Weekly Opinion Editorial

FREE SPEECH CAN GET DIRTY!

by Steve Fair

Oklahoma State Senator Josh Brecheen, (R-Coalgate) and State Representative Dustin Roberts, (R-Durant) authored Senate Bill #406 which lengthens the distance that protesters at memorial services or funerals can picket. It also shortens the length of time they can protest. The bill restricts picketers from protesting to 1,000 feet from the funeral property line. The bill also states that the protest cannot convene for up to two hours before the funeral begins and for two hours after the funeral ends.

*****

“Mocking the deaths of others is irreprehensible, but the Supreme Court’s ruling protecting funeral protests has given groups like the Westboro Church more fuel in their campaign of hate,” Brecheen said. “After that ruling, the Westboro Church said they’d increase their protests four fold; and with our state only hours from their headquarters, we needed to strengthen our funeral picketing law to protect grieving families from further emotional harm from these heartless, misguided people.”

*****

Roberts, a Navy veteran, said, “I got accustomed to seeing the protestors outside of the military bases in which I served. War is an ugly thing in which we all are entitled an opinion. This bill was authored to protect those that are grieving the loss of a family member or friend- to give them the freedom to honor the deceased. It is designed to protect the funeral goers and those that are picketing from potential dangers.”

*****

Protesting a funeral for political purposes is an abhorrent and disgusting practice," Governor Fallin said at the bill's signing. "While such distasteful protests have been ruled constitutionally protected and cannot be legally prohibited, this legislation will help protect grieving families from people who are looking to exploit their suffering."

*****

SB #406 pertains to all funeral services, not just military ones although that is the main focus of the Westboro Church protests. The new provisions will go into effect November 1, 2011. Similar legislation has passed in several state legislatures all targeted to this same group.

*****

The Westboro Baptist Church out of Topeka, Kansas has been demonstrating at funerals for years- most notably at services for U.S. military service members killed in combat overseas - to condemn America's acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. They have been ridiculed, condemned and berated be virtually everyone wherever they go and appear to relish the attention. They have filed numerous lawsuits (and won) after their constitutional rights were violated by some law enforcement group attempting to protect the privacy of a grieving family.

*****

After Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq in 2006, Westboro picketed the fallen lance corporal’s funeral in Maryland. His dad, Albert Snyder sued the group, taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court where in March 2011 he lost in an 8-1 decision.

*****

“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. We cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” Roberts suggested that laws creating “buffer’ zones, which is what SB 406 does, was the right approach to combat Westboro.

*****

The lone Supreme Court justice who voted against Westboro in the case was Samuel Alito. In Justice Alito’s dissent he stated: “Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. The court now holds that the First Amendment protected [Westboro’s] right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”

*****

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. A society that allows free speech can get messy, but if we begin to censor one group, no group is safe. While Westboro’s protests are unbiblical, unchristian, and mean spirited, they have a right to conduct them in a free society.

*****

If this so called church decides to challenge Oklahoma’s new law creating a buffer zone, it could wind up costing the taxpayers of Oklahoma. Westboro has proven their ability in the past to successfully argue the case their civil rights are being violated and get substantial monetary awards. While Roberts suggested the ‘buffer’ zones, Westboro has threatened to challenge any legislation that limits their civil rights and if it goes to the Supreme Court, it could be ruled a violation of their free speech.

*****

A more realistic strategy in dealing with Westboro and other like-minded picketers at funerals is to ignore them. If they don’t get the attention they crave, they will likely crawl back under the rock they’ve been living under.

Weekly Opinion Editorial

GROUPTHINK!

By Steve Fair

The Oklahoma Health Care Authority is a seven-member board composed of three appointees by the Governor and two each by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore. Their stated mission is, “To purchase state and federally funded health care in the most efficient and comprehensive manner possible and to study and recommend strategies for optimizing the accessibility and quality of health care.” The OHCA wants Oklahomans to enjoy optimal health status by having access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay.

*****

To that end the OHCA proposed the establishment of a ‘health insurance exchange’ in Oklahoma. One of the tenets of the federal health care program, commonly known as ObamaCare, is that individual states would set up an exchange or have the feds do it for them. A health insurance exchange provides a single portal for comparing and enrolling in health insurance coverage. There are both public and private exchanges.

