conservatives and the others or government versus the common man.

It’s about common sense, the safety and welfare of children and making sure that my ass doesn’t take a bullet when I have to calmly approach the Dad, who just threw his chair across the field and threatened to assault the opposing coach, or the opposing coach, who yelled back: “Yeah, Bring It Fatass!”… right before she flipped him the middle finger.

Since the logic seems to be that if more folks have guns to protect themselves, why not just require every resident in the state to tote a gun with them wherever they go - that way, we will all be equal ... except of course for the ones who have the best quick draw and dead aim.

Yeehaw.

UPDATE:

"JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. - Patrons headed to a Johnson City sports bar will be handed water pistols on the first day when state law allows guns in bars.

Dan Numan said the gimmick is a facetious protest of the new statute, which he called "ignorant."

The first 100 people who visit Numan's Cafe and Sports Bar today will be offered the water pistols. A massive water gun fight was anticipated.

Numan said he and several other restaurant owners in the city intend to post signs, as allowed by the legislation, that lets them opt out of permitting real handguns in their establishments."

Via the Knoxville News Sentinel

Why Not Just Require A State License For Sexual Activity?

As the state of Tennessee ponders passage of a whole slew of laws removing/altering women's rights and their ability to decide on whether to be a mother or not, it seems that what they are really seeking is a Sexually Activity License.

Liberadio(!) has been tracking the list of legislation (her full post follows and I hope like me, you do contact by phone or email the list of representatives included):

Wednesday, March 11, at 3:00 pm, in room 16 of Legislative Plaza, the conversation will continue at a Public Hearing [pdf] in front of House Health and Human Resources Committee. Please consider attending the hearing so you can both stand against the most cynical of legislators and their divisive bills and support women’s reproductive health advocates.

The bills to be discussed are as follows:

HJR 0061 JUDICIARY: Constitution - right to abortion. Adds new provision to Article I to provide that nothing in Constitution of Tennessee secures or protects right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion except in cases involving rape, incest, or health of the mother. (H: Fincher)

HJR 0066 JUDICIARY: Constitution - right to abortion. Adds new provision to Article I to provide that nothing in Constitution of Tennessee secures or protects right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. (H: Maggart)

HJR 0088 JUDICIARY: Constitutional amendment - right to or funding of abortion. Adds new provision to Article I to provide that nothing in Constitution of Tennessee secures or protects the right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. Gives the legislature the authority to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother. (H: Curtiss)

HJR 0132 HEALTH CARE: Constitutional amendment - vasectomy rights of married men. Adds new provision to Article I of the state constitution to provide that nothing in the constitution secures or protects right to a vasectomy. (H: Camper)

HB0025 - FAMILY LAW: Paternity testing for birth certificates. Requires paternity testing before a father can be listed on a birth certificate. Requires department of human services to pay the costs of the paternity tests for parties who are financially unable to pay. Broadly captioned. (S: Jackson; H: Hardaway)

HB0436 - HEALTH CARE: Standards for ambulatory surgical treatment centers. Requires that any physician’s office that performs abortions be classified as an as ambulatory surgical treatment centers. Requires the department of health, through the board for licensing health care facilities, to promulgate rules and regulations that contain certain minimum standards for the maintenance and operation of ambulatory surgical treatment centers. (S: Beavers; H: Shipley)

HB0445 - CRIMINAL LAW: Informed consent for abortions. Requires that the informed written consent of the woman be obtained prior to an abortion, providing for 24-hour period of reflection after the woman receives the information needed for an informed consent. Establishes requirements for a physician or other health care professional to follow in order to obtain informed consent from the woman. Establishes an exception to informed consent and waiting period requirements when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman. (S: Herron; H: Maddox)

HB0638 - FAMILY LAW: Viable human fetus as victim of child abuse. Revised definition of “child” to include a viable fetus of a human being for purposes of child abuse and aggravated child abuse offenses. (S: Burchett; H: Maggart)

HB0807 - HEALTH CARE: Stillborn deaths to be placed in vital records. Requires each fetal death, 500 or more grams or 22 or more completed weeks of gestation, to be placed in vital records. Gives parents the option of naming the stillborn child on such records. (S: Bunch; H: Campfield)

HB0819 - HEALTH CARE: Death certificate to be issued for abortions. Requires a death certificate to be filed with the office of vital records for each abortion performed in the state. Requires death certificate to state that the fetal death was due to an abortion. (S: Bunch; H: Campfield)

