Madison Parking Ordinance Promotes Wasteful Consumption

I see Craig Miller took a reasonable beef to the Madison City Commission Monday night. KJAM reports that Miller asked the city to revise its 24-hour parking ordinance. Evidently we have a rule that prohibits leaving your car in the same spot on city streets for more than 24 hours. After our last snowstorm weekend before last, Miller left his truck parked by the curb for more than a day, and the city left him a ticket. Evidently displeased, Miller suggested at Monday night's meeting that the city should revise that rule.

The city took no action. The city should. A 24-hour parking limit makes the incorrect assumption that everyone will drive every day. It may even encourage people to drive when they could just walk. If you're parking on the street and you have to move your car anyway, you'll be more inclined to drive those five or ten blocks to the post office than to just take a healthy walk.

Some folks may not have a better parking option, and they may not want to drive. When Erin and I lived in Vancouver, our landlord had no room for us to park, so I had to leave the trusty van on a side street. In eight months in the city, I drove the van once. The rest of the time, I took the bus, bike, or boots. Having to move the van every day would have been a waste of time and gasoline.

We've got bigger things to worry about than whether Craig's truck has been in the same spot for 24.1 hours. As KJAM points out, some other towns have two-day or five-day parking limits. Madison should by doing the same to support energy conservation and healthy living. If the car has a valid license, the city should let it sit.

Madison Registered Voters: Numbers Don't Add Up?

Discover the Unexpected™: hidden voters!

I'm bugged by the low turnout for Madison's city election yesterday. MDL says 11% of you bothered to vote. If you don't want to vote, perhaps you could at least do us the favor of extending the franchise to us country folks who do?

But maybe Madison already has. Consider these numbers:

• Registered voters in Madison: 5201.
• Population of Madison (2000 Census): 6540.
• Madison residents 18 and older (2000 Census): 5148.
• Adult percentage of Madison population (2000): 78.7%.
• Estimated Madison population in 2007 (SD Gov's Office Ec. Dev.): 6319.
• Estimated adult population (based on 2000 adult percentage): 4974.
• Percentage of Americans registered to vote: 73.5%.
• Number of registered we'd expect to find in Madison if we followed the national rate of voter registration: 3656.

If Madison were a typical town, we'd need a total population of almost 9000 to produce the 5200 registered voters our official count says we have. Given our current estimated population, even if every adult in town registered to vote, we'd still fall short of the official registered-voter count by about 200. I haven't seen ACORN around town. Are the extra voters just emigrés and "expirees" who haven't been scrubbed from the rolls yet? Are Jeff Heinemeyer and other Lake Madison folks still registering in town?

Of course, with 11% of that inflated total showing up to vote, maybe it's not a big deal. But somebody's numbers are off, either the city, the state, or the U.S. Census.

Lembcke, Abraham, Win Madison Commission Seats

Madison voters have spoken... well, at least a few of them have. A measly 11% of my neighbors braved the sunshine and 60-degree temps to head downtown and mark a box or two. The unofficial results, as reported by the Madison Daily Leader:

1. Karen Lembcke: 332 (56.7%)
2. Nick Abraham: 291 (49.7%)
3. Myron Downs: 284 (48.5%)
4. Mike McGowan: 184 (31.4%)

Now Myron came within two percentage points of Nick, so under state law (SDCL 9-13-27.3), Myron can ask for a recount. Don't expect him to do it, though. I'm thinking Myron will take the same low-intensity approach to defeat that he takes to campaigning and let it lie.

But seven votes: that's close! That slim margin may reflect the first victory of Web campaigning in local politics. Abraham has a Facebook page, and he used it to remind his friends to get out and vote. Some of his friends didn't even know there was an election ("commissioner of what?"). If even 2% of his 400-plus-person network checked Facebook, saw Nick's reminder, and said, "Oh, yeah! Election day! I better go vote for Nick," boom! That's your margin of victory.

To paraphrase an anonymous commenter: Why would a 30-year-old man have a Facebook page? To help win an election.