*****

What is the stated justification for the establishment of health care exchanges? According to the OHCA, “Current market choices present challenges for individuals and employers that include confusion about choices, eligibility, costs and benefits. The idea is that individuals and small businesses would join a massive pool of consumers, increasing the exchange’s ability to negotiate a lower group insurance rate for them.”

*****

Governor Mary Fallin and Speaker of the House Kris Steele, (R-Shawnee) supported Oklahoma setting up their own health care exchange by accepting 54 million in federal money, but their plan was not supported by Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, (R-Sapulpa).

******

Fallin said, “The only way to avoid federal control is for Oklahoma to have a plan.” Steele said Oklahoma needed to get ahead of the curve on ObamaCare in order to protect the free market principles, competition and individual responsibility. Bingman said, “We will work with the House and the governor, and work out an exchange that is right for Oklahoma. I prefer the use of private or state resources, to put together our own exchange without the federal strings.”

*****

After the State House passed HB #2130, a bill setting up an exchange, 51-34 with 19 Republicans opposing the proposal, Bingman said it wouldn’t come to a vote in the Senate. “I don’t think we’re going to be hearing that bill. Republicans in the Senate are not for ObamaCare. We want to support the lawsuit to fight ObamaCare. … As this was discussed, we decided to slow that process down, “ Bingman said.

*****

After intense pressure from conservative legislators, which included the majority of ‘freshman’ Republicans and citizens across the state, Fallin announced on Thursday she will reject the 54 million dollars, noting that the move "accomplishes my goal from the very beginning: stopping the implementation of the president's federal health care exchange in Oklahoma." This is a reversal of her public position on HB 2130 and her statements about health care exchanges.

*****

There has been a lot of misinformation concerning this issue on the Internet and blogs about the health care exchange. Here are my comments:

*****

First, establishing a public health care exchange would help some Oklahomans to have access to insurance coverage that don’t have it and with the high cost of health care, that is a good thing. Establishing a health care exchange would allow us to be prepared in case the lawsuits to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional are not successful. It would probably help Oklahoma’s effort to recruit jobs and industry to the state. It would not increase taxes. The motivation behind HB 2130 was not as devious as some claim. Admittedly, the accepting of the 54 million from the feds while engaged in a lawsuit against the very program giving you the money reeks of hypocrisy, but this issue was not as black and white as some have made it out to be. The inability of some to see the acceptance of the 54 million as hypocritical reveals a pragmatic approach to governing that bears watching in the future. Pragmatism is one of the four tenets of situational ethics.

*****

Second, the reversal by Fallin on the acceptance of the 54 million should be a lesson to all elected officials. Instead of citizens contacting their legislator, it should be the other way around. Elected officials should reach out to a cross section of their constituency and ask their opinion on key issues. All too often, elected officials engage in ‘groupthink.’ Groupthink is a type of thought within a group whose members attempt to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing and evaluating ideas. It is a potential negative consequence of group cohesion. Holding the ‘caucus’ together may be critical to passing the ‘agenda,’ but allowing an honest exchange of ideas will give us better government.

*****

Health care is sixteen(16) percent of the U.S. economy and growing. The debate on access to health care and the cost of health care is not going away, but expanding government’s role in health care is not the answer. We need to emphasis prevention of disease and get patients more involved in the financial decisions in their health care. We should not just pragmatically resign ourselves to socialized medicine and do something because the feds told us to.

Weekly Opinion EditorialLAWSUIT REFORM IS A MORAL ISSUE!

by Steve Fair

Last week, Governor Mary Fallin signed three lawsuit reform bills into law. SB865 and SB862 along with HB 2128 were signed in a state Capitol ceremony attended by business people and physicians.

*****

S.B. 862, authored by Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore), and Representative Dan Sullivan, (R-Tulsa) eliminated the “deep pocket” rule, where the defendant in a tort lawsuit is liable for the entire amount of a plaintiff’s damage regardless of their degree of fault. S.B. 865, also authored by Sykes and Sullivan, requires juries now be instructed in cases that awards for personal injury awards are not subject to federal or state income taxes.

*****

HB 2128, authored by Sykes and House Speaker Kris Steele, (R-Shawnee) places a $350,000 hard cap on non-economic damages. Caps on non-economic damages have been proven to help create jobs and lower medical liability insurance premiums in other states. H.B. 2128 will not impact economic damages, such as lost wages, medical expenses and future loss of expected wages. The bill also includes an exception to the cap in cases of malicious conduct, gross negligence and reckless disregard.

