Anti-Positivist

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the last refuge of political and economic opportunists.

- Ernest Hemingway

FREEDOM WATCH is information pertaining to government abuse of power, trashing of the Constitution, illegal immigration, 2nd Amendment, political correctness run amok, etc.
It is FREE and sent to you via E-mail.
To subscribe send an e-mail to: FreedomWatch-subscribe@topica.com

FREEDOM WATCH
http://fwatch.blogspot.com/

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:27 PM 0 comments links to this post

Police Take an Indiana Man's Money and Keep It

Reason magazine's Radley Balko writes, "The Indiana case of Anthony Smelley illustrates just how perverse forfeiture proceedings can get. Early on a morning in January 2009, Smelley, who is 22, was pulled over while driving along I-70 in Putnam County, Indiana. Months earlier, he'd been in a car accident and won a $50,000 settlement. He states in court documents that he had taken around $17,500 with him that January day en route from his home in Detroit to St. Louis, to buy a new car for his aunt. Smelley was pulled over for making an unsafe lane change and driving with an obscured license plate. He was also driving with an expired driver's license. His traffic stop should have ended with citations for those infractions. Instead, the police officer asked Smelley to get out of the car and patted him down, finding the cash. The officer then called in a K-9 unit for a sniff search of Smelley's car for drugs. The dog alerted twice. Smelley and two passengers were arrested, and the police seized Smelley's money. A subsequent hand search of Smelley's car turned up no illicit drugs, and no criminal charges were ever filed against Smelley or his passengers. Smelley produced a letter from a Detroit law firm confirming he had been awarded the $50,000 from the accident. That didn't matter. Putnam County has since held Smelley's money for more than a year."

Balko: Police and Prosecutors Won't Give Up Their License to Steal

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 12:39 AM 0 comments links to this post

“Spitzer told me he was a township trustee and I worked for him so I would regret this,” the deputy said in the report. The deputy ultimately arrested Spitzer on an obstructing official business charge after Spitzer admitted to knowing the woman. The deputy said the charge was for hindering his investigation. The woman was allowed to leave and was not charged with a crime.

The deputy further reported that Spitzer told him he “didn’t know what he was getting himself into” and again that he would “regret this.”

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 10:03 PM 0 comments links to this post

Reached Tuesday, Olentangy School Board member Scott Galloway, who is also the county Republican Party’s executive committee chair, said he was “strongly considering” a run for the commissioner seat, and that he would make a final decision in the near future.

“I’m honored to have my name in consideration,” he said.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 9:50 PM 7 comments links to this post

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Nothing is so galling to people, not broken in from the birth, as a paternal, or, in other words a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read, and say, and eat, and drink, and wear.
— T.B. MacAulay, Southey's Colloquies [1830]

Monday, January 11, 2010

To the extent that a society limits its government to policing functions which curb the individuals who engage in aggressive and criminal actions, and conducts its economic affairs on the basis of free and willing exchange, to that extent domestic peace prevails. When a society departs from this norm, its governing class begins, in effect, to make war upon the rest of the nation. A situation is created in which everyone is victimized by everyone else under the fiction of each living at the expense of all.
— Edmund A. Opitz

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 9:21 AM 1 comments links to this post

My wife and I just celebrated the birth of a beautiful, brown-haired boy. During the night, as I was waiting for nature to run its course, I walked around observing the maternity unit of our chosen hospital.

Though this was our seventh trip there, as I ambled about, something caught my eye for the very first time. There next to the door to labor and delivery was a framed license -- an Ohio maternity license.

Wow, I thought. I hadn't even bothered to verify that the hospital was licensed by the state. What if it hadn't been? Caveat emptor, I suppose.

At home, with mother and child asleep, I looked up the licensing requirements. Upon review, it seems that I had been confused in the past. Where I once thought that the health care market (or pseudo market) provides for the wants of the patient, I now realize that the family waiting room and the amount of clear space was provided by Ohio law.

Thank goodness for the caring state. If those altruistic do-gooders hadn't regulated maternity units, "Immediately accessible examination lights" would be nowhere in sight.

And if this requirement wasn't law, hospitals would board the windows to the nursery, denying families the opportunity to observe their new additions sleeping away: "Observation windows to permit the viewing of newborns from public areas, workrooms and adjacent nursery rooms."

Of course, you can be certain that the laws and regulations were not drafted to harm or inconvenience major hospitals. They were drafted to price competition out of the market -- what little is left there.

So given that my hospital has a 24/7 Tim Horton's, it only a matter of time before "immediately accessible warm food" become the next requirement. Because we can't have expectant fathers eating from vending machines, can we?

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 10:29 PM 0 comments links to this post

Most mornings, as I begin my drive to the office, I turn to wave goodbye to my wife and two smiling cherubs, a wave punctuated by a few honks of the horn. A harmless way to start my day -- or so I thought.

I just found out that it is illegal to use a car horn for such frivolity, in Ohio anyway. According to The Columbus Dispatch, "Ohio law says that horns are to be used only to avoid danger, although police normally don't cite friendly beeps or the occasional frustrated fist to the wheel." Who knew this law existed? Or that it extends to private property, nonetheless?

While it is magnanimous that police rarely enforce this law, the law still exists, punishable by a $120 fine -- as one local woman recently discovered.

Having a full deck of little-known laws gives government an upper hand -- providing government with an arbitrary and capricious means to punish those whose actions annoy and offend its petty officials.

In addition, the reality that the state can trump reasonable, harmless actions with little-known laws adds uncertainty to our plans. So instead of investing and facing the whims of government, consuming current capital may become the rational course of action.

An arbitrary and capricious state is a hallmark of the developing (nondeveloping?) world. Is it our fate also?

When you meet me, know you are meeting a criminal -- a criminal who plans to continue his unlawful ways. It's the only right thing to do. The state and its petty officials be damned.

Note: In Ohio, it's also illegal to blow a whistle while riding a bicycle. I plan to do just that as soon as the weather warms. Meaningless disobedience to stoke the internal fires for liberty.

