A Peoples' Amendment

The procedures for amending the Constitution are formidable. They have been used successfully just eighteen times during our nation's history. Beyond belief, almost, is the case of the Twenty-seventh amendment, prohibiting Congress from "varying" the salary of members between elections. It was first submitted to the states for approval in 1789, but was not ratified by the required number of states until 1992! It took over 200 years for the ratification process to come to a successful conclusion.

As I see it, we have three major problems associated with the amendment and ratification process:

1) It was built on a flaw: it was meant to preserve the privileged status of the rich landowners, who held most legislative offices, especially in the U.S. Senate, by making it difficult to amend "their" constitution, thus preventing the uneducated masses from having much of a say in the process.

2) The process basically precludes the People. Rather, it depends on office-holders at the state and federal level to carry out the procedures. The only part the voter might play is in conventions, either that called by states to pass ratification or in a national constitutional convention called by Congress to propose amendments. The problem is that, in both cases, the state legislatures or the Congress could pass laws to set the qualifications for delegates, the agenda for the conventions, and the manner of election of delegates. By the way, we have not seen a constitutional convention called by Congress since 1787

3) Until the processes of amendment and ratification are themselves reformed, we shall be waiting a very long time for changes in our system that are desperately needed right now! By the way, one of the main reasons the 1787 Convention was called is because the Articles of Confederation, then in effect, required the unanimous consent of all 13 states for the national government to take action; a system that proved to be unworkable. George Washington complained about it constantly because his requests for troop supplies often went unanswered. The newly written Constitution sought to address this problem with a central government kept in line with checks and balances.

I have addressed this issue of amendments before on this BLOG, but not quite in this way, for now I am placing much more emphasis on the need to amend the very way in which the Constitution is amended.

First of all, it is my earnest contention that in as many ways as possible, there must be built into our system of governing a way to involve ordinary citizens. That is, representative democracy is important to maintain in some respects, but at this point in our history there are more citizens aware of what our country needs, aware of how to make government work, and aware of how the system does work that they need to be directly involved in the planning, the day-to-day activity and in the checking that must be done to make sure that government is living up to its potential. So, I have advocated advisory councils to departments of the Executive, in legislative offices and even in judicial offices. I have advocated auditors and evaluators in offices of the Inspector General. Now, I urge citizen involvement in the processes of amending and ratifying our Constitution's amendments. Here are the main ingredients:

1) The Constitution of the United States belongs to the people of the United States, or so the Preamble implies:

"We the people of these United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

I'm not sure that could be any plainer: the ratification of the Constitution established the People as the ultimate creator of this foundational document. Unfortunately, the Constitution failed to follow through in some respects on the thrust of that statement. The ordinary citizen was excluded from the process whenever it seemed prudent to the leaders (the elite of their day) to protect their privacy and their property. No need to say more as my BLOG for March 16, 2014 says it quite plainly.

But here's the rub. The process for amending the Constitution omits any part for the People to play. Elected officials have all the say. To be more specific: either three-fourths of the state legislators petition Congress, or the Congress itself votes to present amendments. Presumably the only role the people play is to elect those officials in the first place. In today's "money controls everything" environment, that doesn't buy a whole lot except a bunch of millionaires intent on keeping the status quo in their favor.

2) We must find a way to insert the people back into the amendment process. I have proposed in the past, and re-iterate now, that the use of the petition process is a natural place to begin. The People are used to petitioning their government (or their representatives) on any number of matters. Why not on the matter of amending their Constitution?

 How would that work? Probably much like it works now. Individuals, groups and organizations would have to start the ball rolling by starting a petition drive (perhaps online or from door-to-door), getting propositions onto ballots, getting legislatures to pass resolutions of support, getting amendments into the spotlight and into a process defined by the Constitution itself.

3) Here's a thought: let's begin by starting a petition on MoveOn.org's sister website for starting petitions: www.petitions.MoveOn.org.

It might go something like this:

"Whereas the Constitution of the USA says that it is 'We the People' who created that document, and

Whereas, the people now have no say in the amendment process of our own creation, and

Whereas, citizens have the right to petition their government to express their grievances,

Resolved, that Article V of the Constitution must be amended to reflect the direct participation of the People in the amendment process, thereby checking and balancing the power of the Congress to be the only arbiter of how and when amendments shall be proposed and ratified."
4) Here's one thought on how a petition process started by the People might result in an amendment to the Constitution without a Convention.

Let's say that a petition must focus on one amendment at a time, and that all petitions must be in conformity on the issue being promulgated, and on the wording of the amendment being proposed. Therefore, a process for writing such an amendment must be worked out in advance of the circulation of the petitions. Secondly, those petitions should be presented to state legislatures for their support expressed in a legislative resolution.

Once 1/2 of the state legislatures have passed a resolution of support, the actual passage of the amendment can commence. In those states where the amendment is rejected by the legislature, the sponsors of the original petition should have the ability within a certain time frame, to collect enough additional signatures to equal 1/3rd of the voters of that state. In which case, the state legislature's decision will be over-ridden, and that state will certify it's concurrence with the petition. Once 1/2 of the states concur in the amendment, it must be placed on the electoral ballots in all fifty states, so that voters may vote to pass or reject the amendment just as they do in regard to a proposition or referendum.

The results of this vote in all fifty states shall determine the fate of the amendment: if it passes in 3/5's of the states (30), it shall be considered to be ratified and shall become part of our Constitution within 30 days from the election, unless Congress shall pass a recall motion by a 2/3's majority of both Houses within that time frame, by which the amendment shall be considered invalid.

5) That's my outline of a People's way with checks and balances built in. How might the amendment regarding amendments be written, you ask. Well, I'm no lawyer, and not a legislator or office-holder, so I would love to hear from readers of this BLOG who have a comment or another idea. Contact me at impublius@hotmail.com and share your thoughts. Thanks.

Here's an amateurish attempt to put my outline into constitutional language, with apologies for it.