HB0862 - FAMILY LAW: Inception of human life. Defines “inception of human life” to mean the moment of human conception. (S: Gresham; H: Mumpower)

HB2106 - FAMILY LAW: Tennessee Pregnant Women Support Act. Authorizes the department of health to apply for federal grants to fund the collection of data regarding the number of abortions performed in this state, the characteristics of those seeking abortions, the reasons why women choose abortion, or any other information applicable to supporting pregnant women in this state who may be seeking an abortion. Requires the department of health to create a hotline as well as pamphlets for doctors’ offices to provide interested women with information about public and private health care services available to women during and after the birth of a child. (S: Herron; H: Fincher)

HB1756 - FAMILY LAW: Disposition of Family Planning Funds. As introduced, establishes a new methodology for disposition of family planning funds that disburses funds to public women’s health services programs before other providers are funded. - Amends TCA Section 68-34-105. (S: Johnson; H: Hensley)

Any legislation, including SJR127, HJR61 and HJR66, which attempts to begin the process of amending the State Constitution would be doing so in historical violation of the document’s purpose to expand rights, not take them away.

In addition, there are already a number of Tennessee laws which already regulate abortion, including parental consent, a ban on late-term abortions and patient informed consent. You can read about the effects of these laws in an open letter to Rep. Debra Maggart that was written by one broken-hearted Tennessee woman.

And, as I stated earlier, with the number of abortions in Tennessee is declining the focus of our legislature should be on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies by providing education and resources.

Before 3:00 PM tomorrow, please contact by phone or email each committee member. This is especially important if your representative is on the committee. You can find out who your Rep is at the Capitol website. Don’t forget to put your zip code in the subject line of your email.

Chair and Vice Chair of the House Health and Human Resources Committee:
Rep. Joe Armstrong rep.joe.armstrong@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Joey Hensley rep.joey.hensley@capitol.tn.gov

Members of the House Health and Human Resources Committee:
Rep. Curt Cobb, Rep.Curt.Cobb@capitol.tn.gov Rep.Curt.Cobb@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Jim Cobb, Rep.Jim.Cobb@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Charles Curtiss, Rep.Charles.Curtiss@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Vince Dean, Rep.Vince.Dean@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. John DeBerry, Rep.John.DeBerry@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Lois DeBerry, Rep.Lois.DeBerry@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Vance Dennis, Rep.Vance.Dennis@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Joshua Evans, Rep.Joshua.Evans@capitol.tn.gov
Rep.Dennis Ferguson, Rep.Dennis.Ferguson@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Dale Ford, Rep.Dale.Ford@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Curtis.Halford, Rep.Curtis.Halford@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Sherry.Jones, Rep.Sherry.Jones@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Debra.Maggart, Rep.Debra.Maggart@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Jason.Mumpower, Rep.Jason.Mumpower@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Gary Odom, Rep.Gary.Odom@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Mary Pruitt, Rep.Mary.Pruitt@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Bob Ramsey, Rep.Bob.Ramsey@capitol.tn.gov
Rep.Barrett Rich, Rep.Barrett.Rich@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Jeanne Richardson, Rep.Jeanne.Richardson@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. David Shepard, Rep.David.Shepard@capitol.tn.gov

And at Tiny Cat Pants, Aunt B, minces no words in pointing out that some proponents of legislation seeking to outlaw abortions has no idea what medical procedures even take place between a physician and a patient.

"I write to you out of such deep despair I don’t even know where to start. I read Jeff Woods’s post an hour ago and I’m still so angry I’m shaking.

I’ll just quote:

Q: What else?

Fowler: There are other things we could do as well if this resolution passes that we probably could not do under Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist. For example, many states now are requiring doctors to inform women that they’ve performed an ultrasound and that they have the right to see that ultrasound. Many women think it’s just a blog [sic]of cells or tissues. But literally within eight days, I think you can notice the heartbeat on the sonogram and when they begin to understand the truth about what is inside their body, they recognize it as a human being and a child. That kind of law probably would not be constitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist.

Women of Tennessee, I don’t care where you stand on the abortion issue. I just want you to read that and see it for what it is. Fowler CANNOT EVEN BOTHER TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT GOES ON BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR BUT HE THINKS HE SHOULD GET TO SET THE LAWS TO GOVERN IT. Just let that evil sink in. He cannot even bother to get his facts straight, he can’t be bothered to learn about what you might go through if you have an abortion, he can just make shit THAT IS PLAINLY NOT TRUE. Just demonstrably false. LIES, lies, lies.