Classical Thinker --

I disagree:

1. It is a liberty issue. The law is silent on decibels. No aggression needs to occur. In a libertarian world, your fury has no legal standing unless you were aggressed. I am guilty for the action alone, which is true whether I lay on the horn in your neighborhood or give a slight toot where no one else is found. The whistle on a bike is another good example. Blow a whistle while riding in Ohio, no matter the time/place, and you broke Ohio law.

2. It is a free market issue. I was employed by the US Peace Corps in Jamaica. It was easy to see (on the surface) that there are many ways to profit through investment on the island. But, and this is big, there is no way to guarantee that you will not violate some regulation or law. And since the police and bureaucracy "enforce" regulations and laws in an arbitrary and capricious manner, a business plan would need to include a large percentage for bribes, fines, etc. The amount, of course, would not be known. So there was no way that I would ever invest there -- which explains why so little foreign investment occurs there (outside of that which is protected by US influence, bauxite as an example). This is the reason why Haiti is such a mess. If laws are known and applied consistently, entrepreneurs can add them to their business plan. But when laws are hidden and arbitrary and capricious, why invest at all.

I agree:

1. I am no market utopian. It could be that private roads would be plowed less than government roads due to market preferences. But the total service that I voluntarily purchase will be more efficient than what government supplies. It may be that I would rather save a few bucks and be inconvenienced during the occasional Ohio snowstorm.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:56 PM 2 comments links to this post

Why Ron Paul Voted Against Aid to Haiti (H.R. 1021)
Posted by David Kramer on January 21, 2010 09:32 PM
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti
January 21, 2010

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.

I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.

Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.

[Thanks to Travis Holte]

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 12:05 AM 0 comments links to this post

-- Jim

The Freeman Ideas On Liberty
http://www.thefreemanonline.org

Guess Who Paved the Road to Socialized Medicine

Posted By Sue A. Blevins • July 1998 • Vol. 48/Issue 7

Nearly one year ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the largest expansion of government health care since 1965, when Medicaid and Medicare were created. This new federally funded program, titled “State Children’s Health Insurance Program” (SCHIP), gives states the authority to enlarge government health insurance programs for children, including medical services in public schools. Congress estimates SCHIP will cost taxpayers $48 billion over ten years.

How ironic. When the Democrats controlled Congress in 1993, the Clinton administration was unable to pass its national plan for socialized medicine. Yet with Republicans in charge of Congress, the administration was able to implement its backup plan. According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), previously secret documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Health Care Task Force show that a “kids first” strategy which could be implemented through Medicaid was the backup option in case the larger plan failed. The AAPS is the doctor’s group that successfully sued the task force to make it release all its documents. The government was ordered to pay more than $285,000 to AAPS because of the White House and Justice Department’s cover-up of task-force information.

When you ask Republicans why they helped create a new government health-care program for children, they will say that it’s what the American people wanted. But that is not exactly honest. Republicans are quite aware that Americans don’t want socialized medicine—or any new entitlement program for that matter. Even public-opinion polls confirm that. In fact, a recent Harvard University survey found that while most Americans think that children have a right to health care, the majority believes that families are responsible for securing that right-not government. Only 20.6 percent of those polled would consider giving that responsibility to the federal government. (Respondents were asked, “Who, if anyone, do you think should be most responsible for paying to make sure that children get this right [to health care]?” Results were: parents, 52.4 percent; federal government, 20.6; state government, 9. 1; employers, 7.5; local government, 2.7; charities, 0.3; and other answers, 7.4 percent.)

Really, Why Did They Do It?
So why did the Republicans help create the largest federally funded health-entitlement program since 1965? It seems the Republicans merely caved into the Democrats’ savvy political strategy, which went something like this: Let’s propose a new government program for children and fund it with cigarette taxes. Then, if Republicans oppose “KidCare” we’ll charge that they don’t care about children and that the only reason they oppose it is because the Republicans get large sums of money from the tobacco industry. This was a brilliant political strategy. Yet the consequences of SCHIP will affect many, if not all, Americans.

One of the greatest dangers of SCHIP is that it will reduce the number of privately insured children. That is because SCHIP creates incentives for families and employers to drop private health insurance and instead take government subsidies for health care. The Congressional Budget Office expects that half of the participants in the new program will be families that give up private insurance. “That’s what happened when Medicaid opened in 1987 to pregnant women and their children with incomes 250% of the poverty level,” Robert Goldberg of George Washington University writes. “Between 1988 and 1995, the percentage of children covered by private insurance fell to 64% from 72%. At the same time, the percentage of children covered by Medicaid climbed to 23.1% from 15.5%. Studies show that at least threefourths of the shift was the result of parents dropping private coverage for themselves and their children. This new program will have the same effect.”

Another concern is that SCHIP could eventually become mandatory for all children, regardless of family income or need. That is what happened to the elderly. Consider that initially Medicare was established to help only poor elderly people, while the better-off were told they could keep their private health insurance. However, after Medicare was passed in 1965, the federal government garnered enough muscle to force private insurers to drop the nonpoor elderly, leaving them no alternative but to join Medicare. Moreover, the federal government has made it mandatory to enroll in Medicare Part A (which pays for hospital care) if you receive Social Security benefits. Given government’s track record, it is quite likely it could force children to participate in SCHIP. It is only a matter of time before we start seeing state laws that say, “Your child must join SCHIP or he can’t attend public school.”

SCHIP is also likely to lead to higher health-care costs. Again, one need only look to Medicare to see how that would happen. Medicare was created with the purported goal to help reduce the elderly’s out-of-pocket health-care expenses. However, their medical costs have increased dramatically since 1965. Medicare grew much faster than ever anticipated, and consequently, the elderly are now forced to pay higher deductibles and copayments. In terms of absolute dollars, their outof-pocket expenses were reduced by only $9 during Medicare’s first five years, from $234 to $225 per capita between 1966 and 1971. Since then, Medicare out-of-pocket costs (copayment and deductible amounts) have grown to $757 per beneficiary in 1995—about $26 billion total. Additionally, seniors pay millions out of pocket for non-covered services, such as prescription drugs. Clearly, Medicare did not meet its stated goal. It is unlikely that SCHIP can do so either.