*****

Former State Representative and current Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce CEO Fred Morgan praised the signing of the new laws saying, "For years, we have fought for lawsuit reform to help bring fairness and consistency to our courts for the business community and those who have been injured alike. We can celebrate that this day is finally here, and relish the message it sends to companies looking to relocate nationwide—that Oklahoma truly is open for business.” “We have fallen behind states like Texas, Missouri, Mississippi and others that have passed significant lawsuit reform in recent years. But, as this legislation becomes law we will be able to compete for jobs like we never have before,” Morgan concluded.

*****

Governor Fallin said, "For too long, inflated legal fees have been an unnecessary cost-driver in the private sector and a burden on the medical community. As a result, we’ve seen businesses and doctors choose to locate in other states, depriving our citizens of good jobs, reducing access to medical care and driving up the costs for medical treatment.”

*****

The ‘hard cap’ on non-economic damages was the most controversial part of the lawsuit reform package. In fact, just before the signing ceremony, six State Senators, including two Republicans, held a press conference condemning the hard caps outlined in HB 2128.

*****

State Senator Steve Russell, (R-OKC) predicted the bill “will not survive constitutional scrutiny. ”He said the legislation was an example of “putting money and business interests above the rights of citizens under the Constitution.” and reflected “a twisted set of morals.”

*****

First, Russell is not a constitutional attorney, so his opinion on whether the legislation will pass constitutional muster has about as much creditability and scholarship as a jelly salesman’s opinion. Similar lawsuit reform legislation that was signed into law last week in Oklahoma has withstood court challenges in thirty states, so it’s a little soon to predict the courts will strike the three laws down.

*****

Second, Russell attempting to tie lawsuit reform to morality is a stretch. The truth is a bad tort system is a burdensome tax on the economy. It kills jobs, lowering income, and increasing prices. Additionally, it exacts opportunity costs: every nickel a company has to plow into fighting lawsuits is a nickel less that it can plow into research and development, higher salaries for its employees, or lower costs for consumers. And Oklahoma’s unnecessarily burdensome tort system put us at a disadvantage in the global economy.

*****

Russell is right that lawsuit reform is a moral issue. By making cases easier to win and by holding out the promise of very large awards Oklahoma’s tort system encouraged litigation, discouraged one-to-one resolution of problems and the inclination to seek or offer forgiveness by offending parties. Rather than feeling shame for having caused damage to another, often potential defendants jockeyed for defensible legal positions. Expressions of regret were discouraged because there might be legal ramifications. Plaintiffs were encouraged to maximize their damages so as to increase the ultimate settlement. Personal forgiveness was discouraged because it hurt the later lawsuit. The net result was more distrust between members of the society and less human understanding. It is a moral issue- an immoral one!

Opinion/Editorial

SJR #37- A TERRIBLE IDEA!

by Steve Fair

Oklahoma State Constitution- Article V Section V-2 The first power reserved by the people is the initiative, and eight percentum of the legal voters shall have the right to propose any legislative measure, and fifteen per centum of the legal voters shall have the right to propose amendments to the Constitution by petition, and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure so proposed. The second power is the referendum, and it may be ordered (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety), either by petition signed by five per centum of the legal voters or by the Legislature as other bills are enacted. The ratio and per centum of legal voters hereinbefore stated shall be based upon the total number of votes cast at the last general election for the State office receiving the highest number of votes at such election.

*****

The Oklahoma Constitution provides for the citizens to propose amendments to the state constitution through the initiative petition process. In years past, private citizens in Oklahoma have used the process to rein in state government. In 1992, signatures were gathered by grassroots citizens fed up with out of control spending and rising taxes imposed by the state legislature. They gathered signatures across the state and got a proposal on the ballot that blocked the state legislature from passing a tax increase that did not pass the legislature with a 75% margin. If it did not meet that threshold, then it had to go to a vote of the people. In November 1992, SQ 640 was passed by a vote of 56% to 44%.