Perhaps surprisingly, the final order matches the final poll conducted here at the Madville Times

Madville Times poll, 2009.04.13–14

(Hey, try often enough, you're bound to get at least one right!) I also note with some pleasure that at least one of my endorsees got a seat! A Madville Times endorsement isn't the kiss of death after all.

But the status quo did win, as Karen Lembcke was sent back for another term of cheering on the LAIC and its closed-door activities while Main Street declines and our unemployment rate goes more than double that of Brookings. How well will Abraham fit into this status quo? Will he be a strong, independent voice for his blue-collar constituency? Or will he be brought to heel by a commission stacked with Chamber of Commerce types?

Being an effective commissioner requires teamwork, an ability to communicate, and, when necessary, a willingness to go along to get along (please understand how much it galls me to say that last part). But the best commissioners also have the courage to question, criticize, and change the status quo. Madison needs leaders who can play both sides of that equation.

As I said at Rotary Monday, being a team player doesn't mean saying yes all the time. The best team players hold their team accountable.

As a test of Abraham's mettle: watch how he deals with the LAIC. Let's see if he'll call for conditioning LAIC funding on concrete and transparent performance measures, just like Pierre does. Oh, and let's see if he starts a blog!

Tea Parties Bipartisan? Evidence, Please....

Amusement of the night: an anonymous commenter calls me to task for calling tomorrow's little tea parties "GOP sponsored." What's so funny?

1. [eyebrow] Anon really should hyphenate GOP-sponsored.
2. [chuckle] I can't find where I called the tea parties "GOP-sponsored" (with or without hyphen).
3. [snort] Anon says the tea parties are a bipartisan effort. (Republicans and Libertarians working together? Well, sort of....)
   
4. [guffaw] teaparty.gop.com

DQ Blizzard for the first person who can send me verifiable info on official Democratic Party involvement in any of tomorrow's tea parties (and that doesn't count protesting).

Inspiration: Astronaut Prepares for Final Hubble Mission

Who says there's nothing exciting or inspiring about science? Read about Dr. John Grunsfeld: astrophysicist, astronaut, and chief repairman of the Hubble Telescope:

Coming out of the hatch on his first spacewalk, Dr. Grunsfeld had a moment of unreality. “I mean it was just too magical. Three hundred miles below me is the Earth. There I was a meter away from the Hubble Space Telescope. I couldn’t resist. I had to take a finger and reach out and touch it.”

In one of the longest spacewalks to date, more than eight hours, Dr. Grunsfeld and his spacewalking partner, Steven Smith, replaced the telescope’s gyros, a job that Dr. Grunsfeld described as “an icky task” because the gyros are in a delicate and awkward spot. He discovered that he had a knack for getting things done Out There.

Dr. Grunsfeld said he could get so involved in his task that he would forget he was in a space suit wearing gloves, a feeling he calls the Zen of space. “And once you’re outside working, you know, all the rest of the world disappears.”

“Once in a while the universe lets you be free alone and in peace,” he said [Dennis Overbye, "Last Voyage for the Keeper of the Hubble," New York Times, 2009.04.13].

Ad astra!

¿Vacaciones en Cuba? ¡Sí!

Argus Leader online poll, results as of ~7:40 CDT, 2009.04.14

That Sioux Falls paper runs a reader poll on its homepage this morning: "Would you consider taking a vacation in Cuba?" The results as of breakfast time surprise me: 7 out of 10 mostly Midwesterners, just emerging from a hard snowy winter, say they wouldn't even consider vacationing in a warm, sunny island just 90 miles from Florida.

Call me weird, but if I had more vacation money (we might be able to afford a drive to Winnipeg for our exotic foreign travel this year), and if President Obama would open that door a crack further, I'd sign up New Year's in Cuba in an instant. Beaches, bicycling, music, history... what a destination!

And who's afraid of big bad Communists? My first overseas trip was to the Soviet Union in March, 1991. Fascinating, amazingly educational experience. And ten months later—poof! Communism collapses!