A Dangerous Alliance
The greatest danger of SCHIP lies in its expansion of government health care in public schools. More than 30 states across the country are already in some stage of implementing KidCare in their public schools. Currently, public schools can provide health services under a Medicaid program titled “Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment” (EPSDT): Medicaid pays for any service to treat or prevent medical problems, including family planning, unclothed physical examinations, immunizations, and psychological counseling. Among the providers covered are physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and physical therapists. Since 1967, Medicaid has required states to offer EPSDT programs to all Medicaid-eligible children up to age 21. Then in 1989 Congress mandated that states increase the proportion of eligible children receiving those services from 30 percent to 80 percent by 1995. To reach more children, the states tamed to the public schools.

There is no doubt that increased EPSDT services will mean a loss of parental control. Some school districts provide screening services to all children, whether or not they are eligible for Medicaid. A report by the Center for the Study of Social Policy on how to create school-based Medicaid programs explicitly states that “School districts should not consider the EPSDT/Medicaid program if their philosophy is that it is the sole responsibility of parents to attend to the health care needs of children.”

Clearly, the program implies greater government control over children, coupled with the view of parents as potential child abusers. A case in point is a recent incident in Pennsylvania where a public-school physician gave genital exams to 59 sixth-grade girls without parental consent and over the strong objection of some of the girls. The physician claimed she was looking for sexually transmitted diseases and for signs of sexual abuse. The new children’s health-care program increases the likelihood that public schools will examine or treat children without parental consent.

Parents should also be concerned about the lack of privacy at school-based health centers. Once a program is established, children are subjected to intrusive psychological testing without parental consent. Schools can then share psychological information and records with private foundations and state agencies. With so many behavioral problems labeled as psychological disorders, one can only imagine the labels applied to some students. Also, the school-based Medicaid programs create per-verse economic incentives: the more children diagnosed with psychological disorders, the more money schools can obtain from Medicaid.

But the trouble with psychological examinations does not end with the child’s school days. The results, as subjective as they may be, are entered on the students’ permanent school records, which then can affect their career opportunities.

SCHIP will help expand school-based health centers. Consequently, we will see more psychological testing and group counseling in public schools across the country.

The Republicans won control of Congress by promising to reduce government. But once in charge, they got scolded for their attempts to cut the growth in Medicare spending. One would think they would have learned a good lesson from that experience: it is almost impossible to roll back entitlement programs once they’re created, especially health-care entitlements. Yet instead of learning that lesson, Republicans helped create the largest health-care entitlement in 30 years. Thus, it is fair to say that the Republican-led Congress paved the road to socialized medicine.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:18 PM 2 comments links to this post

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the freedom of the press. Taken literally, of course, there's no such prohibition on the executive branch. Thus, it's apparently okay for the Justice Department to directly control the operations of newspapers.

As I discussed last year, the DOJ's Antitrust Division has been trying to dissolve a joint operating agreement between the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette. The DOJ said it was dissatisfied with the editorial quality of the Mail under the agreement. After nearly three years of litigation, the newspapers surrendered and will sign a new series of operating agreements at gunpoint.

That's not an exaggeration. The DOJ's proposed order expressly states the newspapers "shall enter into, and abide by the terms of, the Amended and Restated" joint operating agreement. The new agreement cannot be modified or terminated without the DOJ's written permission.

The DOJ order further states that, "The publication of the Charleston Daily Mail as a Daily Newspaper shall not be terminated unless it is a Failing Firm and the United States has given prior written approval." Even if the paper fails, the DOJ order also dictates how the Mail's assets must be disposed.

Finally, the DOJ order mandates a 50% discount for new subscriptions to the Daily Mail and prohibits the Gazette from matching any such discount.

So let's recap: The United States Government has forced two "independent" newspapers to sign a contract governing their business and editorial operations, prohibits one newspaper from ceasing to publish daily, and fixes subscription prices for both newspapers. All to protect "competition."

The DOJ order is still subject to a comment period and judicial review, but history suggests neither of these things will stand in the Antitrust Division's path. (And just to be clear, this is coming from DOJ bureaucrats, not the political leadership; this case started in the Bush administration, and there's been no significant policy change under the current regime.)

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:11 PM 2 comments links to this post

Editor:

In his article, "Everyone should be behind Third Frontier," Bruce Johnson proves that folks who spend their lives in government are out of touch with the real world.

Johnson claims the previous Third Frontier funds produced "nearly a 10-to-1 return on taxpayers' investment." Using private sector terminology when referring to government action is nonsensical. If I took Johnson for his word, I would be expecting my $1500 dividend check in the mail. But we all know no check is coming.

When Johnson and his ilk gleefully spend my money on their pet projects, the only ones benefiting are Johnson and ilk, plus the recipients of my hard earned money.

Jim Fedako

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 10:49 AM 1 comments links to this post

Many folks in Haiti have suffered a terrible disaster. And as they dig out of the rubble, bury their dead, tend to the injured and sick, and try to build a future out of what was spared by the earthquake, the readers of this blog should consider our appropriate individual responses.

First: Those folks need our charity. Consider finding a suitable private organization and give, if only a little. Rest assured that charity and liberty go together. And realizing a psychic profit through helping others does add value to your world.

Second: Do not count aid coming from the US government as a gift on your part. That money was thieved from your neighbors. And like all ill-gotten gain, most of it will end up in the hands of evil - the very same folks who have impoverished Haiti for decades.

Third: Remember that government aid is not charity. And even when that aid does provide for a short-term need, it comes with a yoke of suffering; a yoke that will last for years. While private organizations usually ask for nothing in return, government aid comes with a hefty burden - it entrenches the existing kleptocracy and enforces the ideology of theft.

Fourth: The recipients of private charity tend to recognize that such aid is the result of sacrifice on part of the donor - it is appreciated. It's understood that this kind of aid is for the short term only. Government aid, on the other hand, is received with a frown - it is not appreciated, as the recipients expect more and believe the aid will never end, with dependency the result.

