A New Attitude Toward Winter

Posted on December 23, 2010 by Marty Ryan

This article originally appeared in The Record-Herald and Indianola Tribune, December 14, 1994.  It was a part of the Record-Herald’s “County Line” series, “Insights and thoughts from Warren County residents”.

Like many Iowans, I have occasionally complained about the conspicuous effects of harsh Iowa winters.  “It’s too cold!”  “It’s too icy!”  “There’s so much snow!”  “The sun won’t shine!”  I have consistently failed to recognize the subtle satisfactions secretly secluded with severe weather’s aftermath.

This winter season I intend to take a new approach to accepting a circumstance over which I have absolutely no control.  Whenever I feel the need to damn the consequences of nature’s wrath, I will reflect upon a comment my brother made when I last saw him in June.

Joe lives in San Diego, and, though he prefers the consistent weather of the West Coast; he shares with me that he misses a part of Iowa he will never experience in coastal California.  I could vividly envision the scenario of Joe’s recollection of his fondest Iowa memory – a moonlit walk through a quiet, small, rural Iowa town on a calm winter night, hearing only the crunch, crunch, crunch of the thawed and then refrozen snow giving in to the pressure of his weight.

There have been many times when I would tread through crisp snow on a still winter’s night, wondering why the sound of my feet against the fragile surface created such a spiritual aura.  Over the past few months I have often considered the pleasant memento of winter that I share with my brother and discovered that there is a message for me in this occurrence.

It is my belief that the shiny, hardened snow is the strong outer appearance that all is well in our lives.  The crusty covering giving way to the soft foundation is someone discovering that the true weak infrastructure of subterranean feelings cannot support the façade displayed on the surface.

Changes in our lives usually cause us to feel discomfort, especially during the holiday season.  But there is no sense in creating a false demeanor that conflicts with our inner emotions.  As seasons change, so must we.  Allowing bothersome emotions to emerge and escape from within us gives us the freedom to accomplish things more pleasing to ourselves and others.  It permits us to enjoy the season at hand.

This year, as winter doles out its harsh reminders that humans have very little control over numerous matters that affect them daily, and as I trample on the oft-transformed remains of a wintry squall, I will remember a sibling’s yearning and pause to reflect upon the message it sends me.  That message has been accurately articulated by neurologist and author Joseph Collins:  “By starving emotions we become humorless, rigid and stereotyped; by repressing them we become literal, reformatory and holier-than-thou; encouraged, they perfume life; discouraged, they poison it.”

If I ever leave the harsh Midwestern winters for the sake of climatic consistency, I will recall the best reason I can think of for making a midwinter visit back to Iowa.  I, too, would miss that crunch, crunch, crunch and the magical message it remits.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan wish all our readers, and especially our subscribers, a very peaceful, happy, and memorable holiday season.  Marty & Stephanie.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ethics Board Stumbles Over Right & Wrong

Posted on December 15, 2010 by Marty Ryan

If you were to guess which state agency represented the best example of transparent government the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB) would, or should, be toward the top of the list.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

Last month, the agency’s executive director and legal counsel, Charlie Smithson, resigned to become the new chief clerk of the Iowa House of Representatives.   In a copyrighted article by Jason Clayworth in the Des Moines Register, the IECDB moved quickly to have “a rather seamless transfer.”  But is seeking a seamless transfer the best reason for neglecting openness and best practices?  Other principles should be considered equally in the process of hiring an individual to a position overseeing the high ethical standards we have come to take for granted in Iowa.

According to the minutes of the IECDB Board, at “4:40 p.m. it was moved by Harper and seconded by Sullivan that in accordance with the provisions of Iowa Code section 21.5, the Board will move into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Any action taken in executive session will be disclosed upon return to open session. Motion carried unanimously in roll call vote.  The meeting returned to Open Session at 5:05 p.m.”  There are several problems with this motion, and the lack of ethical procedure is major.