I'm ready to do my part again to bring down the Iron Curtain, Mr. President. Keep easing those travel restrictions, and send me to Havana! ¡Quiero bailar in Cuba!

Accused Cop-Killer Claims Self-Defense

"Defense Grows"? Try "Defense Grows Longer Nose...."

That Sioux Falls paper reports that Ethan Johns, accused killer of Turner County Deputy Chad Mechels, is pleading not guilty and claiming (brace yourself) self-defense.

"Our preliminary investigation shows a viable self-defense in this case," lawyer Jeff Cole of Parker said at the arraignment of Ethan Johns, 19 [Jeff Martin, "Defense Grows in Murder Case," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.04.14].

Self-defense? That's the best you could come up with? Let's review:

Johns, armed with a rifle, was in the bathroom at his farmhouse when he opened fire on Mechels inside the home, wounding the lawman in the right arm, court records indicate. Then, after the deputy retreated from the house and climbed back in his patrol sport utility vehicle, Johns remained inside and shot again from the bathroom window, the documents state. This time, one of the rifle shots pierced the SUV's windshield and hit Mechels in the throat [Martin, 2009.04.14].

I don't need a law degree (and neither will the jury) to know that shooting a retreating law officer is not self-defense. The lawyer's got to do something to earn his pay... but wouldn't a guilty plea stand a better chance of keeping the defendant alive than an argument that killing a cop is self-defense?

IRS 2008 Audits on Big Finance Fewer and Looser

The Transactional Records Clearinghouse releases this news just in time to make you stragglers write cuss words in the margins of your 1040s: in 2008, the IRS audited just 15% of large financial service companies—you know, the Ponzi players responsible for destroying our economy? Yeah, those folks. The IRS audited 64% of all corporations of similar size (assets greater than $250M).

15% to 64%—I'm pretty sure that's a statistically significant, non-random difference.

TRAC also finds the audits of Big Finance were also less thorough than the goings-over other companies get. This discrepancy is costing the IRS—oh, wait, costing us big money: TRAC finds that Big Finance accounts for 72% of the assets and 76% of the tax returns of all industries in that bracket. Audits of Big Finance also find the biggest tax dodges: in 2008, for every hour of audit work on big financial firms, the IRS found $11,739 in tax underpayment, compared to an average $7,085/hour for all other industry groups (see Table 7 here). Big Finance apparently has gotten better at cheating: over the Bush II years, their discovered underpayment increased 413%, compared to an 86% increase in other industries.

In other words, Big Finance is where the money is, and the IRS has been letting them slide. President Obama, it's time for a memo to the IRS: audit every big financial institution this year. Everyone getting TARP, everyone running credit default swaps and hedge funds, every one of the big boys who got us into this mess. Keeping Big Finance's books honest might cut the deficit in half right there.

Downs and Abraham Best Choices for City Commission

Somewhere Myron and Nick are saying, "Madville Times picked us? Now we're hosed for sure!"

Madison votes tomorrow for two city commission seats. Karen Lembcke wants to keep her seat; Myron Downs would like his old seat back; Nick Abraham and Mike McGowan would like their shot at public service. Whom should we* pick?

If you go strictly by my evaluation of the candidates' performances at our one and only public forum, Downs and Abraham will get your vote. And I'll stick with those numbers as my endorsement.

Of the four candidates, I know Myron Downs best, so I'm biased up, down, left, and right. Myron worked with my dad long time ago. Myron was my boss at Prairie Village. I disagree with him politically on numerous issues, but I know what we disagree on, and I can trust him to be straight with me and anyone else. Myron isn't beholden to anyone. Myron will call a spade a spade, and if he sees the city or the LAIC or anyone else doing something he doesn't approve of or understand, he will speak up, ask questions, or even stop the show until he's satisfied things are being done right.