Finally: If direct aid is not your thing, work toward liberating Haiti with whatever vigor you can muster. The long-term goal must be the end to the evil state in Haiti, with prosperity arriving soon after the state departs. Any effort that accelerates that change will reduce future suffering.

But until that time, and with many folks suffering, it is charity, through private organizations, that will help those in desperate need.

Note: I was employed by the US Peace Corps in Jamaica and have seen firsthand the results of government and private aid. Private aid is not perfect, but it is not the evil that is government aid.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 5:18 PM 1 comments links to this post

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

-- Thomas Jefferson

**********************

"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when the baby gets hold of a hammer. It's just a question of how much damage he can do with it before you take it away from him."

- Will Rogers

FREEDOM WATCH is information pertaining to government abuse of power, trashing of the Constitution, illegal immigration, 2nd Amendment, political correctness run amok, etc.
It is FREE and sent to you via E-mail.
To subscribe send an e-mail to: FreedomWatch-subscribe@topica.com

FREEDOM WATCH
http://fwatch.blogspot.com/

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 9:31 PM 0 comments links to this post

As a matter of fact, modern agricultural nationalism has this in common with other aspects of contemporary economic policy that, far from being a rationally planned system well thought out in detail, it is an agglomeration of improvisations and hit-or-miss emergency measures, which ends by coalescing into something more consistent that ambitious governments can easily represent as the result of a preconceived plan.

With those words, Wilhelm Röpke unveils the truth behind every instance of spin that claims government planning has succeeded in the past. Yet, only sentences later, he makes peace with planning in agriculture.

International Economic Disintegration is a challenge for those looking for a solid stance on liberty. But it is an important book nonetheless.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:53 PM 0 comments links to this post

Note: If your blood doesn't boil reading Wade-O's belittling nonsense, you deserve his derision.

* OLSD SEEKS COMMUNITY INPUT FOR NEW SCHOOL COLORS SELECTION
Olentangy Local Schools is once again asking for community input regarding decisions for one of the district’s new schools. During the 2011-12 school year, the district is scheduled to open its fifth middle school, Olentangy Berkshire Middle School (OBMS). While the name and mascot (Sentinels) were already selected based on previous community participation, the district is currently seeking input regarding the color selection for the school.

“I believe that the schools belong to the community,” said Olentangy Superintendent Wade Lucas, Ed.D. “As such community members should be involved in these types of important decisions.”

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 10:30 PM 3 comments links to this post

This little video is beginning to appear more often on the DVDs I rent. The non sequitur is glaring.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:09 PM 0 comments links to this post

Where good old-fashioned debate still rules school
By Ben Fischer • bfischer@enquirer.com
January 2, 2010


Sports fan and Shroder Paideia High School senior Brandon Ross thought departed Cincinnati Bearcats football coach Brian Kelly was a disloyal turncoat before a Dec. 16 class with teacher Chad Flaig.

Then, with the desks arranged in a circle, Flaig asked tough questions: What does loyalty require? Can you be loyal to only one group at a time? What about loyalty to yourself? Is it possible that loyalty to his players led Kelly to downplay the Notre Dame job until after the crucial Pittsburgh game, avoiding distractions? Or does being loyal require absolute honesty at all times?

The teens didn't have all the answers.

But they debated Kelly's departure for the entire class, moderating their opinions when Flaig made a good point and pushing back when they disagreed.

Afterward, Ross wasn't so sure.

"At first I thought he was just turning his back on the team," Ross said. "But then I realized this was a dream job and to ask him to give it up would have been selfish."

Such is life in one of Cincinnati's public "paideia" schools, where the Socratic method, long discussions and classical debate still rule, even as the rest of American public education has taken a sharp turn toward content-based, fact-heavy learning focused on standardized tests.

Paideia teaching, like Cincinnati's better-known alternative teaching method, Montessori, aims to focus the learning process on children themselves. But other than that, the similarities are limited.

Born out of philosopher Mortimer Adler's 1982 book "The Paideia Proposal," the method hopes to restore "classical" education to public schools by teaching children critical thinking, debating and synthesizing information. Ideally, it includes foreign language and fine arts as part of the regular school day, but those features haven't survived budget cuts in many schools.

Cincinnati is a rare holdout in keeping its paideia programming, said Terry Roberts, director of the National Paideia Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. Chicago and Chattanooga, Tenn., are the only other school districts in the United States to still provide paideia education from kindergarten through 12th grade. Elements of paideia instruction, such as Socratic dialogue, are informally used in many schools, he said, but not as a formal curriculum focus.

Other than that, its popularity has declined for more than a decade, he said. For starters, it's expensive to keep fine arts and languages as part of the regular curriculum, as opposed to electives.

In addition, Roberts said, paideia is at odds with the modern era of high-stakes standardized testing.

The Socratic method and heavy emphasis on verbal exchanges between teachers and students is not an efficient way to guide students to passing scores on the all-important Ohio Achievement and Ohio Graduation Tests - the basic standard of measurement for school quality under No Child Left Behind Act, he said.

"Many times that's viewed as 'slow learning,' if you will," Roberts said. "To be honest, I think they're right. But not only is it slow, it's much more long-lasting."

The program came to Cincinnati in the late 1980s when a group of Kennedy Heights residents asked for it to be installed at Shroder, then at a junior high. The neighborhood wanted to create a new kind of magnet school to draw white students back to the school, said retired CPS administrator John Clark, who still trains teachers in the paideia method at Xavier University.

In a paideia school, no more than 10 percent of all instructional time should be spent in a traditional lecture mode. Most of the time, teachers should be "coaching" students with a pattern of difficult questions, guiding them to the correct answer or a new revelation.

Finally, the seminars, such as the one Flaig conducted on Kelly, develop children's critical thinking and verbal skills.

"That's one of the things as a teacher in seminar, you are not the information provider," said Flaig, who's taught at Shroder since 1987, just as paideia was gaining a foothold."You are just kind of the guide, and sometimes they'll go down a different path. You just kind of go with it, and the big thing is to make them think and get them out of their comfort zone."