He can just lie, plain and bald-faced and make shit up and not even be bothered to learn about what you might go through when you go to the gynecologist and he and his buddies are going to win.

He doesn’t even give enough of a shit about you to bother to learn what you go through and he’s going to get laws that affect you passed. He can’t even be bothered to learn basic science, and he gets to govern your body.

Let’s start with the “requiring doctors to inform women that they’ve performed an ultrasound.” Most women have abortions in the first trimester. In order to perform the abortion, her doctor does an ultrasound, at the least, to determine the age of the fetus. In the first trimester, the fetus is so tiny that it cannot be seen using an abdominal ultrasound. As you know, the doctor will therefore almost always perform a vaginal ultrasound on you. There is no way you won’t know that they’re performing the ultrasound. But Fowler doesn’t know that. He’s apparently gotten his information on how doctors work from television, so you’re going to be ruled by laws set by a guy who doesn’t know basic gynecological procedures.

He can’t bother to learn that there’s not a heartbeat until 21 days after conception. So, he just makes up 8 days, because he’s too lazy to learn the truth and anyway, he’s too busy protecting us stupid, stupid cows from ourselves.

And that’s what burns me. He thinks that, if we only had more knowledge–the very knowledge HE CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO EVEN FUCKING ACQUIRE–we wouldn’t have abortions.

But it’s beneath him to worry about the details or the truth of what he wants to force us to know.

And yet, he’s going to get his way. He’s a lazy, condescending liar who can’t even be bothered to learn about the stuff he wants to force on women and he’s going to win.

God damn, that burns me. It insults me so deeply that some man–who will never be faced with this decision and who can’t even bother to learn enough about it to get his facts straight–is going to make the laws we have to live by. Damn it’s insulting to the core.

But then, let’s look at the second half of the problem. There’s not a woman in this state who hasn’t been through one kind of gynecological problem or another, even if she’s never had nor would ever have an abortion, who would hear what Fowler says and not say to herself–”But wouldn’t they have to do a vaginal ultrasound? Um, of course they would. And wouldn’t a doctor already tell her what she’s doing and why? And wouldn’t a woman notice that?”

It’s not Jeff Woods’s fault that he’s not a woman. And it’s not his fault that he didn’t know, so it didn’t sound funny to him. But he’s who Fowler’s sitting down with to spew this bullshit. And he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know to be able to press Fowler about it.

And what do you do in the face of that?

Senator Southerland Making Water Pollution Easier, Legal

I hope you'll join myself and other telling our state legislators that their consideration of new laws regarding Tennessee streams and waterways is just plain wrong. Sen. Southerland has submitted SB0634, which prevents the public from helping to identify violations in the existing law. That's a bad idea, and one of many which are being considered by the legislature.

30,000 miles of waterways in Tennessee are in danger of losing protection, thanks to one bill, and the overall approach appears to be that no effort will be given to cleaning up pollution, but adding to it.

The Tennessee Clean Water Network has details on the 14 bills now filed:

These Bills:

• Don't do anything to clarify existing laws or processes – they change the law.
• Blatantly strip protection away from our waters.
• Grant permission to pollute our waters without justification.

SB0631/HB1616 – Prevents polluted waters from being classified as Exceptional Tennessee waters and removes the burden of proving an economic and social need for projects which impact Exceptional waters when the project is publicly funded.

• Don't give up on our waters. Just because they're dirty now doesn't mean we stop protecting them.
• The bill is in violation of the Clean Water Act. 40 CFR 131.12 clearly places the burden on the applicant to show social and economic necessity. The legislature can not shift the burden and stay consistent with federal law.
• Denies the public its right to participation in the process: Spending our money, polluting our water and we have no voice in the matter.

SB0632/HB1615 - 1) States "support" as used in the definition of wet weather conveyance means meeting the classification of fish and aquatic life even during low flow, 2) Excludes wet weather conveyances from "waters," 3) Requires TDEC to develop a waters determination training, 4) Allows for stream determinations to be made by an expert outside of TDEC.

• First half is an attempt to narrow the types of waterbodies protected under our laws. Since the changes are based upon water flow this would specifically lift protection from smaller streams during times of drought, when water protection is of the utmost importance.
• Developing a stream determination process is a good idea and one TDEC is currently working on.
• TDEC, as the public agency, should be the final decision maker on stream determinations.

SB0633/HB1617 – Creates definition of "limited resource waters" as those not attaining their designated uses due to natural occurrences or modifications and exempts them and wet weather conveyances from the definition of "waters."