First of all, Iowa Code Section 21.5 subsection 3 states that “[f]inal action by any governmental body on any matter shall be taken in an open session unless some other provision of the Code expressly permits such actions to be taken in closed session.”  Well, that’s not what happened, exactly.  As the minutes continue to disclose, the next item in the minutes is a heading entitled:  “ACTION FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION”  It may be the secretary’s rendition of what occurred, but there can be no action from an executive session.  Although the next order of business is a motion “by Sullivan, second by Walsh to authorize Chair and Vice Chair to offer the executive director/legal counsel position to Megan Tooker”, it can only be assumed that the action was taken during the executive session and the motion in open session was a formality to rubber stamp the “non-action” of the 25-minute executive session.

Second, why did the board go into closed session in the first place?  There was no legal authority for the board to retreat to a closed forum.  The best guess you can find is in Iowa Code Section 21.5, subsection 1, paragraph “i”, which states that a governmental body may go into a closed session “[t]o evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.”  That brings up two more questions:  Did Megan Tooker request a closed session?  And, was it necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to her reputation?  If the latter is true, you have to ask if Ms. Tooker would be capable of being the best candidate.

As it is, a 34-year-old Megan Tooker has compiled a record of 3 speeding violations and a minor in possession of alcohol offense.  Granted, the latter offense occurred during her days at the University of Iowa, where most intelligent young people have brushed up against the law on this very same charge.  But let’s get real.  One speeding violation might be considered a mistake.  Three violations in an 8-year period is a disregard for the law. She was not a lawyer at the time of the first two, but she was upon conviction of the third.

Truly, the Board might have unearthed a plethora of extremely qualified candidates had it advertised for at least a week.  Recruitment of a general practitioner lawyer with an emphasis on family law doesn’t seem to me as the “best” candidate.  Perhaps she is.  I don’t know her.  But I have to weigh the fact that she was recommended by the board chair, a law professor who doesn’t seem to understand Iowa’s open meeting law.  What this board really needed at the time was an attorney to explain the legalese of the “closed meeting” law.  It should have sought legal advice from the attorney general, the Iowa Citizen’s Aide/Ombudsman, the Iowa Newspaper Association, the Iowa Freedom of Information Council (located on Drake’s campus where the Board Chair James Albert teaches) or other expert on Public Records/Open Meetings.

Further, the Board should have created an interim position.  Anyone with interest in acquiring the position on a full-time basis would have been thrilled to serve for a brief period, if appointed, until a successor was hired using a thorough background check (which is required for just about every position in state government), a fair and open recruitment process, and the opportunity for public praise and criticism.  As it is, the board should have a tough time of living with this decision.  It lacks the appearance of being an ethical one.

eth·ics

–plural noun

1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4. ( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

© Copyright 2010.  Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Issues, Open Meetings/Public Records | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

1995

Posted on December 7, 2010 by Marty Ryan

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

Sixteen years ago this coming session, Terry Branstad was the governor-elect (he was also the incumbent); the Iowa House rolled over from Democrats having a narrow edge (51-49) to a 63-37 Republican majority; and the Senate remained in Democrat control with a 27-23 majority (it was also 27-23 in 1993-94).  Sound familiar?

Going into Iowa’s 84th General Assembly, Terry Branstad is the governor-elect; the Republicans will have a 60-40 majority over the Democrats; and the Senate remains under Democratic control, 26-23 (a special election is yet to be held in Senate District 48, which was held by former Senator and Lieutenant Governor-elect Kim Reynolds).  The makeup of Iowa’s legislative process in the mid-1990s is not much different from what Iowans are seeing now.  However, there is a difference.  In 1995, so many people believed that capital punishment would be reinstated as a sentencing option in Iowa; alternative opinions were thought of as silly.

I wasn’t sold on the idea that Iowa would move backwards into the past and adopt a primitive form of punishment.  As the legislative coordinator for the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, I had already been researching past candidates’ statements, previous votes, and newspaper articles that gave an indication of how specific legislators might vote.  I saw a beam of light through the pessimism.  When I spoke to the Board of Directors of the ICLU that November in 1994, I told them that I didn’t think passage of a death penalty bill was possible.  A few of them told me later that they believed I should have been committed to a mental institute.  Even the board president at that time told the staff not to waste time on the issue – she said it was a hopeless cause.

House File 2 was the second bill introduced in the House of Representatives during the 1995 session.  The first bill, HF 1, was the other half of a pair of ideas that the Republican Majority had promised it was going to pass as a part of its newly-created mandate.  HF 1 was a bill reducing the individual income tax rates.  The new Republican Majority was so certain that these two issues were the reason why they won the majority; they decided a reduction in tax rates and reinstatement of the death penalty were going to be the first two bills introduced and passed.