Nick Abraham presented himself with reasonable confidence and knowledgeability at the forum. He scored well based largely on strong answers to two questions, where he said things in terms of recruiting new businesses and promoting affordable housing that demonstrated he might be willing to bring some genuine progressive thinking to the board. But some of his other answers reflected a lack of vision and a willingness to curry favor with the powers that be. I'm willing to give youth (youth? he's 30, an adult taxpayer just like the rest of us!) a chance, but I want to hear less deference and even more independence.

Karen Lembcke is the voice of the status quo, and even her own words contradict her claims that the status quo is fine. She tells us we can hardly improve on "great," but then tells us our kids wreck things downtown. While other candidates talk about the need to bring more businesses downtown, Lembcke talks about putting up flowers. She says the LAIC is doing a wonderful job, even though our unemployment rate is 2.4 times higher than the rate in neighboring Brookings. (Our LAIC director lives in Brookings; maybe he could take notes at home and bring some ideas back to the office here.) She also too clearly embraces the philosophy of doing business "behind closed doors." Evidently the powers that be prefer to ignore the growing dissatisfaction with how economic development is done (or not done) in Lake County. Lembcke has served on the LAIC committee: perhaps voting her out will get their attention.

Mike McGowan was pals with my dad at Madison High School, along with Lee Yager and Dick Wiedenman. In some folks' book, that counts as a negative. In mine, it's a positive. Mike is an outsider, the kind of guy I naturally gravitate toward. But his answers at the forum weren't good enough. I know life is more than a speech contest, but standing up in front of an audience and explaining your views is a reasonable test of your ability to speak up at a city commission meeting, to evaluate and when necessary challenge the positions of fellow commissioners and the wealthy and powerful interests who will come before you asking the city for favors. Mike's focus on cutting commissioner pay is a drop in the bucket that doesn't tweak the powers that be: the rich folks who aren't on the commission will just chuckle and know the commissioners may be that much more submissive. I don't hear people complaining much about how much commissioners are getting paid; I hear much more complaint about the lack of transparency and accountability in how the city lets the LAIC spend money for the supposedly general welfare.

I could be inclined to flip my scorecard and pick McGowan over Lembcke, just because he is an outsider. But Downs and Abraham can bring enough of that outsider view, plus a little broader grasp of the issues.

Voters, tomorrow, April 14, you get to make your pick. I look forward to hearing and discussing your choices.

*We: alas, I use the pronoun somewhat metaphorically. I live outside city limits, so I don't get to vote. But Madison is still home: among other things, I've gotten most of my education and spent most of my money here. Even if I can't participate, I can't help but identify with the Madison electorate. Besides, Herman Township elections are never this interesting.

Krugman: Tea Party GOP "Embarrassing"

With the fundagelicals admitting political defeat, Dr. Allen Unruh and other conservative types will skip work and attempt to salvage some shreds of their collapsing worldview with a little tea party in the park on Wednesday.

I'd suggest not pointing and laughing... but I can't resist. Neither can Nobel laureate Paul Krugman:

One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.

But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.

Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre [Paul Krugman, "Tea Parties Forever," New York Times, 2009.04.12].

And lest we fall for the marketing line that the tea parties are just God-fearing patriots standing up for the common man:

Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News [Krugman, 2009.04.12].

Party on, Wayne... party on, Garth.

Judge Wilbur: Praxis Tests Irrelevant to Teacher Quality

O.K., I'm still delaying homework by reading Judge Lori Wilbur's ruling on the South Dakota school funding lawsuit. Among the juicy tidbits: the court agrees with two professors that the Praxis tests we make our teacher candidates take (and pay for) do not reliably predict teacher quality [p. 139].

So if there is no research saying these tests link with teacher quality, why are we making our teachers take them?

In her discussion of the Praxis test evidence, Judge Wilbur rips the plaintiffs' witness, Dr. Ann Wilson from SDSU. The court notes that Dr. Wilson is an expert on infant and early childhood development, not the Praxis test or teacher preparation [p. 139]. Dr. Wilson offered unpersuasive testimony on the Praxis test scores:

Dr. Wilson did not know whether the differences she observed in the cut scores were even statistically significant—though she could have undertaken this exercise and simply chose not to perform the calculations [p. 140].

