Category Archives: Local Politics

Federal Politics, Local Politics, State Politics

A Closer Look At Big Money And Education

Let’s take a closer look at big money, which seems to be permeating every facet of our lives as Americans, and the education of our children.  Somewhere between the mid-70s and mid-80s, big money burst upon the scene and took a chokehold upon how we go about educating our children.

It does not matter if its intention was to assure that all children regardless of their economic status received a quality education or if its ulterior motive was really just money if it achieved that desperately sought-after and seemingly cunningly-elusive thing called a ‘quality education for all children;’ but upon until this time, it hasn’t.  I happen to be one of those who believe that there is an ulterior motive and that ulterior motive is without a doubt money.

Big money has always been more interested in its bottom line than anything else and it appears that this is still the case.  It has long been said that if you want to find the answer to questions that you may have, especially when money and/or power is involved, follow the money.  The direction that the education of our children has taken is no exception to that rule.

This does not necessarily mean that all of those who have advocated for programs like the Edison Project, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race To The Top (RTTT) are all about the money but we must also accept the fact that money was and remains the driving force for big money contributors who are strong supporters of the current direction in which the education of America’s children is headed.

In January 2013, I wrote an article that was published in the Denver Post under ‘Quality teaching in DPS vs. tenure rights’, which was entitled ‘Quality Teaching Is More Than Test Scores.’  I recently read an article in Salon by Susan Engel entitled ‘We’re teaching our kids wrong: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do not have the answers.’  If I could write an article that would virtually perfectly summarize my thoughts on what is happening with the education of our children, why we should be concerned about it and why we should band together in every local community to do something about it at the grassroots level, it would be a carbon copy of this article by Ms. Engel.

Ms. Engel’s article does not condemn those who support those who are taking the education of our children in its current direction and those who were or remain advocates of this approach to educating them, instead, she points out why this may not be the right direction and also points out reasons as to why we should reconsider this approach and possibly change it.

There was a time back in the 1990s when I was a board member of an organization called Citizens for Quality Schools (CQS).  I believe that this organization had the best interest of Denver K-12 students in mind but, at the time, it was in favor of and pushing for charter schools.  They believed that charter schools would not only give parents greater choice as to which school they would like to send their children to but that charter schools would also be an avenue to improving the quality of education that these students would receive.

Although I was not a proponent of charter schools – because of other elements that CQS espoused like Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) Committees and School Improvement Accountability Committees (SIAC), I felt that CQS truly did have the best interest of Denver K-12 students at heart.  This gave me hope that we would eventually find the best possible solution for all stakeholders.  Now we are in year 2015 and, unfortunately – thus far, big money has continued to prevail.

For a long time now, big money has had its way with respect to how America’s children will be educated and we still have not regained our standing as number one among the nations in the field of Education.  If the current road is not the right one that we should be traveling to provide all children with a top-quality education then we should find the right road now and get on it.

An education that is second to none for all children is extremely important not only to all parents but to America as well if we are to effectively compete on the world stage.  Therefore, I encourage all of those who read this article to click on the above link to Ms. Engel’s article in Salon.  I am sure that you will find that reading it will be worth your time and that it will be a thought-provoking article no matter which side of this education issue that you support.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, Local Politics, State Politics

The ‘Scandal’ episode on 3/5/2015 made me think ‘Ferguson’

I don’t know how many of you follow the television series ‘Scandal’ on ABC but those of you who do follow it – if you also follow politics, will understand why I say that it reminds me of the current situation in Ferguson, Missouri.  As you might know, the U.S. Department of justice (DOJ) recently released a scathing report on that city and its police department.  As a result of the DOJ’s report, Ferguson is trying to negotiate a settlement with the federal government.

Living Between The Line: watch the video then read the book.
Living Between The Line: watch the video then read the book.

It would not be fair if I did not mention that many Ferguson officials disagree with some parts of this report.  They say that some parts of the report’s findings are “a stretch” by the DOJ and they will not agree to a settlement if the two sides cannot come to an agreement to resolve their differences on this.