HF 1 by Roger Halvorson become a Ways & Means Committee bill, HF 97, which never came up for a vote in the House.  HF 2, introduced by 30 Republicans, kept its number and eventually made it out of the House.  It failed to pass in the Senate.  And that’s where this blog begins.  Over the next year, I hope to write occasionally on this historic moment in Iowa history.

Don’t look for history to repeat itself this cycle.  I correctly predicted that there would be no death penalty bill passed in 1995, and I’m predicting again that there will be no death penalty bill to be enacted during the upcoming 84th Iowa General Assembly.

To be continued . . .

By the way, George Santayana was a famous blogger way back when they were called ‘essayists’.

© Copyright 2010 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Death Penalty, Issues | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Legal Sexual Assualt

Posted on November 29, 2010 by Marty Ryan

One of the hottest, topics of discussion right now is the groping and personal intrusiveness of body searches at airports by officials in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).  We wouldn’t know.  We don’t fly; and haven’t since the late 1990s. We don’t know if we’re on the “no fly list”, or not.  We really don’t care.  We’re certainly not going to fly now.

The TSA has instituted a procedure whereby a traveler at some airports must claustrophobiate themselves in a tiny enclosed full-body scanner prior to boarding an airplane.  A traveler may opt out of the scanning procedure, but that means a TSA agent must conduct a hands-on search.  There is no way around not being searched prior to boarding a plane.  There are other means of being selected for a hands-on search, such as being randomly selected, or setting off an alarm while inside the claustrophobiator.

Some of the statements made regarding this hands-on search are absurd.  “Stop complaining and deal with it.  I guarantee the people performing the pat downs hate them just as much as passengers receiving them.”  Or, “stay out of the airport.  How can we tell our children to follow the rules when all the grown-ups do is complain?”[1] The person making this latter remark must not see the irony in teaching his or her children to be aware of strangers who want to touch the children in their private parts.  First, teach them that their private parts are private.  Then, bring them to the airport and tell them that the dirty old TSA man has to put his hand in their crotch.  A kid with mixed messages from his parents is going to have some problems later in life.  There is a word for people whose conduct mirrors that of the former comment.  Prostitutes are paid for touching a client in what are otherwise known as inappropriate places.

You have to wonder what advocates of these body searches are thinking, if indeed they are.  If the government told them their car would be searched each time it was parked in a city parking garage they would undoubtedly be very upset.  Or, would they?

It is true that if you want to avoid any sort of an intrusive search at the airport you should not fly.  It can be done.  As I stated earlier, Stephanie and I don’t fly.  We’ve driven to Washington, DC, and Seattle, WA, in the past decade.  We’ve been able to see a large part of America in the process.  This is a beautiful country, and although flying may get you places quicker, is it worth the trouble?

If enough travelers would stop flying until this government-directed sexual abuse could be curtailed, it would come to an abrupt halt.  Don’t count on Congress to put a stop to it.  Top members of Congress, like the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, etc., are not subject to the normal screening process.

If travelers consider this latest “safety technique” to be a simple cost of safety, it will get worse.

Do you think body cavity searches can be around the corner?  Is the next technological “tool” to be developed by scientists some sort of device that will read minds?  Will anyone care?

If certain individuals are not bothered by the TSA’s sexual groping, then we suggest that there be two flights of choice.  Similar to the smoking/no smoking sections of restaurants (or for those who can remember – smoking and non-smoking sections of airplanes) there should be a choice when you buy your ticket: The so-called “safe flight”, where you consent to body cavity searches, strange hands running up and down your body, and a psychological exam, all to prove that you are not a terrorist.  Since everyone else on your flight will be elevated to the same degrading procedures, you will feel safe and secure as you reach your destination.  Of course, you may have to pay for the service of the faux safety.

On the other hand, your option is the “unsafe flight”.  Under this scenario you just purchase a ticket and get on a plane.  There are no x-ray machines, metal detectors, strangers feeling your underwear in your suitcase – or on your body for that matter.  The rates will be much cheaper because you’re taking a chance that a terrorist will blow the plane to smithereens once you’re airborne.  These two options are like first class and coach.  They still separate classes, right?