"Section 1. A Citizen petition containing the names of at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in each state, may call for an amendment to this constitution but shall be limited to one amendment per petition. Having certified that the requisite number of signers are qualified to vote, with accurate names and addresses, the state Board of Elections shall, within 45 days of receipt of said petition, deliver the petition to the Leaders of the state legislature who shall, within 30 days, introduce a resolution to either support or reject the Peoples' petition. Should the State Legislature initially pass the Resolution of Support, the petition and Amendment shall be transmitted to the Congress within 30 days from the vote.

Section 2. Should the Legislature reject the petition and its amendment, the Petition sponsors shall have 60 days in which to gather an additional number of signatures equal to a cumulative total of 1/3 of the voters of the state. Such petition shall be examined by the State Board of Elections to determine validity, and be transmitted within 45 days to the Congress of the United States with certification of validity.

 Section 3. Whenever the Congress receives notification from 30 states of their support for a Peoples' amendment, both Houses if Congress must vote within 30 days to accept or reject the particular amendment being petitioned and, if accepted, the amendment shall be placed on the ballot as an amendment to be ratified in all 50 states.

Section 4. The amendment shall be considered ratified if the voters of 30 of the 50 states pass the ballot proposition. It shall become part of the Constitution within 45 days from the conclusion of the vote tabulation in the last of the 30 states who have voted to ratify the Peoples' amendment.

　

Yes Hillary: there really is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

I had an interesting conversation recently with a professor of sociology. He and I agreed that what is currently taking place in politics and government has never occurred in our prior history with the same degree of intensity. I referred to it as a "sea change," and he agreed. This is change so fundamental that it is transformative. In other words, we are faced with a change so profound that it will transform our system of governance, our policies, our laws, and our constitutional rights to a degree that will alter the very tenets and principles that make us what we are: a representative democracy.
Our system of governance has been touted as the model for representative democracy in which the people - the electorate, the citizenry, the populace -- have the primary voice in what the nation should be, and how it should conduct itself. Certain words and phrases come readily to mind in this regard. 
In the Declaration of Independence, a fundamental principle was affirmed that to secure unalienable rights, governments are instituted "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In the Preamble to the Constitution is that oft-quoted phrase "WE the People..."--

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 
  
Amendments IX and X speak of rights and powers "retained by the people," and President Abraham Lincoln brought a nation back to this fundamental axiom when he spoke at Gettysburg: "...that Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

We have labored mightily as a nation to make this ideal a reality. We fought a civil war over an act of secession that was an attempt to legitimize a system of human bondage not in keeping with our democratic principles. We fought two World Wars, plus a Cold War, that had at their core world orders (fascism or communism) not in keeping with this fundamental principle of the consent of the governed and the power of the people. We have seen civil rights expanded and injustices protested by the people when government did not comport with our fundamental principles.  The point is, this principle is at the heart of our democracy, and cannot be allowed to be demeaned or abrogated by any domestic or outside forces.

In order to have any effectiveness or efficiency, and to secure rights and liberties, a free people consent to cede certain powers to a government made up of the people's representatives from states and districts. It is clear in the Constitution that powers granted to representatives by the people must be restrained by checks and balances that serve to guard justice, liberty and the rights of the people. As the saying goes, representatives are elected at the pleasure of the people and they are in the service of the people. Many amendments to the Constitution are meant to expand or clarify the rights of the people, and some are also checks on a government that has forgotten its role as the servant of the people.

I believe firmly that the Republican Party, captured by radical Right-wing zealots, has lost its bearings, and is intent on bringing about a radical transformation of our cherished system of governance. I believe that they have lost the fundamental principle that it is ordinary citizens who hold the primary power and who consent to be represented and served by those they elect. I believe that most Republicans have also abandoned the very basic principle that they are servants of the people and not privileged elitist rulers. 

It is also my contention that the electorate does not fully understand that this fundamental change is not the usual ideological twist and turn that one experiences with the two major parties. In other words, if the Republicans are put in charge of the House and the Senate in 2014, this will not just be a changing of the Guard with a slight variation in ideology, which is the way voters have always looked at "giving the other side a chance." No. A victory for Republicans will result in a transformative "sea change" which will alter our system of government for a long time; perhaps forever.
So, let us look at the changes that the Republican Party espouses -- not as separate pieces with little connection to one another as they want you to do -- but as a "vast conspiracy" as Hillary called it, or a "vast transformative plan," as I call it ( a "sea change"). This has been building ever since Ronald Reagan gained the Presidency, and the takeover of the Republican Party by its most conservative wing was hatched.

1) Attack Voting Rights

The Constitution in several instances refers to the vote as paramount in our democracy, starting with Article I in which the People voting directly for representatives in the House is enshrined. Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI enforce this right for certain groups: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and "on account of sex." Amendment XXIV expands the right to vote in primaries and for electors, and says it cannot be denied or abridged by failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax. Amendment XXVI expands this precious right to 18 year olds.

Why is it, then, that Republican legislators and Governors around the country (mostly in the South and the mid-West) are intent on "abridging" the rights of voters which equates to "lessening," "diminishing," "cutting-off," "depriving," or "curtailing" the vote? Could it be any clearer that this is what is going on in the states who have either proposed or passed altered voting rights? Could it be any clearer that the SCOTUS helped this abridgment by its ruling on Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (submittal of voting law changes to the federal government for pre-clearance) that basically said: 'we don't need this protection any more; we're over this'?   Really?