• Strips protection away from our waters – could destroy approximately 30,000 miles of streams in Tennessee.
• Gives up on protecting those impaired from previous activities.
• Critical threat to smaller waterbodies.

SB0634/HB0973 – Prevents the prompting of enforcement inspections from anonymous communication and requires stream determination when a complaint is based upon discharging without a permit into an unnamed stream .

• Takes protection away from whistle blowers.
• Prevents the public from voicing their concerns and being protected at the same time.
• Increases burden on TDEC.

SB0198/HB0425 – Requires legislature to approve all rules and prevents the creation of emergency or public necessity rules.

• Create serious delays in the rule-making process.
• Grants too much power to the Legislative Branch – infringes on separation of powers.
• Neglects protection of state health and environment if emergency and public need actions can not be taken during times the Legislature is not meeting.

SB1738 - Provides those with permits allowing for a water withdrawal do not have to re-apply when there is a modification to their hours of withdrawal in their permit, but only request the modification form TDEC with an explanation of why the revision is necessary.

• More hours for them, less water for us.
• Provides private companies the opportunity to remove more water from our streams without public involvement. Often that withdrawal is a permanent water loss to our state.

SB1331/HB1204 - 1) Eliminates selenate when including selenium in those permits with a toxic effluent limitation 2) requires selenite to be the basis should water quality criterion be developed for selenium 3) Prevents impaired waters from being ETWs 4) For the purpose of anti-deg any alteration in waters which improves the condition or complies with naturally occurring conditions is de minimis.

• First half is an attempt by the coal industry to pollute our waters with selenium (selenate is the selenium by-product of coal mining).
• Gives up on protecting our waters.
• No project can be assumed to have a minimal impact unless fully evaluated. Example: Applicants have claimed they are improving the condition of a stream by culverting it, which is never an improvement.
• This allows anyone to impact our waters without justification.

SB1112/HB1622 – Requires air and water quality rules be consistent with and not exceed the requirements of federal statutes. Provides if there are no federal statutes the state can create those regulations if necessary to protect health, welfare, or the environment. Prevents any permit from having requirements which are not the direct basis of existing rule.

• Prevents Tennessee from protecting its unique resources when the federal government doesn't.
• States' rights: Why let the federal government determine what is best for our state?
• Limits Tennesseans from making its own choices.

SB1207/HB1205 - 1) Requires WQCB to hear and decide on permit appeal hearings within 90 days of receipt of petition; 2) provides the WQCB can deem an appeal frivolous and award fees and expenses incurred as a result of the appeal to the applicant; 3) states if a declaratory order is not heard by the WQCB within 90 days it is a refusal to hear the case.

• Denies the opportunity for hearings to be held in front of the WQCB if delayed.
• Bias towards permit applicants as the only partly eligible for incurring costs.
• Worded to assume applicant is not also appellant.

SB1312/HB1619 - Defines “CAFO” in accordance with federal law for the purpose of NPDES.

• Locks Tennessee into federal definition.
• States' rights: Why let the federal government determine what is best for our state?

Sen. Steve Southerland of Morristown is chair of the Senate Environment, Conservation and Tourism Committee, and Sen. Mike Faulk represents Claiborne, Grainger, Hancock, Hawkins and Jefferson County and sits on that committee.

You can contact Sen. Southerland via this page, Sen. Faulk here.

Far more immediate and important right now, the state needs to create new and better rules regarding coal waste ash ponds like the catastrophe in Kingston, where TVA's failure has devastated hundreds of acres and unknown miles of Tennessee rivers, streams and waterways.

R. Neal at KnoxViews has contact info on all related committees and their members.

Packing Heat In The Pews

Arkansas lawmakers have approved a bill which would allow for concealed weapons to be carried into church. The measure now moves to their state Senate for a vote, and the governor has already said he'd sign it into law if it lands on his desk.

Currently, only churches and bars are exempt in that state from conceal and carry laws. Under this new law, churches would have the option of allowing or not allowing concealed weapons as long as they posted a visible sign at their church as to their stance. About 20 states already have similar laws.

The bill was pushed before and failed, but this time Republican Rep. Beverly Pyle got the vote thru on a 57 to 42 vote.

During committee hearings on the bill prior to the vote, one representative, who is also a pastor, John Phillips Jr. said:

"As a group of lawmakers, are we really wanting to send the message that we are raising the white flag of surrender to the anarchy that's in the streets and that the only way that our citizens can feel safe in their houses of worship and churches is that we come packing heat in the pews?"

