Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Linda Clifford and Annette Ziegler: A Summation

There are a few days until we are spared further discussion about the Supreme Court race, except for the fallout to Annette Ziegler's legal career as a result of her inability to conduct herself properly as a judge.

Here is what we have:

• Ziegler is clearly unqualified to serve as a county judge, or justice of the peace, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, given her inability to see the need to disclose.
• Clifford needed to go positive ten days ago once Ziegler destroyed her own credibility.
• Ziegler's effort to dodge the truth was uncanny. She accused Clifford of slinging mud and denied any wrongdoing.  The problem was the accusations Ziegler ducked were never made by Clifford.
• All Clifford needed to do to win this campaign was give people a positive reason to vote for her.
• The right wing definition of the campaign as a struggle between judicial activism and judicial restraint is a sham and fraud ever since some conservative U. S. Supreme Court Justice took the liberty of saying the definition of 'person' included 'corporations.' Or when Anthony Scalia decided that the word 'taking' included rezoning.
• Linda Clifford as an officer of the court is much better than her campaign.
• The presence of crime issue is about as manufactured as they come. The Supreme Court does determine the rights of the accused as measured by the Wisconsin and the United States Constitutions.  That had better be free of any influence from law enforcement or the WMC.
• The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce ducked when Ziegler got in trouble, but still  stayed with the game plan to spend a fortune of its members' money on television spots. Anyone see position paper #2?

A vote for Clifford is not only a vote for justice, it is a vote for sanity in a televised world of hyperbole and distractions.

Arelene Silveira: Great Post On Education and Special Ed.

Paul's Note: Arlene Silveira, member of the Madison School Board, wrote this as a comment to Feel Good Legislation: Unfunded Mandates Punish Doing Special Ed Right on March 30, 2007. It deserves its own post.

Paul is correct. The decrease in funding of our categorical aids is strangling the school district.

Special education aid: When revenue limits started in 1993-94, the state special ed reimbursement was 45%. Current reimbursement is 28.6%. The mandates have not changed....just the state's contributions. Because of this unfunded mandate, the district's resources declined by $9.4 million compared to the 45% reimbursement rate.

The governor has a provision in this budget to slightly increase special education aid. Please write to your legislators to support this increase. The increase would provide the MMSD with an estimated $1,032,000 in 2007-2008 and $1,721,000 in 2008-2009.

To put this into perspective, if the state kept their promise to fund 45% of the special ed costs, the district would have an additional $9.4 million for the upcoming year. Our budget gap for this year is $10.5M. Big difference between cutting $10.5M and $1.1M.

The same story is true of the Bilingual-Bicultural aid from the state. When state revenue limits began, state reimbursement was 33% for bilingual-bicultural expenses. The current reimbursement is 12%. Loss of resources to the district of $2.2 million.

So, if the state kept their promises for both special ed and bilingual-bicultural aid, the MMSD budget would not have to cut this year.

What can you do?

Short-term, there are some items in the governor's budget that would help in bringing additional funds to the district. Write/contact your legislators in the next few weeks. Information on how to do this can be found on the district web site.

http://www.mmsd.org/ Click on "Take Action on School Funding"

Long-term: we need to fix the school funding system. Last night the Board help a community advocacy meeting to discuss the governor's budget and the longer term plan to advocate for school funding. We have started a community "Legislative Action Team". We will be sending out information next week on future meetings and action items. If you would like to be put on this distribution list, please send an email to myself at arlenesilv@aol.com or to the entire Board at comments@madison.k12.wi.us

Thanks very much.
Arlene Silveira
Madison Board of Ed

University of Michigan Alumni Association: Hucksters, not Wolverines

Rachael graduates from the University of Michigan next month. We made the travel arrangements and reservations to attend the graduation ceremony. There are things I wonder about: best way to get the ceremony; if we drive, where do we park; what to do if it rains.

I was delighted to receive a memo addressed To: Parents of Graduating Seniors.