The Brennan Center for Justice reminds us that restrictive election laws have passed or are pending in 18 states:
Photo ID laws. At least 11 states have introduced legislation either requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls or making existing photo ID laws more restrictive.
Proof of citizenship laws. At least 2 states have introduced legislation requiring proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, to register or vote.
Making voter registration harder. At least 8 states have introduced legislation to limit voter registration mobilization efforts and reduce other registration opportunities.
Reducing early voting opportunities. At least 2 states have introduced legislation to limit existing opportunities to vote early in person.
Making it harder for students to vote. At least 1 state has introduced legislation that would make it harder for students to register and vote.
Reducing opportunities to vote by mail. At least 5 states have introduced legislation that would make it harder to cast ballots by mail.
Making voter purges worse. At least 1 state has introduced legislation to limit protections for voter purges and increase the chance of wrongful removal of eligible voters

And, let us not forget the other little “tricks” that have been instituted:
*Changing of polling place locations at the last minute so that people can be refused at the wrong poll and then given bogus directions to the new location
*Cutting of clerk positions to make registration lines longer
*Long lines at the polling places caused by lack of machines, ballots, election clerks
*A lack of instructive publicity on any of these changes
*And the latest tactic: closing rest rooms at private polling places

It is clear that these radical Republican saboteurs want to reduce the ability of certain populations to vote for the opposition party or nominee. They are intent on abridging the most powerful and effective voice the electorate possesses, and they know it!

2) Attack the Federal Government
They are laying the groundwork for the dissolution (or diminishing) of the federal government. That is one of the keystones of their conspiratorial Plan. They demean and abhor the central government with certain phrases like: "bloated bureaucracy," "socialistic," "bullying,” “debt-ridden,” “intrusive.’ These oft-repeated words and phrases are not random; they are a vital part of their Plan to undermine central government.
They want the states to have the primary responsibility for governance. They want to turn many programs over to the states: Medicaid comes to mind, as do food stamps, and other social welfare programs. The Paul Ryan Budgets of the past few years indicate the extent to which this prevails. They prefer that the federal government deal only with broad issues like Defense or disaster relief. They do not like federal mandates, and they will abolish as many as they can if they gain power of the Congress.
It is no accident that the (Republican) representatives of the people are blocking legislation. They do not want this first black President to have any legacy that could be a positive one. So they block his proposals and policies. One of their favorite weapons is the 60 votes necessary to gain cloture of a filibuster. They have effectively used the filibuster to prevent all kinds of legislation from passing, including a jobs bill and infrastructure repair.

The radical Republicans are also hell-bent on getting rid of as many environmental, business, financial and economic-related regulations as they possibly can. Not only will they curtail regulations, they will also cut-off or diminish budget appropriations for certain regulatory agencies like the EPA or OSHA, and perhaps even the IRS, in order to undermine the ability of federal agents to investigate violations, inefficiencies, non-compliance and illegalities.

Finally, there are two additional weapons in their arsenal; one around for some time now, the other just beginning in earnest. They are: opposition to the Affordable Care Act and the Impeachment of the President. The Republican call for repeal of the ACA or Obamacare has been on-going since it was first introduced. But ever since the ACA actually signed up more than 14 million people for insurance and benefits, the critics have gotten less vociferous.

However, out-of-touch Republicans still make repeal of Obamacare one of their main talking points. I cite Richard Hanna of District 22 in NY state, who calls for repeal of ACA in his brochures and his recent TV ad (instead of "reform" which was his initial mantra). He clearly represents someone touted as a "moderate" Republican who is now spewing forth the same line as the Radicals: repeal Obamacare and protect the 2nd amendment. It is clear that he is playing to the ultra conservative wing of the Party, but more chilling is that he has given up any sense of principle, or of constituent representation, and has simply begun to mouth words as though he were a ventriloquist's dummy.
 Let us make this point: voting for a "moderate" Republican in this atmosphere is equivalent to voting for the Radical Right and for their plan to dissolve or diminish the national government as we know it.
 
Impeachment is only now beginning to gain ground as a tactic of the Radical Right. They figure that as long as they have constructed some "scandals" for public consumption, they might as well use those to bring down a President whom they despise. So the ratcheting-up of the Ben Ghazi tragedy, the IRS hold-up of 501(c)(4) approvals, the latest scandal within the Veteran’s Administration and perhaps the NSA data-gathering, might be their way to bring impeachment to a head, and possibly to a trial. They believe this would not only damage the President's legacy, but would serve as a showcase for their claim of central government inadequacies.

3) Put An Elite Core In Charge
This Radical Right conspiratorial Plan is being perpetrated on an economic front as well. The Radicals want to return to a model of government and society that has always lurked in this nation's history, because we descended from European countries mainly attuned to monarchy and aristocracy. The Republican Party brand has taken on the aura of being the Party of the Rich and Powerful, and it does not back off from that branding. Why? Because it serves another facet of their Plan: democracy is weak and flawed because it cannot act quickly and decisively. They desire a government built on the ethnicity, success, money, influence and education of a "ruling class" who will know what is best for our country, and who will act on it.
 
Many of the Founding Fathers would have agreed with such sentiments, and, in fact, they acted to protect property rights, enshrine an elite Senate, and to appoint (not elect) Presidential electors who were gentlemen of wealth and prestige. The book by Thomas Pikitty titled "Capital In the Twenty-First Century" suggests that we are essentially accumulating and supporting an inherited aristocracy in this country which is poised to replace representative democracy with a plutocratic system of rule by the wealthy few over the many. In other words, these Radicals don't just envision a slight change; they want to return to a system of governance that eliminates the people as the fundamental political component, to be replaced by a few wealthy and elite individuals who will guide our economy, our society and our government in the "right" way. Since the Congress is already about 50% millionaires, they have already taken giant steps toward this model, and their Plan would take this elitist concept even further.

4) Attack the Public School System
The Radicals want to set up a private school system that favors the rich and powerful as the only ones, with few exceptions, allowed in. Charter schools mark the beginnings of this concept. Public schools will end up serving only the poor and the handicapped and the middle class. What the Radical Right is aiming for is the eventual emergence of a private school system that will educate the elite class, and a public school system that will conform to a certain conservative curriculum, impose certain religious and ethical concepts, along with conservative ideals that will serve to keep the rest of us in our assigned niche. Why else do we see the conservative majority on the SCOTUS allowing (mostly Christian) prayers in public gatherings, and Republican legislators throughout the nation touting privately-run charter schools?