The Who said, “See me, feel me, touch me, heal me.” Perhaps they were more visionary than George Orwell.  Orwell predicted Big Brother spying on us; The Who predicted Big Brother groping us.  We deserve better treatment from our government.

© Copyright 2010 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

[1] These are actual quotes from the Des Moines Register’s Your 2 Cents’ Worth column (Friday, Nov. 26, 2010).

Posted in Issues, Privacy | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

As a Matter of Fact

Posted on November 17, 2010 by Marty Ryan

By now, almost every Iowan knows that two senseless deaths occurred in northern Iowa earlier this week.  Two women who worked in convenience stores, one in Algona and the other in Humboldt, were shot to death after being held up by a gunman who had the loot in hand but took their lives anyway.

Often, this type of murder has mounted cries for the death penalty.  It’s not a news story – not yet that I have noticed – but I suspect it will be in a matter of time.  Many people commenting on the story in the Cedar Rapids Gazette are calling for a death penalty.  State 29, a conservative blog site, has already come out with a post asking Culver where the death penalty is that he promised.  I don’t recall Culver promising enactment of reinstatement of capital punishment in Iowa.  He supported it, but never promoted it.  That was always Governor-elect Branstad.

One reason why the issue of the death penalty has not popped up in major newscasts or other media accounts, nor should it, is that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a minor.  The alleged killer in these two crimes is a 17-year-old from St. Louis Park, MN.  In the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551, (2005), Justice Kennedy wrote “the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18” and the Court “finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.”  Roper at 575.

Not just for juveniles, but for all murderers, reinstatement of capital punishment is no longer a viable issue in Iowa and across the country.  In the past few years, New Jersey and New Mexico repealed their respective death penalty statutes without a lot of political fallout.  In my estimation, it never was a decisive factor in determining whether a person supported or opposed a candidate for elective office.  Now, it appears as though there may be truth in that.

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization, has issued a report* that suggests voters are rethinking their attitudes about capital punishment and they expect policymakers to do so as well.

Among the report’s findings:

  • In death penalty states, most voters said it would make no difference in their vote if a representative supported death penalty repeal. Thirty-eight percent said that it would make no difference; 24% said they would be more likely to vote for such a representative. This suggests that politicians who look critically at the death penalty and support repeal might even have a slight advantage.
  • The poll confirms that the public wants straight-talk, not “tough talk” about how lawmakers propose to keep families and communities safe from crime. It suggests that the public wants legislators who will devise policies that not only hold offenders accountable for the harm that they do, but will also provide more services and support for families of murder victims.

Among the other top concerns expressed by poll respondents about the death penalty are:

  • The risk of wrongful convictions and executions of innocent people.
  • The death penalty is applied unevenly and unfairly.
  • The collateral damage the death penalty causes to families of murder victims, law enforcement professionals, and others.
  • A majority of respondents said the costs of capital punishment are an important concern, given the state of the nation’s economy. They ranked job creation, emergency services, schools and libraries, public health care services, police and crime prevention, and roads and transportation as higher budget priorities.

Legislators and criminal justice professionals should note that most individuals surveyed for the report do not believe the death penalty protects them from violent crime.  Asked to respond to the statement, “The death penalty makes me personally feel safer,” 46% of respondents from death penalty states, and 47% from non-death penalty states, disagreed.

These findings are consistent with a growing bi-partisan segment of the public, ranging in views from liberal to conservative that question the utility and effectiveness of capital punishment.  They join many who have expressed religious and moral concerns about the practice.

The message is clear: The public wants sound decisions based on the facts.  And if that’s the standard, the death penalty is truly not long for this world.

*For a detailed breakdown of the study, including the geographic regions where respondents were interviewed, responses by gender and ethnic group, and other information which you can incorporate in your communications and public education work, visit DPIC’s webpage concerning the results at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/pollresults.  The study was conducted by Lake Research Partners of Washington, D.C.

© Copyright 2010 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Death Penalty, Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Government Proves Nuns Wrong

Posted on November 9, 2010 by Marty Ryan

As a young student in Catholic grade school, I was taught that only God could be in two places at the same time.  I had doubts at the time because I could swear my mother’s ears were in several places simultaneously.  Superman could get from one place to another in a matter of seconds, but it wasn’t the same as being here and there all at once.