Living Between the Line Book Video

But whether or not a settlement can be negotiated is an aside as to why I mentioned the Scandal television series.  I hope that by revealing what I am about to reveal I won’t spoil this episode for those of you who may not have yet watched it.  Having said that; here goes: the policeman in this episode that shot and killed a young Black man and then planted false evidence on him got angry when he was confronted about it by the series star, Olivia Pope, who had been hired to represent the police.  After he became angry he blurted out; and I paraphrase:

For seven years I have kissed my wife and kids good bye and gone deep into these neighborhoods to protect you people and you don’t appreciate it!  The kid that I shot did not respect the badge: he did not respect me!  You don’t respect me! You were hired to represent us; whose side are you on?

I can imagine that this angered any policeman who might have watched this episode of Scandal.  To be honest, I can see why it would have angered them, especially those clean police officers.  It would have angered the dirty cops because they feel that they are the law and therefore can do whatever they choose to do.  And it would have angered the clean cops because they feel that – because of a few bad cops, everyone is painting cops with a broad brush by putting all of them in the same category.

Probably none of us needs to have ‘clean cop’ and ‘dirty cop defined for us.  We all have our idea of what this means.  So since there might be a number of interpretations of these terms out there, allow me to give you mine.

Many of us as civilians might refer to police officers as being good or bad officers.  Many of their fellow police officers refer to them as ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ depending on whether they are doing things within the boundaries of the law or outside of them.  As I think about it, I think that – like their fellow police officers, I would prefer to use the terms clean and dirty.

I think that the terms clean or dirty vs. good or bad can better identify these police officers because there are probably a lot of ‘good’ police officers who make bad decisions.  They do unlawful things in an effort to assure that someone is held accountable for a crime that they have obviously committed but are likely to avoid prosecution for due to things like evidence that, for legal reasons, is not allowed, because of some technicality or employing a highly-paid and highly-skilled lawyer.

Although their intensions might be virtuous, this does not justify what they are doing or make it any less wrong.  My thoughts are these cops are better identified as ‘dirty’ cops than as ‘bad’ cops because the term ‘dirty’ includes all cops who operate outside of the law whether their intentions are good or bad.

Because these cops taint the rest of the police department and destroy the fabric of trust that exists between the police and communities that they serve it is incumbent upon the ‘clean’ cops to help root out the ‘dirty’ ones from top to bottom.  This will not be easy to do because they are a close-knit group that trusts their very lives to one another every day while they are on the job.  To alienate follow officers even if for all of the right reasons is a great risk; but it is one that must be taken if dirty cops are to be effectively dealt with.

The best moniker for this kind of a cop would be “dumb cop.”  But because what they are doing is still wrong; just as wrong – although not as heinous – as a cop who kills an unarmed person and then plants evidence to prove otherwise, they are dirty.  And because they are dirty and just as guilty of breaking the law as the perpetrator that they are trying to get convicted, they must be held accountable.

As hard as this might be for fellow police officers and as much as it might hurt them, they absolutely must come to grips with the fact that this is how things must be if the police and the communities that they serve and protect are ever to again develop respect and trust of one another.  The pain that police officers endure and the pain that the communities that they serve and protect endure will be equally painful to accept; and perhaps this is the way that it should be: in fact, the way that it must be if either side is to be able to move forward and survive!

‘Clean’ cops have to step up and do the right thing.  They can no longer use the ‘blue code’ to protect cops that have broken the law whether they consider the crime they committed to be major or minor.  If they do this it will go a long way in expediting the coming together of the police and communities.

And to community members – especially young people of color, I say, this is not the responsibility of the police departments alone.  Yes, it has already been a long time and you are tired of hearing the same old refrain that ‘it will take time’, but you must also step up to your responsibility.  You, too, must endure the all but impossible to bear pain that it will take to reconcile these two diametrically opposed sides.  Youth leaders and other youth activists must take a courageous step and tell their fellow youth that the effort to reconcile is worth a try.