Do you somehow believe that the unchecked rise in private school tuition, especially in the Ivy League, is happenstance? Do you figure it's just accidental that the middle class and others are being burdened with huge debt when they attend prestigious colleges? Already, some students accepted at Ivy League Schools are choosing to go elsewhere because they can't afford the resultant debt. Do you think it's uncalculated that Congress has not lowered the interest rate on student loans? Education, we say, is the key to success and to a larger income. Under the Republican Plan, this axiom may well be limited to the scions of the rich and the powerful.

5) Coddle the rich and powerful (including corporations) in all possible ways.

• Give special privileges like tax breaks and tax rebates and tax reductions and tax credits.
• Create a separate system of justice for the rich and the powerful, in order to protect inside traders, white-collar frauds and cheats
• Cut all the taxes that the rich are required to pay: income tax, corporate tax, property tax, social security and Medicare taxes, estate taxes, taxes on long-term benefits and investments
• Find more ways for the rich to extract money from the tax revenue system before anyone sees what is happening and calls for oversight
• Give more huge subsidies and supplements to corporations that make multi-billions in profits
• Allow the rich to spend enormous sums of money to buy access to, and services of, elected officials (SCOTUS again led the way with Citizens United and McCutcheon)
• And just recently making its appearance: reserve the fastest segments of the internet for those most able to pay handsome fees.

6) Attack the Poor, the Middle Class and Other Vulnerable Populations
Remove or diminish all the programs and projects that assist the poor, the elderly, those with disabilities, those with special needs, and those who, they say, should be able to help themselves in the middle class, and attack women who have held the key to Democratic victories.
Eliminate TANF, WIC, ACA,
Social Security, Medicare - reform them to death
Devolve social program funding to the states in block grants, as with Food stamps and Medicaid
Diminish Pell grants
Get rid of all Community Action Agencies (remember ACORN?)
Repeal or slow Section 8 Housing
and so on....

7) Attack the Labor Movement with all the vigor of a war.

This accomplishes at least two things: it removes obstacles from the path of free-wheeling corporations, and it assures lower wages. All this started with a certain President who knew the importance to the business community of a reduction in the power and influence of Labor unions. When the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) went on strike at major airports, this president struck with a vengeance. In fact, it was something never attempted before in our history.
 
On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired every member of the union who defied his order to return to work and then declared their union illegal (even though they had been on strike for just two days). This action has been called the beginning of the end of the Labor Movement, and the day the middle class suffered a set-back from which it has never recovered. In the ensuing 30+ years, wages have remained stagnant, health insurance is not necessarily a job benefit, and a pension is not guaranteed. Even full-time work is difficult to find, and unions have dwindled to a precious few. Now we have Right to Work states where unions cannot easily organize and non-union workers do not have to pay a fee to the union. America is a country left with a huge income inequality gap because the ability of the middle class to advance has been hijacked.

But, here's the rub (please do not forget it!): Reagan had help from the AFL-CIO! The largest organization of unions in America told its members to go to work, and thousands of union members and workers crossed the picket lines and went to their work as pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, truck drivers, etc. And what's more, the majority of Americans went along with this action against PATCO. Lesson learned: an uninformed electorate failed to perceive the intent and motivation of a radically conservative President who appealed to their emotions. Labor capitulated to the wrong side, and paid for it, dearly.

No wonder that we now have states like Wisconsin denying collective bargaining rights, 45 million people without health insurance, people and families working multiple jobs, fast food workers making slave wages, on-the-job safety regulations cut and violations ignored, a minimum wage that automatically lands an employee in poverty, and no viable on-the-job representation.

In spite of this difficult lesson from actual history, there are still individuals and groups today (including unions) who will either vote for moderate or radical Republicans intent on destroying their livelihoods, or who will refuse to vote because they do not want to stand up and be counted.

And so we come to our conclusion. There are still those who do not understand that the Radical (and the captive moderate) Republicans are bent on diminishing the middle class so that the elite class can call all the shots in both government and the economy. Many voters did not even get it when potential Republican candidates for president traveled to Las Vegas to meet with Sheldon Adelson, the gambling tycoon, in order to lick his boots and vie for his money and support (something like the boot-lickers of the AFL-CIO in 1981!).

And, voters don't understand that the Republican Plan is already in operation; there are already a few rich people like Adelson and the Koch brothers who are calling the plays for their minions to follow. We have a corrupt process of elections and governance, backed by the Supreme Court, that denies the People their constitutionally-guaranteed role as the cornerstone of this representative democracy. Too many of our representatives no longer represent the People; they instead represent the rich, the corporations, the powerful who dictate to them what they will and will not do to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and the middle class as stagnant as they can possibly be.

We, the People are not just being bamboozled; we are being expunged from the whole process. It is time to stop supporting rich Plutocrats. It is time to stop voting for pimps of the rich. It is time to take back the powers we were given. We the People must extract ourselves from Reaganism and Tea Party fanaticism, and declare our support for one another. We must use every means at our disposal to break the strangle-hold of the rich on this country. First, we must VOTE, but we must also protest, petition, demonstrate, support third party candidates and write-in campaigns where there is no progressive candidate. We must support constitutional amendments, law suits, coalitions and unions, recall elections, etc. Otherwise, we shall be left with a coup d'etat -- a complete takeover by an elite and privileged aristocracy who will continue to transform our government and economy to their purposes and not to those of "WE the PEOPLE."
You Have Been Forewarned.....