*****

Legislators from both parties hate SQ640 because it took the supply side of the ‘power of the purse’ out of their hands. In response, the legislature cleverly re-branded 'taxes' and started calling them ‘fees’ to circumvent 640. To discourage the people from getting into their business, lawmakers increased the number of signatures required and shortened the length of time to gather signatures to get a question on the ballot. Their tactics have worked quite well because until 2010, no state question since 1992 had been on the ballot that came through the initiative petition process. All of the state questions Oklahomans have voted on in the recent past have been placed on the ballot by the legislature in the form of Joint Resolutions. The glaring exception last year was SQ #744 which was initiated by the OEA after the union lost a lawsuit seeking to increase education funding. The signatures on SQ #744 were gathered by paid staff in the metropolitan areas of Oklahoma. SQ #744 would have tied Oklahoma’s education funding to the ‘regional average.’ The proposal did not provide any mechanism as to where the additional money to fund this concept was to come from. SQ#744 went down in flames- 81% to 19%- because even the liberals recognized the obscurity of the proposal.

*****

The number of required signatures to get a proposal on the ballot by initiative petition was theoretically reduced after the passage of SQ #750 in November. I say theoretically, because now the signature requirements are based on the Governor's race, which historically has lower turnout, and not the presidential election. That was progress for the citizens of Oklahoma. But once again the legislature is 'tinkering' with the initiative petition process.

*****

Senator Mike Schultz, (R-Altus) and Representative Leslie Osborne, (R-Tuttle) are running Joint Resolution (SJR#37) that would change the initiative petition process yet again. If approved by Oklahoma voters, it would require initiative petitioners to reach the signature requirements in all five congressional districts. The SJR has already passed the Senate and will likely be voted on in the state House in the next week. If it passes the House, it will be placed on the ballot in November 2012. Joint Resolutions do not require the signature of the Governor.

*****

I talked with the House author of the bill, Representative Leslie Osborne, (R-Tuttle) Wednesday morning on a conference call with Representative Dennis Johnson, (R-Duncan). Osborne is a gracious, intelligent, well spoken lady whose motives I do not question, but on this issue she is wrong. She said the target of SJR 37 is radical groups like PETA who target states with initiative petition processes where the gathering of signatures is easier to accomplish. Osborne conceded that I made some valid points in my argument against the proposal, but it’s clear I did not persuade her SJR 37 would have unintended consequences for the average citizen.

*****

There are at least three reasons why the initiative petition process in Oklahoma should be left alone.

*****

First and foremost, it is next to impossible to gather the necessary signatures now with grassroots volunteers! Implementation of more restrictions would make it even more unlikely. If SJR37 were approved by the voters of Oklahoma, the ONLY organizations that will be able to satisfy the signature requirements will be well-funded groups- like unions- that use paid signature gatherers. In the process of trying to keep those groups like the OEA and PETA from getting proposals on the ballot, this bill would have the unintended consequence of hurting the average citizen in Oklahoma.

*****

Second, the concept of gathering signatures by Congressional district sounds good, but is impractical and senseless. The majority of Oklahomans live in three metropolitan areas. Statewide candidates for office concentrate on the areas with the highest density of population. They ‘fish where the fish are.’ There is nothing wrong with that. We elect officials statewide. Imagine if it were proposed we elect our US Senators and statewide officials using a complicated formula of making sure they got a certain percentage of their vote from every Congressional district. No one would ever consider proposing such a ridiculous concept for statewide elections, but SJR37 does just that to the initiative petition process.

*****

Third, the motives behind SJR37 are misguided. We don’t need more restrictions on citizen involvement in our government- we need less. SQ #744 scared the legislature because if it would have passed, it would have been devastating for the state, but it didn’t pass. I can understand not wanting crazy proposals to be placed on the ballot because there is always a chance one of these crazy ideas will pass, but I have more confidence in Oklahoma voters than that. When given the facts on an issue, Oklahoma voters always make the right decision. Legislators should not attempt to ‘manage’ their constituents and restrict their involvement in the process. Legislators don't need to try and protect us from ourselves.

*****

When this proposal was debated in the State Senate, Senator Jim Reynolds, R-OKC), who voted against the Joint Resolution, said, “This is a pretty significant bill. We are putting a stronger restriction on the people on Oklahoma; I don’t think that can be debated.”