And finally, I say to our elected officials that you must also be courageous and step up.  You can no longer remain silent when problems like the one that recently occurred with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) arise and ignore them because it would not be politically smart to address them.  Problems like the NYPD problem are occurring in police departments throughout the country and they must be addressed and corrected.

This is not to suggest that police departments should be denied due process and the federal government should go in and force them into submission so that they all precisely fit the same mold.  What it means is that our elected officials must figure out some way to assure that under the law, to the greatest extent possible, there is equal justice for all.

Eulus Dennis

Local Politics

A Heads Up For Denver City Council District 11 Constituents

Many of us who live in Denver Public Schools (DPS) School Board District 4 that is now represented by DPS  school board member Landri Taylor do not have to think too far back to reflect on a time when we were thoroughly disappointed by someone that we elected to represent us.  That person wasn’t elected to represent us as a Denver City Council member; but do you remember Nate Easley?

Mr. Easley was elected to the Denver Public Schools school board to represent constituents in District 4 prior to being replaced by current board member Landri Taylor.  According to a blog posted by Jim Horn in Schools Matter in February of 2011 Horn said; “When Easley was campaigning to become the swing vote on the Denver Board of Education, he promised to sit down with parents to discuss the continuing corporate efforts to shut down and privatize Denver schools.  He lied.  Now a recall effort is underway.”

The effort to recall Nate Easley failed but I remember it well.  I live in the district that Mr. Easley represented and I recall how disappointed I felt when he voted in favor of Denver Public Schools Superintendent Tom Boasberg’s plan that would decimate many of the schools in our neighborhood.  Shortly after that time, Mr. Easley resigned and slithered away to the job that he likely coveted all along.  But I digress.  The point is that there is an election to the Denver City Council that is coming up in May of this year that will impact on Denver School Board District 4.

Denver School Board District 4 is a part of City Council District 11.  There are five candidates that are running for the District 11 seat.  Of those five candidates, as of February 27, 2015, only three have submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.  The three that qualify are Tim Camarillo, Stacie Gilmore, and Tea Schook.  The remaining two candidates, Sean Bradley and Shelli Brown, had not yet submitted enough valid signatures to qualify.

Although Christopher Herndon is the current incumbent holding the District 11 City Council seat, with the new boundaries that will take effect on July 20th this year, he is running unopposed in District 8.  Because the new boundaries will not become effective until July, which obviously is after the May elections, there has been and remains some confusion as to which boundaries voters will be voting under.

Under the circumstances, voters should make sure to check the new boundaries and be sure they understand which boundaries they are voting under before they cast their ballots.  Hopefully the Office Of The Clerk And Recorder Elections Division will clear up any confusion in plenty of time before the May elections.

After I reviewed the available information on the three eligible candidates’ backgrounds and skills, I am satisfied that they are qualified for the position.  I recommend that all voters in City Council District 11 take the time to review the backgrounds and skills of all of these candidates’ and those of anyone else that becomes eligible for the ballot.

In this case, Stacie Gilmore, Tea Schook, and Tim Camarillo – in that order from my perspective, are very viable candidates.  All of them have good experience, which can be applied effectively to get the job done.  It will be interesting to have them together in the same setting while debating and possibly having each give their response to the same questions.

Obviously, Ms. Schook and Mr. Camarillo are politicians; and based on the investment they placed into securing their political tools, are likely ambitious politicians with aspirations to achieve higher heights.  Because they are politicians their behavior is, to a great degree, predictable.

With all due respect to Mr. Herndon and those who wish to replace him, voters must always remember that politicians will be politicians and – more often than not, most of them will be inclined to do the things that are in their own best interest first unless their feet are held to the fire.  While Ms. Gilmore is not a politician, if she wins, she will immediately be exposed to the power that a politician possesses and be subject to pursuit by those who desire to influence how she uses it; therefore, her feet will also need to be held to the fire.