...Educational Testing Service (ETS) has warned that scores on its tests should be interpreted “with caution” if there are fewer than 30 test takers. Id. ETS is the company that administers the Praxis exams.

Dr. Wilson’s conclusions were unreliable because she reviewed scores for exams with a very low number of test takers. Wilson Testimony; see also Armor Testimony. Despite ETS’s warning, Dr. Wilson reviewed 19 Praxis II exams with less than 30 test takers [p. 141].

Judge Wilbur proceeds to hammer Dr. Wilson for another couple pages. The court sounds inclined against the plaintiffs from the start, but when the plaintiffs have the burden of proof, perhaps that's fair. Again, I'm left wondering why this was the best the plantiffs could muster.

South Dakota Education Funding Lawsuit: What Judge Wilbur Was Thinking

Sixth Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur's ruling for the defendants in Davis and Davis et al. v. State of South Dakota et al. reads pretty much as I predicted back in September. Here's one case where I'd have preferred the judge prove me wrong.

The schools and parents had the "significant and heavy burden" [Wilbur, p. 43] of proving current funding laws unconstitutional, and they failed. Some highlights [all bracketed pages #s refer to Wilbur's proposed ruling issued 2009.04.07]:

Despite the undisputed importance of education in society, this Court’s role in this proceeding is clear. The Court is not a “super-legislature” which is in a position to choose the best policy option for schools in this state.... As recognized by the South Dakota Supreme Court, “[t]he view that judges function to fine tune legislative excess has long been discarded. Only when statutes are plainly and unmistakably unconstitutional may we declare them void. A statute is presumed constitutional until it is proved otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.” [p. 3].

Judge Wilbur offers this numerical rhetoric in support of her ruling:

The combined general fund expenditures for all school districts in the state grew by almost $200 million from the 1997-1998 school year to the 2006-2007 school year. Ex. 2516, p. 2. Those expenditures were approximately $552 million in the 1997-1998 school year and were approximately $744 million in the 2006-2007 school year. Ex. 2516, p. 2. At the time of trial the combined total of general funds for all school districts in the state was at least three-quarters of a billion dollars [p. 10].

For context, over the same period, the state's general fund expenditures increased $390 million, from $702 million to $1.092 billion. That's an annual increase of 5.0% versus 3.4% for the schools.

Judge Wilbur cites these numbers, but emphasizes that she doesn't have to go there. She just has to determine whether the plaintiffs meet their burden of proof to demonstrate that the state is not meeting its obligation "to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education." To convince her of that, the plaintiffs needed to show a failing education system turning out students who are not "responsible and intelligent citizens," who are not "competitive" in college or the workforce. The plaintiffs needed to show unaccredited schools failing to offer educational opportunities, a laggardly state Department of Education with sloppy assessment and accountability practices, obsolete curriculum and technology, and an unqualified and inexperienced workforce of teachers. Judge Wilbur says the plaintiffs showed none of that [pp. 15–16].

Part of the problem was that the superintendents come to court and say their schools are failing, then put their Chamber of Commerce hats on back home and tell everyone how great their schools are. Even I can't get you out of that bind, fellas. Judge Wilbur found the superintendents testifying before her "inherently biased" and not "credible" [p. 17]. (Perhaps the supers can retort that Judge Wilbur can't spell, as she fluctuates between superintendant and the correct superintendent [p. 17]. She also uses principle instead of principal [p. 27]... but a dash of spelling neener-neener won't buy any textbooks.)

Even the Internet bites the plaintiffs' case:

Although Plaintiffs assert that some of the Plaintiffs’ districts lack school newspapers, each of these districts has a website. School news can be distributed on the website along with daily bulletins, events, and programs. The school websites also contain the parent portals so that parents with access codes can obtain individualized up-to-date information about their children [p. 22].

* * *

One line that leaps out at me under the Conclusions of Law:

Plaintiffs have not raised an equal protection or equity claim [p. 23].