Unlike Montessori, it's highly structured - all students take the same classes - and Shroder Principal Yenetta Harper emphasizes that the school is a community of learners all working together.

Margaret Peyton, a Kennedy Heights resident who led the paideia charge two decades ago, mourns the gradual erosion of the method in CPS. No longer do the schools have coaches - licensed teachers who help with student coaching, but aren't assigned to a particular class - and languages and fine arts have come and gone as the budget allows.

"It was a wonderful program," said Peyton. "But the way it worked out, they eliminated so many parts of it until it's almost not the paideia we originally initiated."

Judged by the scores on the state standardized tests, CPS' four full-fledged paideia schools are only middle-of-the-pack academically. As a group, they are close to the CPS average.

Program defenders say paideia learning will come back into vogue, as the current mode of content-based standardized tests gives way to the so-called 21st century skills advocated by some educators, which include critical thinking, teamwork and creativity.

In the meantime, Harper and Flaig will continue to teach the paideia method. Even in the hallway or at basketball games, that means "because" isn't a reason and you can't just "feel" something.

"You don't 'feel' here," Harper said. "If you have an opinion, or a feeling, you must have some reason and fact behind it."

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:23 PM 2 comments links to this post

Friday, December 18, 2009

Money does not pay for anything, never has, never will. It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with good and services.
— Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man [1943]

Saturday, December 26, 2009

It is impossible to be charitable with someone else's money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that's not charity, that's welfare. When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that's not charity, that's theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can't or won't care for themselves, that's not charity, that's slavery. That's why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.
— Andrew P. Napolitano, “What Is a Right?” [December 19, 2009]

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:20 PM 0 comments links to this post

Rescinded county contract has yearlong fallout

Thursday, December 31, 2009

ANDREW TOBIAS
Staff Writer

The appointment of former county auditor Todd Hanks in mid-January of this year marked a bonafide rarity in Ohio government: three new county commissioners.

The new Delaware County commissioners began the year on good terms, making good on campaign promises such as getting the ball rolling on better utilizing space in the county’s administrative building, finishing the county jail’s second floor and resuming Internet streaming of commissioners sessions.

However, as the year comes to an end, the commissioners remain in a stalemate over commissioner Tommy Thompson’s effort to institute a state-run conflict resolution program to address interpersonal problems that have emerged.

Commissioner Ken O’Brien said he does not think the program would help, and would be a waste of tax-funded resources. Thompson and Hanks, who often vote opposite of O’Brien, have expressed frustration that O’Brien is holding the process up.

The commissioners disagreed on some issues over the course of the year, but none proved to be as divisive as Thompson and Hanks’ attempt to award a $3.13 million contract to a newly-formed consulting company to convert septic waste into energy.

On June 18, the two nearly voted to approve the no-bid contract at the end of a commissioners session following a lengthy closed-door executive session. However, they decided to delay a vote after O’Brien loudly protested the vote had not been advertised to the public ahead of time. He also said he had not seen the contract until an hour before the meeting — commissioners had only discussed the topic once before in another closed-door executive session, he said.

Following an unruly four-hour June 22 meeting where several members of the public spoke, Hanks and Thompson approved the contract, even though county auditor George Kaitsa said the county didn’t have the money to pay for it, and county prosecutor Dave Yost recommended against it.

Officials with Dublin-based ST eGE said a waste-to-energy facility could generate $100 million in annual revenues for the county and create thousands of jobs.

However, following a meeting with Yost, Hanks changed his mind and on June 26 reversed his vote. Although he vowed he would continue to try to get the project to work, he later abandoned his efforts due to what he said was public opposition.

O’Brien, concerned Thompson and Hanks had kept him out of the loop over the waste-to-energy project leading up to the initial vote, subsequently requested all e-mails between the commissioners and the prosecutor’s office. A county resident who managed O’Brien’s campaign also requested records pertaining to the project.

Subsequently, Hanks in August criticized O’Brien of leading a “witch hunt.”

Some time later, Thompson said a commissioner from another county approached him, having read some of the news coverage over the waste-to-energy project and the resulting fallout, and recommended a state-run dispute-resolution program.

On Oct. 19, Thompson and Hanks passed a resolution to utilize the mediation program, but O’Brien voted against it. He said at that meeting the only issue the board had was over the waste-to-energy project, which quickly devolved into an argument between him and Hanks.

On Nov. 25, the commissioners argued again publicly after O’Brien demanded that Thompson apologize for recent comments he had made to the Gazette.

Thompson had said in that article he had begun to lock his office door after hearing of an incident in which O’Brien entered the office of a county employee and searched his desk without permission. O’Brien said he was looking for a desk calendar to see when that employee would return.

As it stands, efforts to set up the conflict resolution are ongoing and a touchy subject any time it is brought up publicly. O’Brien has said he will not go forward with the program unless a specific public policy issue is identified as a topic of discussion.

Last week, Thompson suggested the commissioners discuss “communication and trust” with the mediator, but O’Brien remains skeptical. Thompson said he and Hanks were to move forward, but O’Brien was not.

O’Brien said he is not sure something intangible like “trust” can be addressed through a mediator.

“I was not going to commit to doing it because I didn’t want to waste taxpayer money on something that likely would not come to a resolution,” O’Brien told the Gazette last week.

But, he said if the state mediator contacts him and is able to show a meeting about “communication and trust” may be beneficial to county business, he would be more receptive.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:16 PM 2 comments links to this post

I just finished an enlightening phone call with my congressman's health policy advisor. I had called to give my opinion of an "official business" mailing I had just received ("official business" being the cover for a taxpayer-funded campaign flyer).

No matter how hard I tried, from the staffer's point of view, our debate was over which party has the best plan to lower healthcare costs. I repeatedly noted that her argument begs the question -- she assumes that government is the solution. Regardless of what I said, she wouldn't accept my insistence of a logical fallacy. And she kept coming back to her main premise: Healthcare is too expensive.

So I pulled that thread a bit.

I asked her to explain why healthcare is so expensive. "Many reasons," she replied.

"OK. Since you are the policy expert, give me the top reason," I prodded.

To this she responded, "The incidence of illnesses like type-2 diabetes is on the rise. We need to have people live healthier lives."