RE: IMPORTANT ADVICE FROM PARENTS OF PREVIOUS GRADUATES

(Someone had read my mind. I proceeded to read, looking forward to invaluable advice:)

With graduation coming up quickly, I want to pass along an important piece of advice from parents of previous graduates: order a diploma frame ahead of graduation this spring...

1. Parents say a diploma frame is a most fitting gift...

2. You'll get a treat for the entire family when they see the diploma framed.

3. You'll save time. A lot is going on at graduation, the worst thing to do is wait in line at the bookstore to get your frame.

It takes the parents of 100,000 graduates with BA's, BS's, BFA's, MA's, MS's, MFA's, PhD's, MD's, and LLD's to tell me the worst thing is waiting in line for the diploma frame at the bookstore.

Phooey.

(I hope Bucky doesn't do this.)

Thoughts About Tuesday's Election

Normally I vote for a candidate who mirrors my thoughts on some core issues:

• A woman's right to choose
• Commitment to public education
• Sound environmental policy
• Support of diplomacy rather than war
• Recognition of the sound work of public employees
• A commitment to equal treatment of all people accompanied by support of economic and social justice

It is a common list to which most progressives and liberals subscribe.

All of which presupposes a government capable of efficiently and effectively providing services.

When the government is operating with some basic flaws that undermine the ability to deliver services, all of this needs rethinking. Some examples:

• Do we have a transportation problem or a trolley problem? If we must confront an additional 100,000 cars per day in the next decade, it seem to me the question is: "What is the best way to reduce traffic?" A study that poses that question is very different from one that asks; "Will trolleys work in Madison?"  The result will be profoundly different.
• A city with a school district pushing poverty levels over 50% in the next decade is a challenge that overwhelms all other issues. A city that has energy efficient light bulbs, hip downtown clubs, and more bicycles than cars, is nice.  Poverty and crime can still overwhelm that city.

I do not understand the pride of wearing a T shirt that says "Madison-The Most Progressive City in America" if that city is crumbling under the twin burdens of growing poverty and middle class flight.

UW's Urinetown. Shameless Promotion

The University of Wisconsin Department of Theater and Drama is producing Urinetown at the Mitchell Theater for three weekends starting Friday, April 20, 2007.

Readers of Waxing America know my partiality to this funny and provocative play:

In the opening of Urinetown, wise-beyond-her-years Little Sally describes the water shortage when she is interrupted by Officer Lockstock.

Officer Lockstock: Whoa there. Not all at once. They'll hear more about the water shortage in the next scene.

Little Sally: Oh, I guess you don't want to overload them with too much exposition, huh?

Officer Lockstock: Everything in time, Little Sally. You're too young to understand it now, but nothing kills a show like too much exposition.

Little Sally: How about bad subject matter? Or a bad title? That could kill a show pretty good.

Banned in Stevens Point, Urinetown, will be appreciated by anyone with a sense of humor and knows the pee dance. If you believe the planet has an unlimited supply of drinking water you must also see the show.

Orton Testimony on Wisconsin AB207/SB107

Testimony of Barry Orton
Professor of Telecommunications, UW-Madison

Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities and Rail

March 27, 2007

AB 207/SB 107:
Why Create An Unregulated “Video Service” in Wisconsin?

Nothing is broken that needs legislative fixing:

■   Local franchises for wired video services are the traditional method by which the public’s property is protected, the public’s consumer rights are protected, and the public’s interest with regard to local information is advanced. Local franchises have worked well for many years. AB 207/SB 107 eliminates them. There is no evidence of the unreasonable denial of a single franchise in Wisconsin. In fact, Milwaukee has been able to reach an interim agreement with AT&T so that they may build while the City’s lawsuit proceeds.

■   Franchise fees are the traditional method by which private users of the public rights-of-way pay fair compensation (rent) for the use of that valuable public property. These fees pay for services that benefit all citizens, who jointly own local rights-of-way. Franchise fees have worked well for many years.  The bill would achieve a 15-25% reduction in the franchise fee gross base by the limitation of gross receipts to revenues paid by subscribers (Section 2 (j) 1) and the exclusion of revenues now included, such as late fees. Further, the U-verse plan to serve “low-value” customers with a satellite product would take many current customers off the franchise fee base entirely. AB 207/SB 107 will cause local property taxes to rise.

