Another Election Issue to Consider

Posted on October 15, 2010 by Marty Ryan

If our tax dollars go to nonprofit organizations that are formed and ran by government, it makes sense that those particular non-profits should be subjected to the transparency we all expect from governmental bodies.

During the 2010 session of Iowa’s General Assembly, Rep. Geri Huser (D-Altoona) introduced an amendment to the Education Appropriations bill, which was intended to have nonprofit organizations that are run by government entities subject to the Iowa Open Meeting and Public Records laws.  The amendment, H-8533 to Senate File 2376, was adopted 98-0 by the House on March 22.  It was taken out of the bill by a Senate amendment on a party-line vote 29-18 on March 25.  Unfortunately, the concept was incorporated into the final bill, but only as it pertains to reporting requirements of local school boards to the Iowa Association of School Boards.

The idea of having non-profit organizations that are ran by government entities to be open to public scrutiny was a hot topic in March.  The Iowa Association of School Boards was being turned inside out by several critics, including, but not limited to the Des Moines Register, the Legislative Oversight Committee, and many individual legislators and other elected officials.

Representative Huser should be commended for her leadership on this issue.  It’s not just the IASB that needed oversight; all Section 501(c)(3) organizations that are funded wholly, or in large part by government entities or by government employees, need to have a watchdog overlooking their actions.  If it’s happened once, it can happen again.

Several government nonprofits conduct business as though they are private organizations.  The Iowa County Attorneys Association, the Iowa State County Treasurers Association, the Iowa League of Cities, and the Iowa State Association of Assessors are just a few examples of government-funded nonprofits that have links for “members only”.

Shouldn’t the Iowa Legislature consider enacting legislation that prevents all government nonprofits from running off course?  Shouldn’t there be openness in organizational structure that is funded with all or part of taxpayers’ dollars?  Send a message to candidates this fall.  Ask them if they will protect our interests in providing transparency beyond the normal means of access.

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

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

Announcing My Nomination for Delegate

Posted on October 6, 2010 by Marty Ryan

If Iowa voters approve the Nov. 2 ballot question about whether Iowa “should convene a constitutional convention,” I want to be a delegate. The first thing the convention needs to do is remove this controversial provision that provides for a convention every 10 years.

Piecemeal, like the present method, is a better process of improving a constitution, and who knows better than executive branch agencies. In the past 15 years, most ideas for constitutional amendments have come from the Department of Transportation, the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Natural Resources. We the people my eye.

The next big item for the convention to address is to restore the provision that people could not hold office if they were involved in a duel. I see no merit in allowing people to be elected officials if they were in a duel.

In 1998, Iowa voters amended the Constitution by removing a cap on simple misdemeanors that was set at $100. The state couldn’t collect much of the fines imposed under that limit, so the Attorney General’s Office suggested we raise the lid to get more money. The argument at the time was that $100 wasn’t a lot. It was then, and it is today. The constitutional amendment was ill-advised. In 1991, the Iowa judicial branch reported that more than $18 million in outstanding fines remained uncollected. That figure grew to $143 million in 1998, the year the constitutional amendment was adopted. However, once the cap was lifted, and fines grew exponentially, the amount of uncollected fines after another 10-year period grew to $521.4 million. That’s a 2,897 percent jump from 1991.

Following those accomplishments, I would like to convince my fellow delegates that we need to incorporate an entire article on the rights of Iowa children to have a free public education. It’s not in there.

There is language in the Iowa Constitution about education, but not in the codified version. Iowa and Alabama are the only two states that do not provide for a free public education in their respective state constitutions.

There are items that clutter up the Iowa Constitution. For instance, that burdensome article that provides for a court system. As one former candidate for governor has put it: “We need to send a message to the Iowa Supreme Court that they (sic) are accountable to the people of Iowa. The problem with judicial activism is that it thwarts the will of the Legislature and of the people of Iowa.” OK, so if interpretation of the Constitution is a problem, get rid of the people who do it now and have the Legislature decide cases. Heck, it can’t be much worse than the Taliban. Who needs to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

If churches and other religious non-profit groups are going to lobby, they should lose their tax-exempt status. Freedom to practice religion does not mean that majority mainstream religions have the right to shove their dogma down my throat. The place to teach the tenets of one’s faith is in a non-taxed house of worship, not the rotunda.

This convention could go on for several years. Between now and January, I’m going to think of at least 100 more issues to bring up. But first, I throw my name out there for nomination as a delegate.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

What Have You Got to Hide?

Posted on September 27, 2010 by Marty Ryan

“What have you got to hide?”  This question comes up too often.  In other cases, it doesn’t come up enough.  Mostly, it’s asked by police when wanting to search a vehicle, home, or even a person, without a search warrant.