So for those of us in District 11 – despite who we might decide to vote for, hopefully based on their overall qualifications and skills, let’s not waste their qualifications and skills but let’s always remember that, first and foremost, they are politicians.  Right now, we have one candidate who is not yet a politician but she must be held to this same standard should she win.  And knowing this, let’s always hold the feet of whomever is the ultimate victor to the fire whenever necessary and for as long as necessary to assure that they represent our best interest and not that of whatever will better advance their political aspirations.

There will be a number of forums coming up for these candidates to participate in before the upcoming election.  I intend to attend the one in my area on March 31st to see what each candidate has to say before I make my final decision as to who I will vote for.  I suggest and hope that you will attend one that is most convenient for you before you make your final decision as to who you will vote for.

With regard to all of the candidates in the race to fill the District 11 seat I say good luck.  Of course I would like to see the candidate that I will support win but the most important point that I want to emphasize is this: whether you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent; get registered and always vote.  And always remember, your vote is the most important one of all, unless you don’t use it!

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, Local Politics

Police Departments Throughout The Country Are Receiving Closer Scrutiny

Because of all of the brouhaha that is continuing to swirl around policing of the citizenry around the country, something that recently happened that involves the Denver Police Department caught my attention.  What happened was that Denver Police Chief Robert White called for his police officers to stand down when protesters defaced the Denver Police Departments Fallen Officer Memorial in front of the main police building located at 1331 Cherokee Street in Downtown Denver.

Although those responsible were later arrested and charged with a felony, this did not set well with many of these police officers and they made it known by calling for Chief White’s resignation.  According to KUSA in Denver, the head of the police union spoke about the incident: “We will no longer follow him as we move forward” said Nick Rogers, president of the Police Protective Association.  “He is not our chief.”

If these words sound eerily familiar, it may be because the head of the police union in New York made a similar statement about Mayor Bill de Blasio when NYPD police officers were offended by a decision that he made.  Ultimately, some of them turned their backs on him when he appeared at public events.  This kind of behavior is counterproductive to solving problems and must stop.

Issues with the police and how they deal with the citizenry is not just an issue in Denver, Colorado but it is a national issue.  With the Erick Garner situation that occurred in New York and the Michael Brown situation that occurred in Missouri along with the problems that followed as a result of how those situations were handled, it is no wonder that the police chief in Denver would be extra sensitive when dealing with a potentially volatile situation.

The Denver Police Department has had problems in the past with lawsuits and claims of police brutality and it continues to have them now so Chief White likely did not want to call any unwanted attention to his Department.

And now, in light of articles in the Guardian covering allegations of the existence of a ‘black site’ run by the Chicago Police Department, it appears that Police Chief White might have been wise in his cautious approach and trying to deescalate and control the situation and prevent it from getting out of hand.  In this alleged ‘black site’ American citizens are allegedly virtually kidnapped, held prisoner and interrogated by Chicago police while being deprived of their constitutional rights before being formally taken into custody and getting booked.  If this proves to be true, there is something very scary and terribly wrong with this picture.

This is America and to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights is not who we are.  While one of the unions representing the largest police department in the country has cried foul and accused those of being police haters who say that police too often overstep their bounds and need to be subject to checks and balances like everyone else, visible instances of police brutality continue to occur.  What is allegedly happening in Chicago would be off the chart and can only be made worse if management is lying when they deny it.

All police departments have been under the microscope lately as a result of the Erick Garner and Michael Brown cases and others like them. Likely as a result of public pressure brought about by protesters, both James Comey – the head of the FBI, and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton recently spoke out on the problem that exists between the police and people of color.  Both said some things that were critical of the police that went far beyond anything that either Attorney General Erick Holder or Mayor Bill de Blasio had said and were praised for it.  When Attorney General Holder and Mayor de Blasio said those things, they were severely criticized.

It is my opinion that Attorney General Holder was criticized because he is Black and Mayor de Blasio was criticized because he is married to a Black woman and they have a biracial son.  The fact is that, although it should not, color does matter.  But in this case – if there is such a thing, it matters for what might prove to be a good reason.

If having a powerful White person echo the words of a powerful Black person, or someone who is considered to be too closely tied to a Black person, is what it takes to get opposing sides to listen then sit down and have a reasonable conversation to solve a problem that has to be solved then I am all for it.