I walked her through what I thought was her logic: Since healthcare is too expensive, due to (inter alia) folks not taking care of themselves, government must step in (as there is no other means to lower costs) to manage costs and change lifestyles.

"That's right," she said without hesitation.

So there you have it. Assume that healthcare is too expensive and that government is the solution, and the next logical step is an increased nanny state.

"Just another crisis to feed the Leviathan," I thought.

I reminded the staffer that she is a Republican and that Republicans are supposed to be against government intrusions into personal matters (I do not believe that statement, but I like to hear the rhetorical gymnastics when the political class is confronted with their own hypocrisy).

She rewound back to the beginning, "But healthcare is too expensive."

It's coming. The folks in DC will be snooping in my pantry within 5 years, regardless the party. And it will be under cover of reducing healthcare costs.



Notes:

The reason I initially called was to discuss statements in the flyer where my congressman claims to support, among other things:

-- Permitting students to remain on their parent's policy through the age of 25
-- Continuing the fight against breast cancer by ensuring the availability of annual mammograms.
I asked, "Are there any current federal or state laws that prohibit students from being on their parent's policies or stop women from seeking mammograms?" The staffer couldn't name any.

I said, "Then are you permitting and ensuring? Or are you forcing?" Silence.

I then continued, "So, who is going to pay for these new regulations?"

She responded, "Well, they really don't cost anything. Consider 25-year-old students, they are likely very healthy. They'll improve the pool of insured. So there is no additional cost for keeping them on the policy."

"If that were the case, wouldn't insurance companies already be doing so in order to attract more business?" I added, feeling my head begin to spin.

"Yes. So, why not just make it law?" was the non sequitur.

That's when I realized that it was time for SpongeBob Squarepants -- a return to a reality that I can understand and enjoy.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 10:44 PM 1 comments links to this post

Commissioners disagree on conflict resolution

Thursday, December 24, 2009

By ANDREW TOBIAS
Staff Writer



Plans to bring in a state conflict resolution mediator will have to be dropped if commissioner Ken O’Brien doesn’t cooperate, commissioner Tommy Thompson said Wednesday.

Thompson is attempting to coordinate the mediation session, and he said he would like the commissioners to discuss “communication and trust,” but contends that O’Brien is not interested in participating.

Thompson and commissioner Todd Hanks in October voted to set up a meeting with a state conflict resolution agency. Without O’Brien’s involvement, Thompson said the commissioners may need to rescind the vote.

“It would be counterproductive to move forward without all three commissioners on board,” Thompson said.

O’Brien voted against the initial decision to bring in the mediator. He told the Gazette he is not necessarily opposed to mediation, but skeptical that a meeting could address something intangible like trust.

“I was not going to commit to doing it because I didn’t want to waste taxpayer money on something that likely would not come to a resolution,” he said.

The state-run program is sponsored by the County Commissioners Association of Ohio, and would not require any investment from the Delaware County government.

He has previously said he would only participate in the meetings if they were addressed toward a specific public policy issue. But, he said if the state mediator contacts him and is able to show a meeting about “communication and trust” may be beneficial to county business, he would be more receptive.

“I would like a concrete guide that she would recommend us follow if she thought there was something there,” O’Brien said.

Trust and communication have been an issue for the commissioners at times this year.

Since the passage and rescinding of a $3.13 million consulting contract over the summer, which O’Brien opposed and Thompson and Hanks initially supported, any discussion of the project has often turned heated.

O’Brien has stated he felt like the board had kept him out of the loop on that project, and subsequently requested every email sent between the commissioners and the prosecutor’s office. A county resident who ran O’Brien’s election campaign has also made numerous public records requests into the project and other topics, leading Hanks to accuse O’Brien of leading a “witch hunt.”

Thompson has also stated that he began locking his door in October after he heard about O’Brien searching a county employee’s desk when that employee was not present.

atobias@delgazette.com

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 9:39 PM 2 comments links to this post

Maybe it was the holiday spirit. Or maybe it was the impatient line of holiday shoppers anxiously waiting for me to finish paying the cashier. Regardless, I let an economic fallacy slide without comment.

As the cashier was totaling my bill, she asked if she could pack some of my goods in the plastic bag I was holding; a plastic bag that previously held an item I had returned upon entering the store.

"Certainly," I replied.

She then noted with a smile, "Great. I'll reduce your bill by a quarter. You are saving the environment, you know."

I'm certain my sweater could feel the hair on my neck rise. "Saving the environment?" I thought. But before I could respond, and begin a lesson in economics, the holiday spirit, or line of holiday shoppers growing and waiting, kept me quiet.

In a slower time of the year, I would have noted that I would soon spend the quarter she left in my wallet on an after-dinner mint at a local restaurant. You know what I'm talking about; one of those small, foil-wrapped chocolate mints conveniently placed at the cash register.

My reuse of a plastic bag at the store allowed me to purchase a conglomeration of chocolate, sugar, fat, and foil. So, in the end, was the environment really "saved?"

Were my actions the same as those envisioned by the cashier? Did she really mean for me to consume different resources - something other than plastic? Is that really the end sought by those in the environmentalist movement?

Conserving conserves nothing is an outrageous claim, but it is true nonetheless. Oh, sure, by reducing my consumption, I am conserving certain scarce resources - that is the seen. However, as Hazlett and Bastiat showed years ago, the seen never tells the whole story. And, many times, the story it does tell is simply not true.

To get to the truth of my claim, we have to scratch beyond the surface. So, let us begin our Hazlettian and Bastiatian journey from the seen toward the unseen, and a better understanding of the economics of conservation.

First, we must define conservation. [1] As commonly used today, conservation refers to actions that reduce the use of certain resources for the purpose of protecting the environment. So, in this view, I conserve when, for the sake of protecting the environment, I travel by bicycle instead of by car. It then follows that I am not conserving when I choose to ride my bike as a benefit in itself. For my actions to be considered conserving, I have to be acting with the environment in mind. Or so the current definition goes.