*****

When I talked to Representative Osborne, she didn’t dispute that SJR37 restricted EVERYONE who wanted to run an initiative petition. Is that is what conservatives are about? I thought Republicans wanted people more involved and engaged in their government? Passage of this proposal would erode the liberties of Oklahomans. Even if we have to defeat OEA and PETA resolutions every election cycle, at least the average citizen in Oklahoma still has an outside chance of occasionally getting something meaningful on the ballot. Don’t take that away from us. Please contact your State Representative today and tell them to vote NO on Senate Joint Resolution #37 when it comes to the House floor. SJR37 passed out of committee today by ONE VOTE!

Weekly Opinion EditorialOKLAHOMA NEEDS A SRAC COMMISSION!

by Steve Fair

Last week, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush spoke at the annual Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs Citizen Award’s dinner. Since leaving office Bush has been traveling the country pushing for education reform. He praised the proposed reforms that Governor Mary Fallin and the Oklahoma legislature are pushing.

*****

“Oklahoma has got it right in terms of comprehensive reforms,” Bush said. “If you put together a comprehensive strategy you can make the needle move. You can make a difference.” One of the proposals Bush mentioned is HB # 1456. Authored by State Representative Lee Denney, (R-Cushing) each of Oklahoma’s public schools would be given an annual grade of "A" to "F" based on student performance on state tests. Denney’s proposal passed the House on February 23rd with a vote of 65-32. It now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass and to be signed into law.

*****

"The new letter-grading system will provide a measurable, concrete way for parents to obtain a true apples-to-apples comparison between local schools." said Denney, who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee on education.

*****

Florida was the first state — and is still the only one — to grade schools. On a smaller scale, some individual districts, including New York City, have modeled parts of their school grading systems after Florida. Since Florida began grading schools in 1999, the percentage of schools receiving A’s and B’s has more than tripled from 21 percent to 79 percent. The proportion of D and F schools dropped from 28 percent to 7 percent. The improvement came even as the state continually raised the standards on which the grades would be based, affording the schools little time or resources to adapt.

*****

“Lots of people thought grading schools would hurt public education. Instead, students, parents, teachers and principals rose to the challenge and exceeded expectations,” Bush said. Florida has also improved their student’s reading ability- at least according to the results on the standardized test. Seventy percent of Florida fourth-graders were reading at grade level in 2007, compared with 53 percent in 1998.

*****

But some Florida teachers believe the improvement is all smoke and mirrors. “Teachers are told, ‘You’re an F and you have a year to improve,’ How did they improve? They taught to the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test),” said one unnamed Florida teacher. Officials insist there’s no way to teach to the test because questions are not known in advance.

*****

One thing Bush failed to mention is that Florida has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country. The dropout rate in Florida is ten percent points higher than the national average. That’s not to say that having teens graduate as functional illiterates is a better option, but throwing uneducated dropouts into society has an economic price. States with high dropout rates have higher costs in social programs, increased crime and incarceration rates.

*****

A major issue in public education is the lack of equity that many parents take in their child’s education. The reality is that many parents whose child can’t read don’t care. They are unengaged in their kid’s life. They could care less if the school gets an A or an F. . In reality, what would a concerned parent do when their school gets a failing grade- pull their child out of the school? Run up to the school and chew out the Superintendent? What good does that do? Giving out letter grades to Oklahoma schools is not a bad idea, but instead of trying to assess a school’s ability to teach memorization skills, the legislature should be working to fix the root problem in Oklahoma education. We have too many school districts and administrators!

*****

Oklahoma has more school districts than the state of Texas- 533 total. According to a statewide Sooner Poll conducted in January of 520 likely voters, just over 50 percent of those surveyed said Oklahoma has too many school districts. And while rural Oklahoma was not as supportive of consolidation as the urban areas, the numbers were not that much different. In the Oklahoma City metro area it was 57 percent and 53 percent in Tulsa, while the rest of the state was at 47 percent.

*****

Representative David Dank, (R-OKC) has a proposal that would allow smaller school district to share administrators. That’s a great idea, but the ‘layers’ of administration in larger districts should be addressed as well. These ‘layers’ are often unnecessary and more expensive to the taxpayer than a single administrator at a rural school.

*****

Oklahoma legislators should consider a School Realignment and Closure commission, like the military BRAC commission. Members could be appointed by the Governor and the legislature and given complete authority to realign and close school districts. There is no doubt the process would be controversial and emotional, but if Oklahoma wants to really reform education, it will not just give meaningless letter grades to schools who are already struggling to pay their bills.