The annual Iowa Freedom of Information Council’s luncheon and program was held last Friday, September 24.  The speaker, Karen Kaiser, the Associated Press’s in-house lawyer, turned the table and encouraged those in attendance (primarily media representatives) to ask the question of government officials and staff.  It gets tougher all the time to obtain information from elected leaders and the people they employ to operate “our” government.  What have they got to hide?

During the question and answer period, KCCI-TV News Director Dave Busiek referred to the difficulty news outlets have in obtaining information that is perhaps irrelevant to an investigation. It’s almost funny how law enforcement agencies hesitate to produce in-dash camera videos from police cars, but when the agency has a promo piece it wants to hit all corners of the earth it expects the media to print or broadcast its news release without delay.

Iowa’s public records laws, Iowa Code Chapter 22, has been around for almost 40 years.  In the beginning, there were 11 exceptions to the chapter’s requirements for government to produce records to the public upon request.  Today, there are over 60 exceptions carved into the law.

Here’s something to consider.  When a bill is presented in the Iowa Legislature that pertains to Chapter 22, or Chapter 21 (Open Meetings), a group of about 25-30 people will gather around a table.  Three of the group will most likely be legislators; 3 others will be those of us from the outside (lobbyists representing newspapers, broadcasters, or Fawkes-Lee & Ryan subscribers); and the remaining people at the table are paid by government entities.  Those people are paid to deny you access to your records.

Fawkes-Lee and Ryan will be at the table this upcoming session working diligently to prevent the expansion of the exceptions list.

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

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

Photo ID Required?

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Marty & Stephanie

It isn’t broke, so why break it?  Iowa has a great voting system.  There isn’t a problem, except for encouraging more people to vote.  Active voters strengthen our democracy.  Eagar candidates needing to win votes have to listen to a variety of groups and diverse interests.  Requiring a photo ID weakens our system.

It costs money to have a photo ID.  When you get on this road standards need to be set, only certain IDs are accepted.  It is the very voter that needs representation that gets eliminated by what amounts to a poll tax.

Why only make small unconstitutional changes to an excellent system?  We could require a test before people vote.  Educated voters would vote in the “right” candidates.  As long as we’re looking at education, how about requiring a high school diploma—that would encourage and reward young voters to remain in high school.  But, do young people even have enough life experience to vote?  The “wrong” candidates keep getting elected.  Why not go back to being age 21 to vote?  As long as we’re going back—was it really a very good idea to let women vote?  It is just another annoying demographic that candidates have to support.  Since we’re exploring difficult demographics, older voters are a pain.  With retirement comes way too much time on their hands.  They tend to get involved politically.  There should also be a ceiling on the voting age requirement.  After all, some of these voters may have Alzheimer’s or dementia.  This would explain why the wrong people keep get elected.  It was so much easier when only white male landowners could vote.

But Seriously…

Photo identification is a needless accompaniment to the voting process, and insisting that Iowa have a law requiring a photo ID is just as needless.  We have no rampant voting fraud in this state.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law that required photo identification at the polls.  In Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 US ____ (2008), Justice Kennedy turned down a facial challenge to a law passed by the Indiana Legislature that required a voter to present a photo ID in order to vote.  (A facial challenge is one in which a law is questioned on its face, as opposed to one that is challenged in an “as applied” situation.)

Justice Kennedy and the majority on the Court did not take into account some of the impractical implications of this absurd requirement.  A married couple, one of whom is an election official at the polls, will be required to insist that the spouse show identification when voting.  But what’s worse is that that same election official will have to ask friends for identification.  Can you imagine the hurt feelings, the accusations, and the humility that will surface because of this?  “She just wanted to check my age!”  “He’s known me since the 1st grade.  “The nerve of her asking me for identification. I don’t want to vote anymore if I have to show an ID.  It’s degrading.”

The trust of the American voting system is at risk here.  Voting is not a security risk.  Voting cannot be compared to buying beer, boarding an airplane, or cashing a check.  Voting is a fundamental right, like worshipping in a church, synagogue or mosque of your choice.  Government intrusion into our fundamental rights has gone far enough as it is.

There are so many hurdles a person must jump in order to vote under Indiana law.  In his dissent, Justice Souter covers a long list.  The concept of some who think this is no big deal (obtaining photo identification) is out-of-touch with the reality of the situation.

In Souter’s closing statement he states that “the state interests fail to justify the practical limitations placed on the right to vote, and the law imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old.”  Justice Souter would have held the law unconstitutional.

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

Posted in Issues, Voting Rights | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Privacy

Posted on September 18, 2010 by Marty & Stephanie

Privacy is important to us, and it should be important for any American who does not choose to be in the spotlight.  To paraphrase Ben Franklin, “Anyone that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”  His quote is as timely now as it was two and one-third centuries ago.  In the private sector as well as the public sector, citizens are casually relinquishing more and more information for the faux sake of safety.  Information about you is your personal liberty.  The more personal information you give to someone (or something) else, the more freedom you surrender.  Governments and corporations are gaining uncharted ground in this tug-of-war over what personal information is necessary to relinquish and what’s icing on the cake for them.  It’s like trying to find the perfect employee, and the perfect citizen.

If you want a benefit from the government, you have to comply with the requirements of the program.  That often includes providing the government with certain personal information, such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and combinations of other identifiers that no one would give to their next of kin.  For instance, no one may obtain a driver’s license without providing the aforementioned information.  And now, it’s getting worse.  Under the guise of protecting your identity, the government (Iowa Dept. of Transportation) no longer takes your photo and allows you to leave the driver’s license renewal facility with a license or permit in hand.  You are given a piece of paper and told you will receive your new driver’s license in the mail.  What you may not know is that the photo they’re taking of you is not so much a photo as it is a facial recognition portrait.  Serving as a protective device for your identity is a rue, a red-herring, a second-hand smokescreen.  The only benefit you can receive from this service is knowing that the government “may” catch someone who has used your identifiers.  The invasion of privacy now becomes diluted because the government has in its database a computerized blueprint of your face.  Not even your family physician has such personal information.

Try to find employment in this current market and you’ll hand corporations more personal information than your parents know about you.  Some companies conduct psychological tests on prospective employees; most firms require a pre-employment drug screen (pee in the cup); and a few have even gone as far as analyzing your handwriting to see if you might be some sort of closet crazy waiting to go berserk at your desk on a future Monday morning.  If you won’t comply – don’t bother to apply.

“What have you got to hide?”  “It will be kept confidential.”  And “Everyone does it”, are all phrases you’ve heard before.  Ironically, the same company that requires so much information from you spends thousands and thousands of dollars preventing company information from being disclosed to the public and the government.

What can we do?

We don’t fly.  We drove to a conference in Washington, DC, in May of 2005.  We rented a car and drove to Seattle at Thanksgiving time in 2006 to visit Stephanie’s ailing sister.  One of the reasons for not flying is the intrusive and useless process of boarding a plane.

It’s physically safer to fly, we admit that.  On our way to DC we traveled through the entire state of Indiana with a severe thunderstorm carrying numerous tornadoes at our back.  Returning from Seattle we drove through a treacherous snow storm in the mountains in which we could barely see the road.  We acknowledge that statistics the show flying to be safer than driving.  However, at our discretion, we sacrifice safety for the sake of privacy.

When are we (citizens) going to demand equal rights with companies?  When are we going to tell the government that we want and need much more transparency than it is willing to give?  When will the day come when a private citizen feels that personal information will be just that – personal?

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan is dedicated to working toward protecting individual freedoms, with a strong emphasis on privacy.  We invite you join us.

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

Posted in Issues, Privacy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan Opposes Capital Punishment

Posted on September 10, 2010 by Marty & Stephanie

–          by Marty Ryan

There are seven primary reasons why the death penalty is an outmoded method of punishment.

The death penalty is:

  • Discriminatory in its application
  • Immoral
  • More costly than life in prison without the possibility of parole
  • Cruel and unusual punishment
  • Susceptible to mistakes
  • Not a deterrent
  • Contrary to most mainstream religious beliefs

The death penalty is a gruesome means of punishment that has outlived its place in today’s jurisprudence.  Iranians still stone people to death in public; Saudi Arabians continue to practice beheading by the sword; and some jurisdictions within the United States use hydrogen cyanide gas to choke the defendant to death.

No matter what method is used, government killing of people is not humane.  No more than 150 years ago hanging, gutting, and quartering in the town square was abolished as a punishment in England.  The process of executing human beings has evolved over the centuries.  However, the final chapter is always the same – the defendant dies.   Does it make any difference how the government carries out this barbaric means of punishment?  It’s interesting to note that governments that practiced drawing and quartering as a means of punishment did not execute women in that manner.  Women were burned at the stake.

Iowa’s Governor Vilsack once said that Iowa has a death penalty – it’s the sentence of prison for the rest of an individual’s natural life on earth, without parole.  Iowa has over 600 lifers in the Corrections system today.  California has close to 700 inmates on death row, and California has executed 13 inmates in the past 30 years.

The growing number of inmates living on death row awaiting execution is another reason why this manner of punishment is beyond rationale.  It’s impractical to believe that all will die according to their sentence.  Some victims and victim advocates argue that the death penalty provides closure.  What it does cause is the grief of another family, one that is usually below the radar screen of public sympathy.

America needs a system of punishment that homicide victims’ families can rely upon to swiftly mete out justice, find closure, and prevent the financial and emotional strain of going through the frustrating appeals process associated with capital cases.  Society can offer better alternatives, and Iowa has it – committing “the defendant into the custody of the director of the Iowa department of corrections for the rest of the defendant’s life.”

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

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