I can reduce my consumption of a certain resource in order to satisfy a number of ends. For example: I can reduce out of a belief that, by doing so, I am protecting the environment; I can reduce due to a change in my valuation or preferences; I can reduce in order to save for future use; or, I can reduce as a result of government interventions.

In all cases, the result is the same: nothing is conserved. [2]

Let's analyze the result of my supposed conservation effort at the store? As noted above, if I simply redirect my quarter to another purchase, I am not conserving the environment, so to speak. While it is true that I am reducing my use of certain resources, it is also true that my new purchase results in the increased use of other resources. The unseen negates the seen.

What if I had flipped the quarter into the trash can on the way out of the store? Or dropped it in a piggybank at home? In either case, the market would have read my action as a change in preference for money over other goods. The value of money would change ever so slightly and the resources that I left unused would be purchased by some other producer or consumer. My abstention would result in their consumption - and nothing would have been conserved (or, more correctly, some resources might be conserved, but at the expense of others).

What if government had taxed that quarter away? Well, the same applies as above. Government could have spent its ill-gotten gain on monuments to itself, using scarce resources in the process. Or it ccould have destroyed the quarter, and the value of money would have changed in the market. Again, nothing would be conserved.

So there is nothing about the reuse of the plastic bag and the reward of a quarter which causes a reduction in the use of scarce resources -- in the aggregate, of course. And this holds every time I reduce my consumption of some good. I either consume some other good or change my preference for money. But nothing gets conserved.

Are there other ways to reduce consumption of a scarce resource? Absolutely. If folks in the environmentalist movement want to conserve (say) oil, they can purchase oil fields with all of those quarters returned at the checkout line. And they can leave the oil in the ground for as long as they own the land.

Certainly, by doing so, they will conserve oil. Nevertheless, they must also recognize that oil left in the ground will likely be offset by an increased use of other resources, with nothing being conserved in the end.

You may think, "That's a sad tale. If there is no way to conserve, then we have no future."

Such an argument is pure question begging. What makes conservation - as currently defined - a necessary means to a future? And what is that future, anyway?

There is hope. A truly free market would efficiently and effectively utilize scarce resources - conserve - through time. A free market and requisite property rights are the solution. They are our only hope, our only means to a brighter future.

I suggest that environmentalists redirect their efforts from so-called conservation to efforts that strengthen property rights and build freer markets. By doing so, they will be able to rest more easily knowing that the market will conserve resources efficiently and effectively. And then their means will be the same as our means, all leading to an end desired by most of us: a better world for ourselves and our children.

Note:

1. I am only looking at conservation as used by environmentalists - the three R's of recycle, reduce, and reuse. I am not considering conservation as defined by conservationists -- protecting certain plants, species, and habitats. Of course, strong property rights can protect those as well.

2. It is true that under full-blown socialism, with vast numbers of starving men, women and children lying down in the fields awaiting a quick dust to dust ending, fewer resources would be used - conservation would occur. However, with the exception of all but a few of the most-ardent environmentalists, no one desires such a dystopian world.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 10:51 PM 3 comments links to this post

December 16, 2009
Federal Employees at the Trough
By Paul B. Matthews

Last week, USA Today reported that nearly one in five federal government employees now earn over $100,000. The paper also reported the average federal salary rose to $71,260, almost $31,000 more than the comparative average private-sector wage.

Within the Department of Defense, over 10,000 employees (as of June 2009) now earn at least $150,000 per year, a 5½-fold increase in the number of employees eclipsing this salary threshold from just eighteen months ago.

continue reading

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 10:10 PM 10 comments links to this post

Scrooge Defended
Mises Daily: Monday, December 14, 1998 by Michael Levin

It's Christmas again, time to celebrate the transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge. You know the ritual: boo the curmudgeon initially encountered in Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, then cheer the sweetie pie he becomes in the end. It's too bad no one notices that the curmudgeon had a point—quite a few points, in fact.

To appreciate them, it is necessary first to distinguish Scrooge's outlook on life from his disagreeable persona. He is said to have a pointed nose and a harsh voice, but not all hardheaded businessmen are so lamentably endowed, nor are their feckless nephews (remember Fred?) alwavs "ruddy and handsome," and possessed of pretty wives. These touches of the storyteller's art only bias the issue.

So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

No doubt Cratchit needs—i.e., wants—more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment?

As for that one lump of coal Scrooge allows him, it bears emphasis that Cratchit has not been chained to his chilly desk. If he stays there, he shows by his behavior that he prefers his present wages-plus-comfort package to any other he has found, or supposes himself likely to find. Actions speak louder than grumbling, and the reader can hardly complain about what Cratchit evidently finds satisfactory.

More notorious even than his miserly ways are Scrooge's cynical words. "Are there no prisons," he jibes when solicited for charity, "and the Union workhouses?"

Terrible, right? Lacking in compassion?

Not necessarily. As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can't or won't help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort.

Scrooge is skeptical that many would prefer death to the workhouse, and he is unmoved by talk of the workhouse's cheerlessness. He is right to be unmoved, for society's provisions for the poor must be, well, Dickensian. The more pleasant the alternatives to gainful employment, the greater will be the number of people who seek these alternatives, and the fewer there will be who engage in productive labor. If society expects anyone to work, work had better be a lot more attractive than idleness.

The normally taciturn Scrooge lets himself go a bit when Cratchit hints that he would like a paid Christmas holiday. "It's not fair," Scrooge objects, a charge not met by Cratchet's patently irrelevant protest that Christmas comes but once a year. Unfair it is, for Cratchit would doubtless object to a request for a day's uncompensated labor, "and yet," as Scrooge shrewdly points out, "you don't think me ill used when I pay a day's wages for no work."

Cratchit has apparently forgotten the golden rule. (Or is it that Scrooge has so much more than Cratchit that the golden rule does not come into play? But Scrooge doesn't think he has that much, and shouldn't he have a say in the matter?)

Scrooge's first employer, good old Fezziwig, was a lot freer with a guinea—he throws his employees a Christmas party. What the Ghost of Christmas Past does not explain is how Fezziwig afforded it. Did he attempt to pass the added costs to his customers? Or did young Scrooge pay for it anyway by working for marginally lower wages?