[P.S. - if you live in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York, you may want to look again at my posting (2/10/2013) on "The Bamboozle by Remington Arms." They are once again attempting to blame the NY gun law for their move of two lines of guns to Alabama. It doesn't wash and never has. My reasons for the move are much more cogent! -- Publius II]

Thinking of Moms

Mother's Day. I'm thinking of my mother today. This was a woman who grew up in a large family; a family that never had a lot of money or property.  There were a total of eleven children and at many times, just one wage-earner. In her junior year of high school, Mom left school to go to work as a telephone operator at an automobile dealer/service garage. In a relatively short time, she advanced from telephone operator at a switchboard to a stenographer, probably pretty much under the guidance and tutelage of her oldest sister who worked at the same establishment. They both were needed at these jobs to help out the family, and the story goes that they helped to put one of their brothers through Cornell. She met my father during the early days of the Great Depression, mainly because he worked nearby at a print shop and they also lived near each other - undoubtedly both walking the same route to their places of work. My father was still a resident alien, having immigrated to the states in 1923 from Canada, and before that, in 1911 from Birmingham England to Canada. My father and mother married in 1936 after a fairly lengthy courtship. They had two sons, eight years apart, but in-between there was at least one miscarriage and it hurt them deeply. So, my mother, in brief, was a woman of fortitude and compassion. She overcame many struggles and adversities, and always looked at the world as a positive place, with opportunity available to those who would grasp it.

And grasp it she did. She worked hard, not only as a stenographer, but as a bookkeeper at the City Chamberlain's Office, as the Assistant Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, at the central headquarters of the City Fire Department, and at the City Clerk's office. Even when she had her first son, she would take time to work when she was needed, and continued that pattern with her second son, until she became too ill to work as high blood pressure and finally a stroke took their toll. But she was undaunted in her quest to be helpful and useful. She not only managed a household as a wife and mother, she also assisted my father with his work, helped him be a long-time Treasurer of the City Bowling League, and even had a small thriving business of her own, designing and making such things as items of clothing, especially aprons, and preparing pre-decorated Christmas boxes for sale. Her creativity and resourcefulness were known by many and praised and rewarded by not a few. Her other area of endeavor was to be helpful wherever she could: at church, at school functions, with friends and neighbors. She was always someone other people could count on to be there for them, as well as for her own family. She was petite in physical stature, but grand in her many endeavors on behalf of others. She never stopped giving to others, until the day when she just gave out after a massive cerebral hemorrhage at almost age 52.

There is much more that could be said about my mother in personal remembrance, but I am guided by her example to think beyond her and myself and to think today of mothers who are striving and giving, as well as struggling to survive and caring for children at the same time. I'm reminded of mothers today who take a number of low-paying jobs just to get by, and to feed their families; who sacrifice their own well-being to save enough to send their kids to college; who work hours upon end.

I'm thinking today of single mothers who have children to raise without a partner/helper, with homes to keep and work to be done just to live from paycheck to paycheck. I'm thinking of mothers who suffer their own illnesses, diseases or handicaps who have struggles with paying the rent, buying the food, getting transportation and child-care, and keeping kids out of trouble; protecting their children and themselves from the dangers surrounding them. I'm thinking today of the mothers who never themselves had the support of a loving family; who never had the guidance one would expect, and who could use a bit more compassion from neighbors and their government. I'm thinking today of the women who need adequate health care, and who have not as yet found it, although it may already be there through the ACA, but they missed the sign-up period. Yes, I'm thinking today of mothers who are living outside the parameters of a middle-class society, and who struggle every day to keep themselves and their families above the water-line.

I'm also thinking today of mothers who have organized other mothers into viable and effective organizations to help solve or address a problem or flaw in our society.
1)  Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is "a nonprofit organization in the United States that seeks to stop drunk driving, support those affected by drunk driving, prevent underage drinking, and to make an overall push for stricter alcohol policy. The Irving, Texas–based organization was founded in 1980 in California by Candice Lightner after her 13-year-old daughter was killed by a drunk driver. MADD claims that drunk driving has been cut in half since their founding." (Wikipedia). I remember vividly how people that I new as a teenager were de-crying the toll being taken on our society, and particularly on our younger population by deaths from drunk driving. Yet no one at the time had done anything to really put an end to it. MADD represents what one or two individuals, and then many more, can do to organize and actually make things happen to change attitudes, and to change our society in a fundamental way. This is the essence of activism: don't wait for someone else to act; make something happen on your own individual initiative. MADD epitomizes that factor.

2)  NOW -- In several informal meetings followed by a national conference, a number of activists came together to form the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966, seeing the need for a civil rights organization specifically focused on women's rights. Betty Friedan was elected the first president of NOW and served in that office for three years. The NOW statement of purpose at that time included:

women's rights as "truly equal partnership with men," "fully equal partnership of the sexes"
focused on activism: "confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of choice which is their right as individual Americans, as human beings"
women's rights seen in the context of "the world-wide revolution of human rights"; equality of women as an opportunity to "develop their fullest human potential"
purpose to put women in the "mainstream of American political, economic and social life" NOW's commitment "equality, freedom, and dignity for women" specifically defined as not being about "special privilege" for women or "enmity towards men"
Key Feminist Issues in the NOW Statement of Purpose had to do with:
employment -- the most attention in the document is to issues around employment and economics
education
family including marriage and divorce laws, home responsibilities by gender role
political participation: in parties, decision-making, candidates (NOW was to be independent of any particular political party)
images of women in the media, in culture, in laws, in social practices
briefly addressed issue of "double discrimination" of African American women, linked women's rights to broader issues of social justice including racial justice
opposition to "protectiveness" in work, school, church, etc. NOW instituted seven task forces to work on these issues. (from About.com)

Here again, women had been moving toward this activism for years, but it took the formation of NOW to focus efforts and to put forth a platform that could be worked on by different groups and individuals. Focus on the key issues was another important factor that elevated this to a " movement," and which enabled individual women to advocate for change even if they were not a formal part of the NOW organization.

3)  Planned Parenthood -- The term "planned parenthood" originally applied to practices to control the number of children born to a family. Nurse Margaret Sanger promoted information about birth control methods as a way of dealing with the poverty of families where parents could not provide financially for their growing families and were ignorant of sexual and medical knowledge that could limit the number of their children.