Phillips, now a minister at the Central Church of Christ in Little Rock, testified that a "deranged individual" shot him in 1986 while Phillips was working at another Little Rock church. Phillips said his life was saved by a member of the congregation, who came to his defense.

"I don't know that having a concealed weapons individual designated to bear arms in the church that day would have made any difference in that situation," he said.

Another minister spoke to the press in favor of the bill:

"To me, being in church is probably one of the most vulnerable places anyone can be as far as an attack happening," said Pastor Mark Thorton of the Big Creek Missionary Baptist Church in Malvern. "And if there's no one there who can legally carry a handgun, we're going to be on the 6 o'clock news."

My father was a Baptist minister and I wonder what his reaction to such a plan might be.

I think perhaps first he would not be happy that government was taking up church operations and regulations as part of legislative activity. He would often talk politics while sharing coffee with folks at the local diner in the mornings, and we'd often have heated debates about politics at home, and he often wrote letters to elected officials to weigh in on all kinds of issues.

But I can't really recall a time when he spoke out on a political issue from the pulpit -- one on one with folks, yes, but not as part of sermon. Of course, you have to realize that as a squirrely young boy I was usually not paying real close attention during all the thousands of sermons I heard as I would sneak in a couple of little toys, Matchbox cars, army men or cowboys or little guys in spacesuits. Or I'd play tic-tac-toe with some nearby fellow ne'er-do-well who, like me, was surely headed to Perdition.

Dad's no longer among us, so I can't ask him directly for a reaction. But all the while he was alive and even after he was not, I always have a sort of talk with him in my head about pretty much everything. I did pay attention often to how he worked as a pastor, as a person, and as a father. We might agree or disagree on many things, but he always seemed pretty smart to me and he did educate me to consider the effects which might follow any and all decisions I made or failed to make. So I ponder about a lot of things and yes, even this humble-but-lovable blog is often my wee little pulpit and sermonette.

I know that in the past both recent and ancient, people have been attacked in churches by folks who bring in a gun or other weapon and inflict much harm on those within. Sometimes those people are stopped and their plans foiled, and sometimes they are not. Both good things and bad things happen in this world - in or out of a church house. I also know that compared to the rest of the world, this country is a mighty safe place. I don't think that more bad than good is happening, I think we just hear and see more due to the speed at which information travels today.

I tend to think my father would be opposed to folks feeling a need or a right to bring a gun into church in our times. Might have been different in centuries past, but as for our times, I think he might see such behavior as a general lack of Faith. He might say that while in church, your thoughts should not be on worldly things but on spiritual ones. I also think he would be far more eloquent addressing this topic than me.

It was a rather shocking day last year when a crazed gunman strolled into a Unitarian church in Knoxville and began shooting, so the reality of what can and does happen looms large in most minds in East Tennessee. I also marvel at the selfless acts of members of that church who took on that killer with nothing more than their hands and their desires to stop the violence. I'd like to think, should some similar event take place where I might be, that I would have the courage to resist an attack. I think I would. I hope I never have to find out.

Oddly, while I may not have always been the keenest listener in my father's churches, I do see that the words 'hope' and 'faith' still have a hefty place in my writing and my thinking. Most of the time anyway, though not always.

Seeing a sign posted at a church saying they allowed for concealed weapons or had armed security guards would not be very inviting to me, though I suppose some might feel comforted by such. For me, it indicates just how a person and a church regard the spiritual realm in many, many ways.

Applebee's And Many Other Companies Have Removed Employee Rights

The story of what happened between one employee at Applebee's exhibits just one way modern companies have dispensed with employee rights and any citizen's rights to address wrongs through the judicial system. Currently, a conservative estimate of 30 million American workers have lost their rights to a trial by jury in a public forum. So the trend in coming years means millions more will soon lose their rights too. The companies which invoke these conditions are at every level of commerce in the country - the following is but one example.

A post at the blog Overruled lays out the details about how the use of "arbitration" circumvents rights to due process and has made it all legal:

"One day, when Dantz arrived at work a paper was shoved into her hands and she was ordered to sign it. The paper contained something called a “binding mandatory arbitration agreement” which said that, if Applebees broke the law, Dantz no longer had the right to hold it accountable in court and instead would be shunted into a privatized, biased justice system. Dantz refused to sign, and was told that until she did, she would be paid nothing but tips—a violation of federal minimum wage laws. Nevertheless, Dantz needed her job, so she didn’t quit.