I am glad that FBI Director Comey and Commissioner Bratton had the courage to step forward and say what they said.  I do not agree with Commissioner Bratton’s assessment that the problem in the NYPD is not systemic and that police officers in the Department have been unfairly accused of being overzealous but those are the kind of things that can be discussed and fixed.

I do not think that Commissioner Bratton’s determination should be a non-starter; however, I do believe that the perspective of those on each side of this issue needs to be validated by the opposing side in order to have a meaningful conversation with the potential of resulting in a successful conclusion.

During these discussions, it is okay for participants to be angry and fight (verbally) but both sides must fight fair just like people in a successful marriage fight fair (perhaps a poor example and one that a lot of you won’t like).  But if there is to be any chance of success, I reiterate, participants have to fight fair!  This is one of those situations where all of us must shed our blinders – whether they are color, ethnicity, religious belief, or any other prejudice that we may have and; in the words of Commissioner Bratton, “see each other.”

I have no doubt that all police officers feel bound to some degree by the so called blue code, code of blue or whatever it is called but I also have no doubt that they struggle with the black and white, or people of color and white, issue just like the rest of America does.  I don’t profess to know how they can get beyond this situation but they must get beyond it.

Because of the nature of police officers’ job, they naturally form a close bond within their ranks and are at all times wary and vigilant of those outside of that bond.  They do not allow themselves to become too trusting of anyone other than a fellow police officer.

They must always protect themselves because when they must enforce the law, by doing so, they can provoke anger and unacceptable behavior.  There may be times when at a moment’s notice, they will have to take those people who they are laughing and interacting with into custody and this could create resistance from the person they are arresting and sometimes anger other members of that community.  Those of us who are not police officers need to accept those parameters even if we find them hard to understand.

On the other hand, good police officers must stop using the blue code to protect bad ones regardless of what it is that those bad police officers have done.  In addition, the culture of police management from the very top-level manager to the lowest level supervisor must be revisited and revamped in order to rid management of all of those who condone and perpetuate any type of behavior that is outside the law.

The ideal situation would be for the police and members of the communities that they serve and protect to somehow foster a mutual respect for each other and conduct themselves accordingly.  The police should be able to do their job with the respect and support of those communities as long as they operate within the parameters of the law, treat all community members with dignity and respect, and enforce the law without bias.  Unfortunately, that is not our current situation.

I once had the occasion to speak to a young Black man who had just had an encounter with the police in which he felt that he was treated with disrespect and loathing for no apparent reason.  He said that he was treated that way simply because he is Black.  And then after a short pause he added angrily, the police are just a gang with badges!

My encounter with that young man was a long time ago but his comment that “the police are just a gang with badges” stayed with me.  It is important to me that our young Black men and other people of color do not see police in that light.  But with all of the highly publicized negative things that are happening now with regard to the interaction between the police and people of color, it is not hard to understand why others like him might feel the same way.

The White experience and the Black experience with the police is not the same and America needs to fix that.  The only way that this can be done is for all of us to first admit that this problem exists.  Once we do that then the opposing sides can begin a conversation that can lead to a solution.  I hope that as a result of Director Comey and Commissioner Bratton acknowledging that there is a problem and speaking out about it, that is what will happen.

Eulus Dennis

Local Politics, State Politics

How About a 10.3% Raise for Denver Elected Officials?

I read a recent article in denverpost.com by Jon Murray that said the Denver City Council gave its initial okay to a 10.3% raise for Denver elected officials.  According to the article, “Under the amended proposal, the first half of the salary increases would start July 20, when the winners of the May 5 election begin their terms.  The pay would be about $163,000 for the mayor; $141,000 for both the auditor and the clerk and recorder; and $87,500 for council members, with the president making roughly $10,000 more.”

The article further said that “In mid-2016, those salaries would increase again to $171,197 for the mayor; $148,061 for both the auditor and the clerk and recorder; and 91,915 for council members, with the president making about $11,000 more.”