Today, Planned Parenthood refers to the organizations at local, state, federal and international levels. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the umbrella group at the national level in the United States, with umbrella affiliates, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) which is based in London unites groups around the world. The focus of Planned Parenthood Federation today is providing reproductive health care, sex education, counseling and information. Abortion services, while the most controversial of their programs, is only a small part of the services provided in more than 800 health centers throughout the United States. (from About.com)

It is important to stop here and point out the fact that the radical conservatives of the Republican Party have been engaged in an attack, not only on Planned Parenthood, but on the concept that women's equality is a goal toward which society should strive. These fundamentalists want a return to a paternalistic society (often using Judeo-Christian scripture as their reference point), in which men are dominant and women are meant to be "obedient" to their male masters. This regressive philosophy is often masked behind anti-abortion rhetoric, but is the main goal that these primitivists are touting: that women are inferior beings and must allow men to rule and to govern and to set the goals and premises for our society. It is typical for a regressive or developing nation, caught in a an historical time-warp of paternalism, to advocate this very doctrine. Look at the latest episode from the international news, and place the Nigerian kidnappings of young girls into this context. Even the attitude of the government, run mainly by males, is similar to that of the kidnappers: these women are not important enough to expend extra energy (and government money and resources) to find them and to punish the perpetrators.

Make no mistake, the misogynistic tendencies of the Right-wing in this country are not much different from the same tendencies in societies that have seen fit to deny equal rights to women in our world. The Republican Party is not only negative about women's rights and freedoms, they are unalterably opposed to women taking any more than a subservient role as housewives, secretaries, assistants, and sex slaves. Their "Christian" ideal of obedient and submissive entities is the epitome of paternalistic cultures of biblical times, and of the same type cultures and societies today that still infect our world with visions of what being a creature of "Adam's rib" really means.

Women must remain united under a banner similar to NOW, for this fight is long-range and brutal. The Republican Party is your enemy. Do not fall prey to their rhetorical disguises: they are touting a world in which women are subservient to men. Don't let it happen!

4) Moms Demand Action, a group founded by a Zionsville, IN mother calling for more gun control, has sparked controversy with a new ad campaign.

The first ad in the "Choose One" series features two elementary-age girls, one holding the book "Little Red Riding Hood" and the other holding an assault rifle.

The tagline reads, "We keep 'Little' Red Riding Hood' out of schools because of the bottle of wine in her basket. Why not assault weapons?"

"We are grateful to the White House for acknowledging the power of mothers' voices and the urgency of our call for change," founder Shannon Watts said in a news release. "Mothers and women have often been catalysts of social change in America, wielding powerful influence on issues like suffrage, segregation and children's rights. Now modern American moms must come together to help enact stronger gun laws to protect our children and families." (from theindychannel.com).

Recently, this organization has joined with "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" to form a powerful group lobbying for gun violence reform, called Everytown: a movement of moms, teachers, survivors, gun owners, mayors, faith leaders, law enforcement officials and other responsible citizens who believe much more can be done to keep families and communities safe from gun violence. For the first time in history, Americans from all walks of life will mobilize to create a counterweight to the gun lobby and fight for common-sense gun laws at the federal, state and local level.

Everytown will address issues like background checks, domestic violence, suicide prevention and safe storage of guns: the first video from Everytown shows why every parent needs to be concerned about safe storage. To learn more, visit Everytown.org. (from which these excerpts have been taken).

Now, of course, this is only a smattering of organizations for, or about women and Moms. There are many more, including a broad spectrum: Girl Scouts, Foster Grandparents, National Parents Organization, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, RAINN, National Partnership for Women and Families, Emily's List, MOMS Help Organization. The list goes on and on.

The point is that women and Moms have played a profound and vital role in so many of our country's foundational organizations, and in shaping a society in which women and girls must have, not only equal rights with men, but opportunities to address and promote their own unique concerns and issues. And, in this brief synopsis, we have taken the opportunity on this Mother's Day, to remind ourselves that a lot of moms need supports and assistance in their quest to assure a decent life for themselves and their children. We have also taken some time to praise and honor the activist Moms who have led us all toward a deeper, stronger, more dedicated and involved society, always seeking the good and just ends that we as a nation espouse, by acting with focused intent and vigor whenever the situation demands such a response.

Thanks to my Mom and to all those moms who step beyond the confines of home and work to forge new paths for us all. We are grateful for your compassion and your leadership.

　



　

　

"Good Neighbor" Policy

It is past time to return to our local situation and inquire again about the Nanotech industries that are expected to bring new economic growth to this area. To re-cap briefly, we have already taken a basic look at these companies and their projects, first to determine who they are and second, to get some idea of their knowledge of, and experience with, corporate responsibility to the communities they inhabit. It is perhaps not too harsh a statement to say that their record so far is not exactly sterling as far as their contributions or attention to the needs of local communities in which they reside, with the possible exception of IBM. 

Let’s begin with an article from May 22, 2010 in the Austin Texas Statesman. Despite a seven-year contract that Gov. Rick Perry of Texas signed with SEMATECH in 2004, that required SEMATECH to keep it’s “core managerial or operational functions” in Texas, not to negotiate a move of its Texas operations and not to create a new “significant” facility outside of Texas, SEMATECH had three times in eight years announced an expansion in New York. As of the time of this article they were ready to move their largest research operation to Albany NY and had already signed a letter of agreement with NY officials to that effect. Although this kind of behavior is not unheard of in the relation of industries to the communities in which they reside, it is disturbing that written agreements don’t mean much in terms of final outcomes. Too often (and here we cite Remington Arms of Ilion NY), corporations are willing to take state and local money, along with the loyal support of local workers, and throw it all over when they wish to relocate. Communities can complain all they want, even if there was a written agreement in place, but I have never heard of any who got money back after corporations took their proffered money and ran!