■  Franchise Agreements and Ordinances are the traditional method to assure that all citizens have access to cable services and that neighborhoods are not left unserved. Such build-out requirements have worked well for many years. AT&T has stated that its “Project Lightspeed” will serve 90% of its “high-value” customers (those who spend $160 - $200/month on telecom & entertainment services), and less than 5% of its “low-value” customers (those who spend less than $110/month). AB 207/SB 107 creates an underclass of underserved citizens in Wisconsin.

■   State and local consumer protection has worked to the advantage of consumers.  Section 100.209 of Wisconsin statutes protects subscriber’s rights to prompt repairs, refunds for service outages, notice of rate increases or service deletions, and written notice of disconnection.    AB 207/SB 107 would eliminate these basic subscriber rights; Wisconsin video service providers could refuse refunds to customers if the service went out, raise rates or cut programming services without any notice, and disconnect customers without notice or reasonable cause.  Instead of eliminating Section 100.209, its protections should be explicitly extended to any video or high-speed broadband service.

■   Local franchise provisions for local noncommercial channels and the organizations that program them are the traditional method to create and fund local educational, cultural, sports, and governmental programming, which has great value in creating local community.  Local access channels have been critical sources for local information for many years. The decreased financial support and increased transmission costs in AB 207/SB 107 will make local access programming less prolific and more difficult for smaller communities to sustain.

These traditional public protections are not a barrier to genuine competition. There is no need to allow unfair advantage to the telephone industry in its efforts to enter the video business, nor no good reason to eliminate the historical structures by which the public’s interests are protected in this important area.

That AB 207/SB 107 prohibits the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) from enforcing any of the bill’s requirements is a particularly egregious example of legislative chutzpah on the part of its sponsors. If a state agency charged with oversight of an industry cannot promulgate rules interpreting the bill’s provisions, cannot establish procedures for enforcing its requirements, cannot review a franchise applicant’s qualifications, and cannot review or approve a transfer of its franchises, it truly can be said to be powerless.  Under AB 207/SB 107, the DFI could issue a franchise; file it in a cabinet in perpetuity, and little else.  The video consumers of Wisconsin deserve far better.

Looong Public Hearing on Video Bill

Yesterday's public hearing of the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities and the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Commerce Utilities and Rail on AB 207/SB 107 was an endurance marathon for both the legislators and their staff and for the 150 or so of us who attended to testify or observe or record. About 70 people registered to testify; probably about 50 actually did so since many had to leave as the afternoon wore on.

The AT&T-backed, fast-tracked legislation would create a new, almost entirely unregulated state-level franchise for video service and eliminate the current system of municipal cable franchises. Cable companies and telephone companies would get a state-issued permit to sell wired video anywhere in the state.

I'm against it. Read why here and here and here.

I arrived at the hearing 30 minutes early (9:30 am) and left about 6:00 pm after I testified.  I'd guess there was about 30 minutes more testimony before it ended.  Could've taken even more.  There was no break. The poor staff and legislators ate lunch at the podium and kept on calling witnesses.  They opened two overflow rooms with the audio piped in and it was still SRO until sometime after 4 pm. (Update: it went until 7 pm, a total of 9 hours.)

Cities and their access operations filled the place.  Testimony about the importance of continued local value of municipal fire training, kids TV, educational uses, and community-level video came from Oshkosh, Sun Prairie, Janesville, Milwaukee, Jefferson, Madison, Sturgeon Bay, Wausau, Rice Lake, Merrill, West Allis, the Milwaukee suburbs, and about five more I missed when I left the room from time to time.  The Communications Workers of America, AT&T's largest union, was there in force, as were AT&T's officials, lobbyists, and astroturf groups like TV4US. Video cameras from WISC-TV, WKOW-TV, CityChannel12, WYOU, and  a couple local access operations  Assorted suited folks from the cable industry, other telecom players, WCM, Wisconsin Broadcasters' Assn and a variety of legislative aides taking notes for the boss completed the crowd.