Well isn’t that just peachy.  Although this increase is somewhat controversial and was opposed by some of the Council members before and after an amendment was added to make its acceptance more palatable, five of the thirteen members were still opposed to it.

These salaries are a pretty good chunk of change especially since – throughout America, including Colorado, it is all but impossible to get the country to agree to the minimum wage that President Obama has suggested.  Doesn’t it make you wonder if any of the elected officials in Colorado are fighting as hard for President Obama’s suggested minimum wage as some of the Denver City Council members did for an increase in these city elected officials salaries, which – incidentally included their own?

During his 2015 State of the Union address the president challenged members of congress to live on the annual salary produced by the minimum wage or vote to increase it.  He said, “…and everyone in this congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage I say this, if you truly believe you can work fulltime and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it.  If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”

If the mayor, auditor and the clerk and recorder, and council members feel that these new salaries – of which the lowest would be more than six times the annual pay of a person earning the minimum wage –  are required for them to live reasonably, how on God’s green earth can they expect someone earning a minimum wage to even survive?  They need to accept the challenge put forth by President Obama and “try it” or be more empathetic and work just as hard in the interest of those whom they represent as they do in their own self-interest.

Jon Murray’s article also said that Mayor Hannock has returned recent salary increases but has not yet publicly expressed a position on the current pending increases.  It continued by stating that “Supporters of the proposal argue that the increases will help elected officials’ salaries keep up with Denver housing costs…”  And Council member Peggy Lehmann even said that “…constituents get good value and service for salaries that total less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the city’s $1.7 billion operating budget.”  Again, how peachy.  That should really do a lot to cheer up those who are struggling to survive on a minimum wage.

Obviously the city of Denver does not make Colorado law but perhaps it can do something to influence it with respect to the minimum wage.  Areas with constituents who vote for city elected officials and state elected officials have common ground.  And the majority of Americans favor a minimum wage increase so any effort to bring it about should be an added value to the ‘good value and service for salaries’ previously mentioned.

Even if Denver elected officials can do absolutely nothing to influence the minimum wage law, if for no other reason than to show support – or not, for constituents’ demand for an increase in the minimum wage; especially in light of their own impending large lucrative salary increase, they should figure out a way to weigh in publicly on this issue.  That would at least let their constituents know that they feel their pain.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, Local Politics, State Politics

Will women pave the way to better governance? More of them deserve a chance to try.

I hope that it doesn’t turn out that women are more reasonable when it comes to governance than are men.  I want us to be just as reasonable as women and I want us to be a steppingstone rather than a stumbling block.  Ok, so maybe I’m a little bit biased in favor of men.  I try not to be but if I am to be honest, that’s the way that it is right now; I’m making progress.

But sometimes I think that as men, we might think with the wrong mix of testosterone versus brain; too much testosterone and too little brain.  We think in terms of things like, you want a piece of us (the United States)?  Bring it!  I heard that ‘bring it’ thing somewhere before; I think it was an extremely high top-level US elected official who said it but I’m not sure.  Anyway, I think that women are somewhat less prone to take that approach.  I don’t have any empirical data that says it is because they use a greater mix of brain than testosterone but it would not surprise me if that is the case.

Anyway, if women can help to get us back on track to more positive governance, whether or not it is related to the testosterone versus brain mix does not matter.  What we need as a country is to find a way to get back to governance instead of partisan politics and gridlock.

I read an article in the Tribune Washington Bureau by Lisa Mascaro titled ‘House abortion bill switch reveals emerging clout of moderate Republicans.’  Although these conservative Republican women bristled and some even fumed at being called moderate, at least they worked to make the Republican anti-abortion bill that the House passed more acceptable.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi felt that the Republicans had an ulterior motive for making this bill more palatable and was not at all impressed by what these women did but that’s okay.  At least it is a start.  Hopefully it is a start in the direction that will lead to meaningful compromise that will allow our country to move forward toward a more perfect union and grow in those areas where we desperately need it most right now; the areas of tolerance and understanding.