So here we have a blatant example of the relation of the lead Nanotech Utica company to its resident community. It does not bode well for the eventual support from SEMATECH of community agencies, projects or infrastructure repair. However, it says to me that the Utica area must work together to do all in its power to ensure that SEMATECH gives back substantial sums in recognition of state forgiveness of taxes, of tax subsidies arranged, and for all the additional monies that will be allocated to keep this Nanotech project growing and prosperous.

In this regard, we ought to admonish New York state legislators to examine this situation and begin to determine the place of state legislation in relation to a “Good Neighbor Policy” for corporations receiving large amounts of state and local dollars. Might as well get some money for Community involvement up-front, because it isn’t going to be there if a corporation decides to leave. Inevitably that brings up the issue of what legislation already exists that obligates big corporate entities to return money and support to the communities in which they reside?

There is a bill called the " Just and Open Business Subsidies (JOBS) Act" - A8203 - that calls for public dollars to be used for the public good. According to a flyer published by a statewide coalition called "Getting Our Money's Worth", New York State "spends $7 billion each year on public subsidies in the name of job creation and economic development, yet too often these subsidies fail to create good local and community benefits." The coalition says the JOBS Act will do the following:

* Prioritize Performance by requiring that proposed development projects set job creation, job quality and local hiring goals before receiving public subsidies.

* Increase Accountability by insuring that all publicly subsidized projects engage community stakeholders and establish a "money-back guarantee" that allows local or state government to recapture subsidies when projects fail to deliver.

*Show Us the Jobs by creating a public website where any New Yorker can track the performance of subsidized projects, by including subsidy spending in a state unified economic development budget and by requiring annual reports and accounting of all projects subsidized by public authorities.

As of 3/25/2014, this bill was re-committed to the Assembly Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee. The fact that this bill is languishing in committee should be a wake-up call to all local state representatives. It is time to support this bill and to get it passed before the Texas example of abandonment becomes all-too-common in New York State! Strange that this bill of basic requirements for businesses in regard to subsidies languishes while other legislation has already been passed which requires something in return for subsidies.

For instance, legislation (signed July 18, 2012) to 'Strengthen and Support New York's Craft Breweries' is one version of legislation that provides a tax break, but requires something in return. The New Law exempts Small Breweries from having to Pay an Annual State Liquor Authority Fee, but also Creates a Farm Brewery License to Promote Use of Local Ingredients. The legislation is designed to support New York's breweries and wineries, but also to increase demand for locally grown farm products, and expand industry-related economic development and tourism. Any brewery that produces 60 million or fewer gallons of beer in New York is eligible for a refundable tax credit applied against New York State personal income and business taxes. This at the very least requires the breweries to do something constructive with the farming communities: use their products!

Another small example is "The Power NY Act" that establishes a new process for the siting of electric generating facilities and re-powering projects. The new law encourages investments in clean power plants and affords communities more opportunities to meaningfully participate in the siting process. After years of gridlock, the measure passed with support from industry, environmental advocates, consumer groups, labor and community organizations. At least, the community is involved at the point in the process of choosing sites for facilities. The question becomes: who from the community? That is always the key.

There is also a BILL - A560-2011 – that allows and encourages contributions by public utility corporations to charitable organizations for the benefit of communities serviced by the corporations. It directs the public service commission to formulate and promulgate regulations providing for the establishment and operation of the community support program; includes the goal of encouraging contributions equal to at least one percent of the corporation's revenue. While it doesn’t require community responsibility, it certainly encourages it by clearing the way with regulations, and setting some goals that are challenging.

Next, comes a concept, already written into NY Corporation Law, that calls for the power of for-profit enterprise to solve social and environmental problems. The idea behind Benefit Corporations, or B Corps, “is that when companies have a legal responsibility to all relevant stakeholders — not only shareholders, but also employees, consumers, the environment and the community — their impact is strikingly more positive, and even more profitable.”

New York's legislation was signed into law on Dec. 12, 2011 and was added to Chapter 599 of Corporation Law. This Law authorizes a New York corporation to elect to be a benefit corporation and thus to have as one of its purposes the creation of general public benefit. New York was not the only state to sign this kind of legislation into law; so did California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont and Virginia. Five others have introduced similar legislation. In the William Mitchell Law Review, the point is made that there is a substantial marketplace for companies using the power of business to solve societal problems. In fact, we are reminded that approximately 68 million consumers have stated a preference for making purchasing decisions based on their sense of environmental and social responsibility on the part of vendors or companies.

It’s not that the for-profit sector of our economy is shortsighted, evil, or inherently detrimental to the environment and local communities. Rather, publicly-traded companies are often hamstrung by their legal responsibility to maximize shareholder returns, and the ensuing effects on such things as the environment, employee well-being and the community at large can be less than ideal. According to one report, “There are tons of individual companies that have managed to effectively balance social and business impact. Still, we need to institutionalize the values, standards, and accountability that allow companies to do that.”

This Law permits the incorporation in New York of "benefit corporations," which must have a "general public benefit" purpose, defined in the bill as "a material, positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a third-party standard, through activities that promote a combination of specific public benefits."  Likewise, the bill defines a "specific public benefit" to mean "providing individuals or communities with beneficial products or services; promoting economic opportunity for individuals or communities beyond the creation of jobs in the normal course of business; preserving the environment; improving human health; promoting the arts, sciences, or advancement of knowledge; increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose; or the accomplishment of any other particular benefit for society or the environment."

The bill allows a corporation to elect to be a benefit corporation by amending its charter to include a statement that the corporation is a benefit corporation. An amendment electing benefit corporation status, and any subsequent termination of benefit corporation status, must be approved by the stockholders. The bill further allows a benefit corporation to identify and include one or more specific public benefits in its charter with the approval of the stockholders.

The bill also requires a benefit corporation to deliver an annual benefit report to all stockholders that includes (1) the ways in which the benefit corporation pursued general public benefit during the preceding year and the extent to which the general public benefit was created; and (2) the ways in which the benefit corporation pursued any specific public benefit included in its charter and the extent to which that specific public benefit was created. The annual report must also discuss "circumstances hindering the benefit corporation's ability to create the public benefit and an assessment of the societal and environmental performance of the benefit corporation.”