Here's WISC-TV's take from Colin Benedict:

During Tuesday's meeting, there were two major concerns expressed by those who testified. First, the bill would strip consumer protections away from cable customers. Second, it could threaten public access channels.

The most interesting testimony came from Janet Jenkins of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, who expressed concerns that AB 207/SB 107  would leave consumers totally unprotected and  the state totally handcuffed to do anything beyond grant a franchise in perpetuity.

From Milwaukee JournalSentinel coverage:

Janet Jenkins, the state's top consumer advocate, said the bill, called the Video Competition Act, would weaken existing standards in a variety of ways. She said, for instance, it would no longer ensure 30-day notice of rate increases to customers.

At the same time, she said, it would end the right to have service repaired within 72 hours and would not require credit be given on consumers' bills when a service interruption of four hours or longer occurs.

"We have significant concerns about the total lack of consumer protections in the legislation," said Jenkins, administrator of the Division of Trade and Consumer Protection.

The Capital Times's David Callender reported that Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch doesn't see the consumer issues as a problem:

Huebsch said the bill, which was the subject of a daylong standing-room-only hearing before both Assembly and Senate committees on Tuesday, would likely be up for Assembly approval by late April or early May.

He said he believes the bill should be approved quickly and that consumer issues could be resolved later.

If there are abuses, "then I guarantee you that both parties will quickly try and change that. But I don't believe you are going to see the doomsday analysis that some are (predicting) regarding the removal of those protections," Huebsch said.

Wisconsin Public Radio's coverage has audio (of course) here.

The Badger Herald's reporter, Jessi Polsky, actually stuck around long enough to accurately report my oral testimony that this bill will cause a local tax increase:

Barry Orton, professor of telecommunications at the University of Wisconsin, said the bill aims to eliminate local franchises and replace them with a single statewide franchise — in which local governments would not have any authority.

He said passing the bill would result in an increase in taxes to make up for monies formerly made through franchise fees.

Orton said franchise fees — dollars paid by private companies to local governments in exchange for use of public rights-of-way — provide great benefits to the entire community.

“[Franchise fees] pay for services that benefit all citizens, who jointly own local rights of way,” Orton said.

He added passing the bill will result in a decrease of the total amount of income from franchise fees and force many former cable customers to use a satellite product, thereby removing citizens — and income — from the franchise fee base altogether.

“The bill would achieve a 15-25 percent reduction in the franchise fee gross base,” Orton said. “[It] will cause local property taxes to rise.”

Here's my written testimony. Took it out of this already too-long and updated too many times post.

- Barry Orton

Bad, Dangerous, Democratic Legislation

A group of very progressive Wisconsin legislators are sponsoring a bill requiring the school to teach the history of organized labor in America, to wit:

SECTION 1. 118.01 (2) (c) 6. of the statutes is amended to read: 118.01 (2) (c) 6. Knowledge of state, national, and world history, including knowledge of the history of organized labor in America and the collective bargaining process.

Readers of Waxing America know that I recently  decried the lack of civics instruction in our public schools. 

The Wisconsin legislators who introduced this legislation are well intentioned, but they are very dangerously in error. This proposal is similar to a recent California proposal to teach gay history in the schools. Or the flawed initiatives around the country to include "intelligent design" the curriculum.

The dangers of legislative bodies controlling the curriculum, no matter how well intentioned is a misuse of political power and destructive to the educational process. It tramples the freedom of open discourse in the classroom.

It is beyond me how anyone who calls themselves a progressive can place their judgment in law above the independent judgment of professional educators.

If you want to see the outcome of such miscues, just read little further down in the existing statue:

8. At all grade levels, an understanding of human relations, particularly with regard to American Indians, Black Americans and Hispanics.

I guess a lot of other people are just not as important as American Indians, Black Americans, and Hispanics. 