Don’t get me wrong, as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat I am suspect of these seemingly forward-looking Republican women just like Minority Leader Pelosi is but no more so than they would be, especially lately, of a Democrat who acted as if they were interested in compromise and governance rather than partisan politics and gridlock.

To me, what these women did is refreshing and, at least for now, it appears that even though they are committed to holding on to their principles – which deserves our respect, they are still willing to work toward compromise in an effort to find common ground.  With all of the political posturing directed at voters in the name of ‘principle’ in order to justify the current gridlock in Washington that too, is refreshing.

Even if women are not the catalyst that will stimulate a more cerebral approach to governance and willingness to compromise, they still deserve greater representation in what has long appeared to be the good-ole-boy club that is the Senate… and I would even include the House.  Both Parties, especially the Grand Ole Party, could use more women in leadership and non-leadership positions.  I hope that this will happen.  I also hope that, as a result, governance will be infused with a fresh way of thinking and all of us will be better for it.

Eulus Dennis

Local Politics, State Politics

The Battle Over Senate Bill 191 Continues

Since there have been so many attention-grabbing issues taking place at the national level lately, most of the articles I have written have been focused on federal politics.  Although a lot of those articles have been focused on the states of Missouri and New York with an occasional mention of Ohio, it is because those states have held the attention of the national media for what, comparatively speaking, is a long period of time.

But there is something that has long simmered and continues to simmer just beneath the surface of the everyday news in Denver, Colorado and its surrounding communities; Senate Bill 191.  The battle over this bill between Denver Teachers and Denver Public Schools (DPS) continues.  It resurfaced early this month when the Colorado Education Association (CEA) and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) followed through on their vow to appeal Denver District Court Judge Michael Martinez’s dismissal of their lawsuit over the bill.

According to a westword.com blog by Melanie Asmar on June 9, 2014, Judge Martinez “found that since the law makes no mention of ‘tenure,’ longtime teachers are not ‘entitled’ to a position.”  It was as a result of this finding that the CEA vowed to appeal the decision and they did.  The appeal was filed with the Colorado Court of Appeals on December 12, 2014.

Based on what I read in the ‘Opening Brief for the Plaintiffs – Appellants’ section of this lawsuit by the CEA and DCTA, I can totally understand why they would file this appeal.  I can understand because I know a former DPS teacher who perfectly fits the profile of one of those who was impacted by the abuse of Senate Bill 191.  Although she had a stellar record, was recognized by local and national organizations and received a number of prestigious awards, she passed through the process that resulted from Senate Bill 191.

When she searched for a mutual consent position, not only was she unable to find one, she only received one interview.  Why was this?  When she appealed to DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg and ultimately each DPS school board member to look into the situation, they were slow to respond.  When Superintendent Boasberg finally responded, it was via a surrogate who was reported in the subject teacher’s appeal to him to already be a part of the problem.  No school board member ever responded.

The odd part of the whole situation is that although she is retired and has been receiving retirement checks for nine months already, for some unknown reason – regardless of having contacted them numerous times and telling them she is retired, they insist on keeping her on their ‘inactive’ roll.  That is quite strange because if she was such a bad and unqualified teacher, it seems that they would be eager to wish her good riddance.

This article is not meant to suggest that SB 191 is a terrible bill but to simply suggest that if it is going to be used the way it was used against this teacher and the way that the plaintiffs in the SB 191 lawsuit are suggesting it is being used, then it needs to be revisited, clarified – and if required, amended.

I wrote an article in the Denver Post dated January 14, 2013 that stated that I am not necessarily opposed to SB 191.  Instead the article, entitled ‘Quality teaching in DPS vs. tenure rights, reflected the fact that although this law might be a good one that is needed, if the spirit and intent is allowed to be violated then it renders it unfair and unjust.