The government can be in two places at the same time, but that’s a collective government.  The Internet has allowed many of us to be in one place while “virtually” being in another place at the same time.  So, I’ve established that it’s physically impossible to be in two places at the same time.

Well, the government proved me and those nuns wrong.  If you look in the Iowa Code, you will find marijuana in two places at the same time.  I’m not referring to just the word; the manner in which it is described defies all logic.  Marijuana is a Schedule I substance.  To be included in Schedule I a substance is considered to have a “high potential for abuse; and it has “no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States”.  Now, keeping that in mind, you will find that marijuana is also located in Schedule II substances.  A substance listed in Schedule II is one that “has high potential for abuse” and “has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions”.

There are some caveats, you know, like when the language under Schedule I says stuff like “Tetrahydrocannabinols, except as otherwise provided by rules of the board for medicinal purposes,” but the point is there.  And therein lies the problem.  Marijuana has and has not accepted medical use – at the same time.  Under both schedules, there is language providing that if the board [of pharmacy] “ finds that any substance included in [either schedule] does not meet these criteria, it shall recommend that the general assembly place the substance in a different schedule or remove it from the list of controlled substances, as appropriate.”

Last week, as the Iowa Board of Pharmacy met in a regularly scheduled meeting, one of the items on the agenda was the continuing matter of medical marijuana.  Carl Olsen was there and taped the pertinent part of the meeting.  You can listen to a little over 20 minutes of the discussion here:  Audio Recording of November 2, 2010, Iowa Board of Pharmacy hearing (19 MB).  To summarize, the Board knows it has a dilemma.  It wants to communicate with the Iowa Legislature about a recommendation, but it doesn’t necessarily know what it wants to communicate or recommend.  At the beginning of the recording you can hear Lloyd Jensen, executive director of the Board, ask the members if they would like to write a letter to the Iowa Legislature, pre-file a bill, or both.

Discussion got off track as soon as Mr. Jensen mentioned the proposed rule that Carl Olsen had submitted for the Board’s consideration.  Several Board members wanted to wash their hands of the issue by suggesting that the Board of Medicine write a rule.  Uh-uh, the law says Board of Pharmacy must make any rules under Chapter 124 – the Code chapter that lists, defines, and categorizes controlled substances.

There was genuine concern about the FDA and DEA.  You could almost hear the wringing of hands.  However, the voice of reason – Lloyd Jensen – led them back to reality by informing them that they could just put everything into a bill.  “The legislators will pick and choose what they want to keep or throw out, if they do anything at all.”

One Board member made a motion to have the Legislative Rules Review Committee look at it and have them (sic) craft language.  The motion carried.  I hate to inform the Board that the LRRC does not craft language.  “Review” is basically all that committee can do.  It has other things that it can do, but it does not write rules.

Carl’s petition for rulemaking was shot down.  The reason for rejection may have been one or more reasons put forth to the Board by the Board’s attorney.  1)  It can’t be done; 2) it’s unclear; 3) it’s moot because the Board is making a recommendation to the Legislature; 4) refer to the previous order (which was issued last summer for another proposed rule); or, 5) deny it on the grounds that the Board doesn’t have the authority to negate criminal law.  There was some suggestion that the Board could draft a rule that wouldn’t take effect until some other rule, a statute, or federal movement occurred.  In effect, it would be sort of a “what if” rule.

At that point, after denying Carl’s petition for rulemaking for whatever reason (if there was one), the Board considered the matter done for the day and took a break.  The audio recording was over and I was left empty.  The Board never did come to a conclusion about how it was going to communicate to the Legislature, or what it was going to recommend.  I spoke with Carl later and he assured me that something will be done [by the Board].  I’m not holding my breath for this Legislature to do anything.

We encourage you to learn much more about this issue.  It’s one in which our readers can have a substantial edge of knowledge – more than most members of the Board of Pharmacy.  We’ll be exposing more inexperience on the Pharmacy Board, and offering additional information in the future.  Contact your legislators and urge them to “eliminate marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Chapter, Chapter 124.”  Only God should be able to be in two places at one time.

© Copyright 2010 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Issues, Medical Cannabis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment