Reform-minded candidates are popular. The message they bring when they run for office is usually well-received. They want to root out corruption in government; do away with waste, fraud, and abuse; and start doing things by the book, according to laws and policies. They campaign on eliminating political favors, hiring public employees based on qualifications and not on party registration or support for the winner, spending public money on public projects, and other things that in theory we should all support.
But what happens when such a candidate wins and actually starts implementing those good-government policies? When certain members of the public see that their new officials are keeping their promises, they get upset.
We've all seen it, especially in small towns and rural counties. When ordinances are enforced, laws are followed, and policies are adhered to, people get their feelings hurt. Things they took for granted in the past are no longer permitted. They want the right thing done unless doing the right thing means they don't get any favors anymore. When officials stop spending public money on private property, insist that legal agreements and contracts be abided by, and demand accountability and transparency in government, their popularity can tank in a hurry when members of the public find out they actually meant what they said when they were running for office.
Tax dollars are scarce. The populace is overtaxed at every level -- federal, state, and local. We entrust our elected officials to be good stewards of that money and use it for legally-intended purposes. We elect administrative and legislative officials to set budgets, enact policies, and establish guidelines for how that money is spent. We want the best people to be hired for the positions they hold based on their qualifications, and not their politics. But let an official decide not to gravel a private driveway, actually make personnel decisions based on qualifications, or insist on procedures being followed, and see how quickly they come under fire.
It's no wonder so few people decide to take the plunge to run for elective office. If their efforts to do the right thing are met with disdain and scorn, why bother?
Doing the right thing may often be unpopular, but it's never wrong. The swamp needs to be drained. It's vital that we support those who are trying to drain it, and not help those who put the stoppers back in the drains. We must insist on accountability, honesty, transparency, and legality in our government.
Thursday, October 10, 2019
These people are in charge of educating your children?
Sometimes I have to scratch my head at the supposed intelligence of those we entrust to the education of our children.
For reasons known only to them, the vast majority of educators are liberals. Kentucky is no exception. For the most part, they'd vote for a Democrat even if the venerable Dr. Thomas Boysen -- the first education commissioner hired after Kentucky passed its education reform act in 1990 -- was running as a Republican.
But even then, teachers resist most efforts to substantially change education by their own ideological and political fellow travelers. They seem to prefer the status quo and loudly oppose ideas to implement new ideas. When Democrat Martha Layne Collins, herself a former classroom teacher, suggested a number of reforms in the 1980s, she was roundly criticized by the Kentucky Education Association. I personally sat in a room in Lexington when Collins addressed the KEA and saw and heard the chilly reception she got.
Forget for a moment, though, the political leanings of what I call the "educracy" (the educational bureaucracy). Sometimes the words and actions of the teachers' union defy all logic.
This week, the KEA is all upset because a private citizen sent an email critical of their chosen gubernatorial candidate, Andy Beshear, to some school employees' work email address. They're demanding an investigation and calling this an illegal act.
If this demonstration of a lack of common sense is reflective of the intelligence level of those whom teachers choose to lead their statewide organization, I'm thinking we might be better off letting eighth-grade dropouts educate our children.
The last time I checked, there is nothing illegal about a private citizen sending an email to someone at their work address, as long as there's nothing nefarious about the act. If Albert Wells, the person who sent the email, had distributed a virus, or sent a huge file attachment intended to overload the server, then he would have committed a crime. But simply sending information critical of Andy Beshear and his former governor father isn't a crime. In fact, it's -- dare I say it -- educational.
To his credit, Kentucky Education Commissioner Wayne Lewis is having none of the KEA's nonsense. He correctly notes that citizens are legally permitted to email public employees, especially those with publicly available email addresses.
There are legal prohibitions against public employees sending political information via their work email accounts, but none against such information being sent to them. Why does the KEA fear having their members exposed to alternative views, and facts that might correct the misinformation the organization has been spreading about the gubernatorial candidates?
For reasons known only to them, the vast majority of educators are liberals. Kentucky is no exception. For the most part, they'd vote for a Democrat even if the venerable Dr. Thomas Boysen -- the first education commissioner hired after Kentucky passed its education reform act in 1990 -- was running as a Republican.
But even then, teachers resist most efforts to substantially change education by their own ideological and political fellow travelers. They seem to prefer the status quo and loudly oppose ideas to implement new ideas. When Democrat Martha Layne Collins, herself a former classroom teacher, suggested a number of reforms in the 1980s, she was roundly criticized by the Kentucky Education Association. I personally sat in a room in Lexington when Collins addressed the KEA and saw and heard the chilly reception she got.
Forget for a moment, though, the political leanings of what I call the "educracy" (the educational bureaucracy). Sometimes the words and actions of the teachers' union defy all logic.
This week, the KEA is all upset because a private citizen sent an email critical of their chosen gubernatorial candidate, Andy Beshear, to some school employees' work email address. They're demanding an investigation and calling this an illegal act.
If this demonstration of a lack of common sense is reflective of the intelligence level of those whom teachers choose to lead their statewide organization, I'm thinking we might be better off letting eighth-grade dropouts educate our children.
The last time I checked, there is nothing illegal about a private citizen sending an email to someone at their work address, as long as there's nothing nefarious about the act. If Albert Wells, the person who sent the email, had distributed a virus, or sent a huge file attachment intended to overload the server, then he would have committed a crime. But simply sending information critical of Andy Beshear and his former governor father isn't a crime. In fact, it's -- dare I say it -- educational.
To his credit, Kentucky Education Commissioner Wayne Lewis is having none of the KEA's nonsense. He correctly notes that citizens are legally permitted to email public employees, especially those with publicly available email addresses.
There are legal prohibitions against public employees sending political information via their work email accounts, but none against such information being sent to them. Why does the KEA fear having their members exposed to alternative views, and facts that might correct the misinformation the organization has been spreading about the gubernatorial candidates?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)