The biggest of the Big Lies about Scrooge is the pointlessness of his pursuit of money. "Wealth is of no use to him. He doesn't do any good with it," opines ruddy nephew Fred.

Wrong on both counts. Scrooge apparently lends money, and to discover the good he does one need only inquire of the borrowers. Here is a homeowner with a new roof, and there a merchant able to finance a shipment of tea, bringing profit to himself and happiness to tea drinkers, all thanks to Scrooge.

Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich.

Scrooge is said to hound debtors so relentlessly that—as the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Be is able to show him—an indebted couple rejoices at his demise. The mere delay while their debt is transferred will avert the ruin Scrooge would have imposed.

This canard is triply absurd. First, a businessman as keen as Scrooge would prefer to delay payment to protect his investment rather than take possession of possibly useless collateral. (No bank wants developers to fail and leave it the proud possessor of a half-built shopping mall.) Second, the fretful couple knew and agreed to the terms on which Scrooge insisted. By reneging on the deal, they are effectively engaged in theft. Third, most important, and completely overlooked by Ghost and by Dickens, there are hopefuls whose own plans turn on borrowing the money returned to Scrooge from his old accounts. Scrooge can't relend what Caroline and her unnamed husband don't pay up, and he won't make a penny unless he puts the money to use after he gets it back.

The hard case, of course, is a payment due from Bob Cratchit, who needs the money for an emergency operation on Tiny Tim. (Here I depart from the text, but Dickens characters are so familiar to us they can be pressed into unfamiliar roles.) If you think it is heartless of Scrooge to demand payment, think of Sickly Sid, who needs an operation even more urgently than Tim does, and whose father is waiting to finance that operation by borrowing the money Cratchit is expected to pay up.

Is Tim's life more valuable than Sid's just because we've met him? And how do we explain to Sid's father that his son won't be able to have the operation after all, because Scrooge, as Christmas generosity, is allowing Cratchit to reschedule his debt? Scrooge does not circulate money from altruism, to be sure, but his motives, whatever they are, are congruent with the public good.

But what about those motives? Scrooge doesn't seem to get much satisfaction from the services he may inadvertently perform, and that seems to be part of Dickens's point. But who, apart from Dickens, says that Scrooge is not enjoying himself? He spends all his time at his business, likes to count his money, and has no outside interests.

At the same time, Scrooge is not given to brooding and shows absolutely no sign of depression or conflict. Whether he wished to or not, Dickens has made Scrooge by far the most intelligent character in his fable, and Dickens credits his creation with having nothing "fancy" about him. So we conclude that, in his undemonstrative way, Scrooge is productive and satisfied with his lot, which is to say happy.

There can be no arguing with Dickens's wish to show the spiritual advantages of love. But there was no need to make the object of his lesson an entrepreneur whose ideas and practices benefit his employees, society at large, and himself. Must such a man expect no fairer a fate than to die scorned and alone? Bah, I say. Humbug.

* * * * *

Michael Levin is professor of philosophy at the City University of New York.

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 11:07 PM 2 comments links to this post

Fiscal officer pleads not guilty to obstruction
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
ANDREW TOBIAS
Staff Writer

Orange Township Fiscal Officer and Olentangy schools employee Joel Spitzer has been charged with a misdemeanor count of obstructing official business following an early morning Dec. 6 arrest outside the Orange Township Hall.

An attorney for Spitzer, 34, entered a not guilty plea Monday morning in Delaware Municipal Court.

A Delaware County sheriff’s deputy wrote in a sworn court document that Spitzer “made false statements to me during an investigation at the Orange Township Hall.” Those statements hampered the investigation resulting in the charges, according to the document.

A citation filed in court indicates the deputy encountered Spitzer at 2:33 a.m. on Dec. 6 at Orange Township Hall and arrested him on suspicion of DUI. The deputy detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage and said he suspected Spitzer was trespassing, according to the citation.

Spitzer was taken to the Delaware County Jail, where he voluntarily took a breath test at 3:35 a.m. The test registered a .044 blood alcohol content, which is under Ohio’s legal limit of .08, according to the citation.

Spitzer’s car was towed, according to the citation.

The deputy’s incident report includes few additional details on what is alleged to have happened. The sheriff’s office declined to release more information on the charges, saying the case was ongoing.

Spitzer did not appear in court Monday. Reached by phone, he said he is continuing his duties as township fiscal officer. However, he refused to comment on the case and referred questions to his attorney.

Defense attorney Jeff Burkam also declined to comment, except to say: “My client maintains that he’s not guilty of anything.”

A court hearing in the case has yet to be set, although Burkam said one may be scheduled within the next week.

Spitzer has been Orange Township’s fiscal officer since April 2008, having been elected the previous November. Spitzer is also the dean of students at Olentangy Orange High School, where he continues to work. Olentangy spokeswoman Amanda Morris said the district is aware of the arrest and has referred the matter to a state disciplinary board.

“We have taken that step (of reporting the incident), but there’s really nothing more that we can do or are planning to do at this point in time,” she said.

Orange Township Trustee John Cassady said Monday he was aware of the court proceedings against Spitzer, but had no personal knowledge about what allegedly happened. Cassady said he hadn’t spoken to Spitzer since the incident, and had only seen him once in passing.

Cassady said Spitzer had not attended two township trustee meetings — a regularly scheduled meeting held on Dec. 7 and an emergency meeting held Monday — that have occurred since Spitzer’s Dec. 6 arrest.

“It’s obviously disconcerting when your fiscal officer doesn’t attend the trustee meetings,” Cassady said.

However, he said the township is continuing to operate smoothly on a day-to-day basis.

The next Orange Township trustee meeting is scheduled this Thursday, Dec. 17 at 8 a.m. in which trustees will discuss the 2010 budget.

Spitzer is the former treasurer of the Delaware County Republican Party, although he resigned earlier this year. He is also a member of the Delaware County Republican Party central committee.

atobias@delgazette.com

# posted by Jim Fedako @ 9:46 PM 5 comments links to this post