Section 4 of the bill amends section 720 of the business corporation law to include actions against directors and officers for misconduct which are unique to benefit corporations. Such actions include (1) the failure to pursue the general public benefit purpose of a benefit corporation or any specific public benefit set forth in its certificate of incorporation, (2) the failure by a benefit corporation to deliver or post an annual report, or (3) the neglect of, or failure to perform, or violation of his or her duties or standard of conduct under article 17.

Thus, in New York state we already have a legal basis for approaching the Nanotech companies about increasing their social responsibility footprint. It is a big challenge, but one worth considering, that one or more of these Nanotech companies might be able to be convinced to become a “Benefit Corporation.”

There is one more avenue to consider. Now that NYS has a law that inculcates the concept of social and environmental responsibility as part of a business incorporation and mission, it might be possible to acquire the support of state legislators for a bill that encourages corporations and companies to consider adopting a well-defined “Good Neighbor Policy.”

An article written for the Online Free Library, calls Good Neighbor agreements "a tool for environmental and social justice," and sets the scene for why these agreements have transpired. As health and environmental hazards have emerged from industrial production, communities have become more aware of the negative role corporations can play in undermining community welfare. The whole issue of "fracking" for example has come to the forefront in communities that fear what that process can do to ground water, farmland, wells, and even community water plants. Because there is very little real accountability on the part of major corporations (gas & oil companies, for example) for decisions made that affect local communities, citizen groups throughout the country have raised their voices and organized to try and combat some of the detrimental effects of what may be viewed as out-of-control industrial practices.

Secondly, the downsizing and layoffs that have escalated in many U.S. communities have forced communities to be more aware of the negative role that corporations can play when they move their operations to other states, or to other countries, without one wit of concern for the communities they have left behind. Some groups have tried to build some legal accountability into corporate subsidy agreements, but as we have seen in the case of Texas, sometimes corporations simply ignore these provisions by making up scenarios that skirt their so-called "obligations." .

It is, of course, important to remember that corporations do not like regulations and agreements that stifle their profitability. So, in terms of legal means built into these agreements, corporate lobbying campaigns have targeted lawmakers with aggressive campaign tactics and donations to stem any tide of increased regulatory control. Thus community groups are at a seeming disadvantage when it comes to exerting legal controls over industrial corporations.

So, while some community groups are content with attempting limited legal measures, such as zoning, or suing under a nuisance law, or under various environmental statutes, or seeking negotiation under contract law which provides some remedy for breach of contract or a set of promises which can be recognized as a duty, several community welfare groups have taken on themselves the task of promoting non-legally binding Good Neighbor Agreements.

The philosophy common to all Good Neighbor Agreements is "the industry's and community organization's mutual acknowledgment of the need to build a relationship responsive to community and industry needs." Some of the provisions suggested for inclusion in an agreement are as follows:
Community access to information (defined differently in different agreements). It could be placed online, or in a local library, or simply available from the company.
Right to inspect the facility. Community groups aren't usually given such access, so this could be a controversial provision, especially since federal law does not require that such visits be allowed. Since unions sometimes have routine inspections written into their agreements, it may be possible and prudent to partner with labor in this effort.
Accident Preparedness. A plan for procedures the company will undertake if an accident occurs, should be forged with community input and review.
Pollution prevention. Use of experts here may be in order, but those experts should be made accountable to the community. A plan to reduce toxic emissions or toxic wastes over a certain period is the goal here.
Good jobs, local jobs, union jobs. The community group may want to push the company in areas of job training and hiring in the local community by actually recruiting local people for new openings. If the work force is not unionized, some have worked toward a simple "card-check" election process.
Local economic needs. A special community benefits fund might be established or spending in other community organizations that will enhance the lives of community members. Expanded funding of local infrastructure repair might be included.
Citizen Group concessions. help settle open litigation, permit challenges, or end negative publicity
On-going communication and assessment is essential to continued compliance. Meetings, annual reports, a regular report on provisions in the agreement for the public would all be helpful.
The JOBS Act in the State Assembly would go a long way toward the implementation of these concepts. Meanwhile, it is probably a very good idea to try to build-in links with certain processes which might make the agreement legally enforceable, even before a state law is passed. For instance, it could be linked in to the local permit process by which permits for construction, digging, filling, etc., are used as leverage for confronting a company that strays from the implementation of its commitments. The requirement of a broad audit might be written into the agreement in order to have outside auditors look at the specs of the agreement as part of its audit, indicating where the company (or community organization) has failed to live up to promises made. Such an audit could be made public if so designated in the agreement.

However, it is suggested in this article that "even a binding agreement does not necessarily mean that the firm will in reality be a "good neighbor." It is to be remembered that many corporations that have signed agreements have continued to endanger the community and their workforce with hazards that have not been addressed. Sometimes companies re-interpret provisions of such agreements to their own advantage; or delay implementation of certain provisions. It should be no surprise, then, that the cited article stresses the following: "Corporations still 'call the tune' in most communities. Big corporations act like '800-pound gorillas' who know they are free to decide where and how they will 'sit down.' People who wish to change this situation must find whatever leverage is available to support local pressure to negotiate."

In light of all of this, the article suggests that the term "Good Neighbor" Agreement may not be the most appropriate term to use. Instead, it is suggested that a more neutral term might simply be "a Corporate-Community Compact." These agreements or compacts must be viewed not as the final solution to corporate-community relationships. They are simply supplements or alternatives to strict, effective federal and state laws, regulation and enforcement. In the end, what all concerned communities must strive toward is new laws, and new methods of oversight, that grant local, affected citizens non-negotiable rights to oversee industries that endanger them, and to assure job and income security for community members, especially when industries close and move elsewhere; and, to negotiate pay-back money and projects for the breaks and subsidies that these corporations have extracted from local, state and federal coffers, and from our pocket-books and wallets.