After nearly three years of harassment, abuse and long hours for little or no pay, Dantz finally decided that she’d had enough. She filed suit against her employer—and the court kicked her to the curb. Even though Dantz refused to sign the binding arbitration agreement, the court said that merely by continuing to work for Applebees, she was bound by its terms. Debbie Dantz’ employer illegally abused her for almost three years, and Dantz was powerless to hold it accountable.[NOTE: She did not receive a paycheck and her only earnings were from tips.However, the wisdom of her decision, or lack of it, is not the point here.]

Lest there be any doubt, when Dantz was thrown out of court and relegated to privatized arbitration, her opportunity for justice ended right there. Let’s explore a few ways that arbitration differs from real courts:

• Most importantly arbitration is biased in favor of corporate interests. According to a study by Public Citizen which examined almost 20,000 arbitration decisions, the corporate party won a massive 94% of the time. In one case, an arbitrator awarded $11,000 to a debt collector against a woman who owed no money whatsoever, but who had the same name as a woman who did.
• Arbitration is often pay to play. If you bring a suit in federal court, you pay a $350 filing fee, and that’s it. Arbitrators, on the other hand, frequently offer an a la carte menu. If you want to file a motion, that’s $500. If you want a live hearing, $1500. If you want a written explanation of the arbitrator’s ruling, $1500 more. In some cases, consumers have been charged $10,000 or more for the privilege of losing their case before a biased arbitrator.
• Arbitration is secret. Except in California, arbitrators are not required to publicly disclose their decisions. Because they can keep their past history from the public, many arbitration companies market their services to corporations by highlighting their pro-business bias, even as they lobby Congress with claims that they are just as fair and balanced as real live judges.

So in summary, arbitration is expensive; it is secretive, and it is fundamentally unfair. Even worse, it is almost always forced on ordinary Americans. If you have a credit card. Or if you have a job. Or if you have a cell phone. Or if you have a loved one in a nursing home. You have probably been forced to sign an arbitration agreement. Virtually all banks, many employers and some nursing homes will even refuse to do business with you unless you sign away your power to hold them accountable for their actions. If you refuse to sign an arbitration agreement you can lose your credit card, lose your phone service, or even be fired.

The reason why these binding mandatory arbitration agreements are legal is a series of wrongly decided Supreme Court decisions that began in the 1980s. Needless to say, business groups like the Chamber of Commerce are very interested in blocking any legislation which might overturn these wrongful decisions, and they have hired a veritable army of lobbyists to block a bill called the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would prevent companies from coercing their customers and employees into signing away their rights."

Sen. Russ Feingold sponsored a bill, the Arbitration Fairness Act, which died in committee last year. Perhaps now with the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, it's time to bring up that bill again.

In 2007, the National Employment Lawyers Association offered the following testimony before Congress -- their testimony includes documentation on just how many U.S. companies offering just about any type of service have warped the rights of employees nationwide:

"As NELA members can attest from the cases they see in their practices, the use of MA programs as a tool for companies to “stack the deck” in their favor in disputes with their employees has grown exponentially over the last 15 years. Today, 15% to 25% of United States employers use MA programs – covering a conservatively estimated 30 million workers, a greater number than union contracts cover. The attached NELA fact sheet, “Data Points: Increasing Prevalence of Mandatory Arbitration Programs Imposed on Employees,” reviews available statistics showing the dramatic growth of these programs.

"Thousands of American companies use or have used mandatory arbitration, including such household names as Circuit City, Hooter’s, Dillard’s Department Stores, Cisco Systems, Anheuser-Busch, and Halliburton. These companies are in virtually every industry – retail, food services, manufacturing, and financial services, to name a few. The attached list of companies for which the American Arbitration Association (AAA) held at least five employment arbitrations between January 1, 2003, and March 31, 2007, is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, but it again shows that the use of mandatory arbitration is alive and well in the United States in the 21st Century."

Abuse of Elderly In Tennessee Grows

Recent audits reveal critical flaws in Tennessee nursing homes, and the state's legislature this term decided that protection was needed not for those residents, but for protecting the owners of nursing homes from lawsuits. 22 facilities had admissions suspended in 2007 and 13 have already had similar suspensions so far in 2008.

A Chattanooga Free Times report today says:

"As state inspectors continue to find a record number of violations in nursing homes, two recent reports highlight significant weaknesses in Tennessee’s oversight of health care facilities.

An audit by the comptroller of the Treasury identified a number of shortcomings in the Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities, including failure to maintain a list of individuals who have abused, neglected or misappropriated the property of vulnerable individuals.