Outlining skills or broad areas of knowledge is one thing. Legislating the content of the curriculum is another.

This is bad. Very bad.

For a complete reading of Chapter 118 go here. You will see that the legislation covers general education including basic skills (reading, writing, arithmetic), analytical skills (thinking), vocational skills, citizenship, personal development, and decision making . That is the way if should be. Only rarely does the statute go into specific topics such as cooperative marketing or the vitamin content of food.

Wisconsin Legislature Holds Public Hearing on AT&T's Video Bill

The Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities and the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Commerce Utilities and Rail are holding a joint public hearing today (Tuesday) on AB/SB 207, the AT&T-backed, fast-tracked legislation that would create a new, almost entirely unregulated state-level franchise for video service and eliminate the current system of municipal cable franchises.  We've bored you with the subject again and again and again.

The hearing is in Room 412 East at 10 am. That's where I'll be until the last high school-aged access producer testifies.  I'll post my testimony later, after it's been capsulized for the hearing and distributed.  I'm told we'll have about three minutes each, so I'll read key sentences from each paragraph of my 2-page statement.

In Saturday's Wisconsin State Journal, Mark Pitsch did a very good job outlining the problems with the bill:

Wisconsin residents would lose their rights to cable television repairs within 72 hours, credit for service interruptions and advance notice of rate increases, under a bill on the fast track in the state Legislature.

The proposal, designed to increase competition in an industry dominated by cable companies, is supported by the lobbying muscle of telecommunications giant AT&T.

It's part of AT&T's challenge to cable companies such as Charter Communications, which are licensed by local governments.

There is little agreement on whether the proposal would help consumers or hurt them.

Local governments worry the so-called "video franchise" bill would lower the payments they get from cable providers up to 30 percent, which they say would mean cutting city services or increasing property taxes to cover the losses, they say.

Opponents also say the bill would mean less money for low-budget public-access channels.

One part of the story leaped out at me:

Cities that negotiate licensing agreements with cable companies don't have a reason to negotiate lower rates because they get a portion of revenues, Montgomery said.

"What incentive has there been on the city's behalf to hold down rates? None. That's their cash cow," he said.

Surely Representative Montgomery, the prime sponsor of AB 207 and the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities, knows that cities are prohibited by federal law from being able to "negotiate lower rates."   If he doesn't know, he should, since one of the basic assumptions behind his thinking is wrong. If he does know, maybe he was misquoted; Rep. Montgomery wouldn't be distorting the facts to fit his arguments.

Aside from all the nonsense about consumers saving money, the most outrageous parts of the bill are:

     1. The placement of regulation in the Dept. of Financial Institutions (DFI)  with specific language that prohibits the DFI from enforcing or interpreting the law, or reviewing the qualifications of applicants, or reviewing new owners of franchises. Under AB/SB 207, the DFI could issue a statewide franchise, file it in a cabinet, and do almost nothing else. It's a particularly egregious case of legislative chutzpah (look it up) that would result in video services being not deregulated, but unregulated. Senior legislative staff have told me this level of handcuffing of a state agency has never been tried before.

    2. Eliminating consumers' rights to get rebates if the service goes out, get 30 days notice if the rates go up or services get dropped, and get 10 days notice when they are disconnected for non- payment, and only after being 45 days late paying.  That's all in State Statues 100.209 and the bill eliminates it all.  Those subscriber rights were enacted in 1991 with support of the cable industry.  If this passes, cable and phone/video customers would have no rights other than take providers to court and sue them.

- Barry Orton

Annette Ziegler's Countdown

1. Putting her stock in a blind trust solves nothing. Annette Ziegler does not understand when she must disclose her conflicts and when she must recuse herself. Hiding the stock is not relevant.

2.Ritz Carlton Aspen - why would a judge call this hotel on legitimate government business?

3. Remember when WMC issued Supreme Court briefing #1 on February 23, 2007.

Ziegler has stated she intends to strictly construe the law...

4. Where is WMC Supreme Court Briefing #2?