Arrgghh!!! That's exactly the argument that could win this case on Constitutional grounds. I think that's the arugment that won the same-sex marriage case before the Iowa Supreme Court. If I were the judge and you couldn't make that case, I'd be throwing you out of my courtroom and back to the Legislature, just like Judge Wilbur is doing.

A big reason the plaintiffs' case founders before Judge Wilbur: the absence of education from the South Dakota Bill of Rights. Other states' courts that have found education to be a right "generally have an explicit textual, structural, or historical reason for doing so" [p. 39]. Finding no such guidance in South Dakota law or precedent ("The South Dakota Supreme Court has never addressed whether education is a fundamental right under the South Dakota Constitution" [p. 38]) Judge Wilbur maintains that education is not a fundamental right in South Dakota. (Psst—lawyers for the schools! There's where your appeal strategy starts... but note Wilbur's finding on p. 42 that even if education were a right, you still have to work to prove heightened scrutiny is warranted.)

Judge Wilbur holds that the court's job is not to determine whether spending more money on education would better fulfill the constitutional mandate but rather to find whether the Legislature is providing the "constitutional minimum" [p. 46]. Facing the argument that "thorough and efficient" means more than what we are doing now, Judge Wilbur rather cleverly cites the South Dakota Bill of Rights (Article VI, Clause 27), saying our framers also called for moderation and frugality [p. 48]. In other words, the Legislature has a constitutional obligation to be stingy bastards.

(Of course, that same clause about fundamental principles for maintenance of free government also calls for temperance... and I don't see anyone suing the Legislature for issuing more liquor licenses.)

* * *

If she hasn't already, Judge Wilbur starts to sound like she's stretching to justify a preconceived position on page 49, where she says quality doesn't matter:

Article VIII of the South Dakota Constitution does not require a “quality” education as urged by Plaintiffs. “Quality” does not appear in the education clauses, and there is no indication that the framers intended a “quality” standard in the Constitution. In addition, Plaintiffs failed to present evidence at trial which defined quality or supported inserting “quality” into the education clauses.

Really? Is Judge Wilbur ready to contend that our framers had no concern about the quality of the education the state would offer? I'll grant that plaintiffs did a crummy job of demonstrating that South Dakota students are getting a crummy education, but suppose they had: could Judge Wilbur have looked us in the eye and said a crummy education satisfies the constitutional minimum, that General Beadle, Mr. Pettigrew, and our other founders would have looked at a poor-quality education system and said, "Yup! That's what we had in mind!" It seems much more likely that the absence of the word "quality" from the education clause represents an expectation that any sensible Legislature would seek a quality education system, not some minimalistic mockery of the founders' intent.

But no matter: Judge Wilbur finds a quality education system.

* * *

An interesting thread to the argument relates to Hutterites: Part of the plaintiffs' argument was that schools like Bon Homme, Willow Lake, and Doland need more funding because they have to maintain separate schools for neighboring Hutterite colonies. Citing a 1979 case (Deerfield Hutterian Ass'n v. Ipswich Board of Ed.), Judge Wilbur says horsehockey: South Dakota schools have no constitutional obligation to provide separate schools for Hutterites [pp. 53, 209-210].

Again it feels like Judge Wilbur is stretching reality. It's like saying homsexuals are free to get married in South Dakota, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Constitutionally, it's fine, but practically, it's not going to happen. I suspect if Doland or Montrose told the colony they had to send their kids to town for "English school," the school board would receive 15-20 home school applications the next day. The current system of separate public colony schools is the only practical way for the state to deliver a quality education to colony students.

* * *

Some marginalia for the blogosphere: Judge Wilbur even throws a bone for the folks afraid of state-mandated pre-K:

Given the uncertain nature of the research in this important area, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that Pre-K is required in order to provide an adequate education [p.16]

* * *
I hate to admit it, but page 55 is as far as I'm going to get this weekend on Judge Wilbur's ruling. Homework awaits! Readers, your comments on the above and on the rest of Judge Wilbur's ruling, as well as suggestions for the lawyers, are welcome.