“That’s a very important function to have: a listing of anyone who is considered abusive and shouldn’t be working with vulnerable people,” said Art Hayes, director of state audit at the comptroller’s office and one of the audit’s leaders. “They’re not conducting all the investigations they should, they’re not holding the hearings timely and they’re not tracking people who are removed from the registry.”

The audit also found that the licensing board failed to investigate complaints in a timely manner, which can keep nursing home patients in dangerous situations and make gathering evidence difficult.
-----

The nursing home industry and its state regulators have corrected many of the problems noted in the audit, said Christy Allen, assistant commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Health’s Bureau of Health Licensure and Regulation. The bureau oversees licensing of health facilities and individuals.

The state performance audit comes on the heels of a May report from the federal Government Accountability Office that lists Tennessee as one of nine states that most often neglected to cite serious violations at nursing homes during inspections between 2002 and 2007.

In federal follow-ups to state surveys of health care facilities, surveyors found that Tennessee inspectors failed to record serious deficiencies 26.3 percent of the time, according to the GAO report."

In February of this year, R. Neal at TennViews, reported how the legislature was working to protect nursing home owners from lawsuits. The legislation, SB4075/HB4053, was amended in May and instead the legislature voted to create a committee to "study the effects of litigation on the nursing home industry" and report back by Feb. 2009.

As Neal wrote:

"Instead of allowing special interests to influence legislation, Tennessee should pursue better regulation and oversight of nursing homes to protect the safety and dignity of patients in these facilities. Who lobbies for the people?"

SEE ALSO: A post from Facing South notes a constant and growing increase in bankruptcy filings for those age 65 and over.

Connected Tennessee Backers A Front for AT&T?

A recent examination of a program to expand internet access, which began in Kentucky and then moved into Tennessee and now goes under the name Connected Nation raises some concerns that the entire project is basically a PR machine for AT&T.

Media analyst Art Brodsky provides a look at how the project is advancing and who is advancing it:

"Their judgment, broadly stated, is that Connect Kentucky is nothing more than a sales force and front group for AT&T paid for by the telecommunications industry and by state and federal governments that has achieved far more in publicity than it has in actual accomplishment. Connect helps to promote AT&T services, while lobbying at the state capitol for the deregulation legislation the telephone company wants.

-----

"Connect v 2.0, the version we have today, emerged in 2004 under the new governor, Ernie Fletcher (R). From the start, there were two elements that drove it – the presence of BellSouth and of Fletcher staff and supporters. The man described as the one who came up with today’s program is Joe Mefford, who spent more than 30 years in the old AT&T and BellSouth before retiring and moving to the Kentucky League of Cities. He was the head of BellSouth’s Kentucky political action committee. Joe Mefford conducted the initial meetings on the new Connect Kentucky plan, according to one close observer of the process. This source, like many in Kentucky, asked not to be identified because of the continuing power of BellSouth.

Today, Joe Mefford is the state broadband director for Connect Kentucky. Fletcher announced his new “Prescription for Innovation” on Oct. 8, 2004, at the 75th annual Kentucky League of Cities convention. (The relationship with the League continues today, through a $130,000 contract awarded by Connect in 2006 for project management.) Commerce Cabinet Secretary Jim Host was one of those in charge of the new program.

While the Fletcher connection came first from Joe Mefford, who served on Fletcher’s transition team after his election it then expanded to Joe Mefford’s son, Brian, who came to Connect’s parent organization as CEO in June 2004 after working in Fletcher’s gubernatorial campaign and then for six months for Host in Fletcher’s Commerce Cabinet – the equivalent of the state Commerce Department. Through the transformation, Brian Mefford became head of Connect Kentucky. He has since graduated to president and chief executive officer of Connected Nation, with a salary of $150,000 in 2006, according to Connect’s tax form."

-----

"Newspapers, AARP, rural telephone companies and the state attorney general opposed the bill. The Louisville Courier-Journal said in a March 22, 2006 editorial: “There’s no reason the Kentucky Senate should rush to judgment on House Bill 337, which would deregulate some telephone services in Kentucky at the expense of those who live outside the major metropolitan areas. It may seem strange that such a measure would find so much support in a rural-dominated body like the General Assembly, but lobbyists for the big telecommunication companies (BellSouth, AT&T and Alltel) seem to have had more sway with lawmakers than the folks back home in rural and small-town Kentucky.”

Recently, mapping of KY and TN internet access was offered via Conneted Nation, but Brodsky notes this disclaimer:

"The last word on the mapping goes to the more general disclaimer on the Connect Web site: “The information provided herein by Connect Kentucky and is partners is believed to be accurate but is not warranted and is for informational purposes only. While all efforts are made to ensure the correctness and accuracy of this information, and to make corrections and change errors brought to our attention, no representation, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy of the data presented. Connect Kentucky and its partners assume no liability for the accuracy of the data.”

As this program is being touted in Washington now as the model for expanding access, a careful examination of it's claims, government funding and successes and failures is warranted. One Kentucky official referred to this rapidly accepted model as an example of "... putting the fox in charge of the henhouse to take a BellSouth executive and his son in charge of expanding broadband when they are supposed to be neutral."

Will Connect Tennessee have a major influence on how the current legislature decides the debate on franchise laws in Tennessee?

Sen. Kilby Reconsiders Dog Laws

I received an email from 12th District Senator Tommy Kilby yesterday in response to my complaints over a bill he introduced to make it a crime to own a certain type of dog in Tennessee. The online and offline furor that bill prompted was mentioned previously and in this post too.

He wrote about withdrawing his original bill, and filing a new one, though there are still some issues to resolve:

"Here is an update on my proposed legislation. I withdrew the original proposed legislation, Senate Bill 2738 and filed a caption bill, Senate Bill 3827. Unfortunately, due to the bill filing deadline, the second bill's wording mirrors the first, which has caused some confusion. Take heart though, the caption bill will be amended so as not to be breed specific."

Here's to hoping any new laws are based in more realistic concepts.

First and foremost for me is specific and significant legal avenues to place accountability on those people who fail to contain any animal they own and allow an attack on a human. It would make no sense to arrest and destroy a gun used in a killing - punishing the owner/user is the typical approach. Likewise, one could do a survey and find a particular model of a car as the most commonly involved in a fatal crash, but arresting the car and banning ownership of that model isn't the right concept either.

FROM DOGS TO DUCKS UPDATE: Worth noting that Kilby is not seeking re-election, so this is really a lame duck term for him. A prime contender for his replacement is Becky Ruppe, Morgan County's first female elected County Executive, and as R. Neal notes, she has launched her election campaign website.

Dog Laws Hound Legislature

It took about one day for Senator Tommy Kilby to back off and offer some new spin for a bill he proposed to make it illegal to own any bull terrier type dog. Still, Sen. Kilby and others are spending time working on legislation to deal not only with violent dog attacks but cruelty to animals.


"One legislator, who initially started out wanting an outright ban on pit bulls in Tennessee, said he'd settle for strengthening penalties against owners of vicious dogs that harm others.

Another lawmaker wants victims to be able to sue in court, even if the dog attack occurs on the dog owner's property. "That's where most bites occur," said Sen. Doug Jackson, a Dickson Democrat.

Lawmakers also will consider whether to create an online registry for animal abusers, much like the sex offender registry maintained by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and whether the state should be able to confiscate property where animal fights are held."

-----

"So last year, lawmakers finally toughened Tennessee's weak animal control law, which before then was essentially nothing more than a $50 fine on owners who allowed their dogs to run at large.

The new law, named the Dianna Acklen Act of 2007, abolished Tennessee's long-observed "first bite" rule, which allowed owners to escape civil liability if that was the first time their dog harmed someone.

Now, victims no longer have to prove that they weren't the first person bitten by a dog before they can sue an owner in civil court.

"It was a good first step," said Acklen's daughter, Darbie Sizemore.

"I'm encouraged they put more responsibility on the dog owner.

"My right to walk down a county road should not be infringed upon by your ability to own a dog."

She added, "Owning a dog is not a right; it is a responsibility.

"You have a responsibility to keep your dog contained on your property."

But that's where things get thorny.

The new law applies only if the dog is not on its own property.

Jackson said he's already filed a bill to correct what he says is a "crazy" loophole."

(via the Tennessean, which also has links to all the legislation currently filed and how to contact the sponsors of the bills.)

Meanwhile, The Editor has copious information on the upcoming consideration by the Knox County Commission on a 'dangerous dog' ordinance, which they will review on Jan. 28. She also has lots and lots more information about incidents involving dog attacks here.

Some critical changes certainly need to be considered to make sure the existing laws demand accountability for people who abuse animals and allow them to roam unchecked. Stronger laws and penalties, yes -- banning ownership of one breed or another based on anecdotes and personal bias, no.