Bottom line?  I hope the CEA and DCTA win their appeal and that SB 191 will finally be looked into under transparent and objective circumstances that are not influenced or shaded by politics.  The mutual consent portion of this bill does not yet command the headlines that the Ferguson, New York and Cleveland situations do.  Hopefully if it does reach that level it will be due to positive reasons and because justice prevailed.  Despite the fact that this issue does not command national headlines it does require close monitoring and scrutiny because of its potential to have a major impact on all educators affected by SB 191 and other bills like it.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, Local Politics, State Politics

A Political Decision

Do you remember that movie ‘The Firm’ where a law enforcement agency suspected that a prestigious law firm was breaking some major laws so they forced a young lawyer employed by the firm to help them secure information they needed to indict and prosecute the responsible executives?

Even if you don’t, try to follow me anyway because there is a point that I want to make that is exemplified by that movie and many others like it.  Anyway, this law enforcement agency was able to force this young lawyer to help them because they had incarcerated his brother who would face a lot of years in prison unless he cooperated with them; and if he cooperated, his brother would be released and his record would be completely cleared.

The truth of the matter was that the law enforcement agency had no real intentions of releasing the brother.  The plan was to release him for a short period of time as a show of good faith and once they had the documents that they needed they would put him back in prison to complete his term.

The young lawyer agreed to cooperate but somewhere along the way found out about their plans so demanded to renegotiate the deal and, because of their attempt to scam him, also demanded that a large sum of money for himself be included.  The law enforcement agency agreed to the new terms but planned to stick to their original plan to place the brother back in prison with the only new part of their plan being to take back the money as well.

By now you might be thinking, how is this story in any way related to politics?  Here is how.  My point is wrapped up in what this law enforcement official said to the young lawyer when he became concerned that he was on to them again and about to outsmart them.  When the young lawyer demanded that the money be wired to an offshore numbered account ahead of time the official exploded in anger.  This is what he said when the lawyer refused to withdraw this demand; and what he said is also my point.

I’m the government.  I can kick your teeth down your throat and pull them out of your backside (he used a more colorful word) and there’s not a (expletive delete) thing that you can do about it.  When the young lawyer showed the law enforcement official that he had recorded his words on a tape housed in a remote location, the official calmed down and agreed to wire the money.

In other movies like ‘The Firm’ many law enforcement officials have made the well worn ‘I’m the law’ statement.  Unfortunately, many of these officials have come to believe that they are the law personified and not an instrument that is there to enforce the law.  And since they are ‘the law’, it applies to everyone else but not to them.

This is not something that happens just with low-level law enforcement officials but instead ranges from the most low-level local official to law-enforcement officials at the highest levels in the United States government.  As a matter of fact, it is not just law enforcement officials but many other powerful officials as well who are exacerbating and perpetuating this problem.

I gave this particular example because there was a time when most of us looked at movies like these as unquestionably pure theatrical entertainment.  But take a close look at what is happening in our country right now and the rhetoric in those movies no longer seem so far-fetched.

There are two key situations that are at the forefront right now, one of which symbolizes a deep-seated American problem that is playing out in a number of cities around our country.  The other is something that is wrapped in a domestic and foreign policy wrapper.  One is associated with race and the other is associated with torture.  Despite what might appear to be a great gap between them, they are both deep-rooted in human rights and who we are as Americans.

In both of these cases the words political decision seems to be a common thread and it appears that these officials also expect to be placed above the law.  Don’t you get tired of hearing the words ‘it was a political decision’ from pundits?  Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear the words ‘it was a governance decision’ being tossed around by them at least as often as ‘it was a political decision’?

Politicians like the perks of the office.  They like the photo ops, the admiration of their constituents, the special treatment that they receive and making the easy decisions.  But when it comes to the tough decisions that they were also elected to handle – like indicting a cop and assuring that the indictment process is fair or confronting the problem that we need to address concerning torture and, if they are different, the enhanced interrogation techniques, they cower and refuse to do their job.  They take the easy way out and make a ‘political decision.’

I guess we can’t blame them because if they confront these things and make an actual governance decision, they might not be reelected.  And if they are not reelected, they will no longer have a platform to not confront problems like those in Ferguson and the one regarding torture.  Wouldn’t that be a shame?

America must address and solve tough problems like those mentioned or, rather than us controlling our own destiny, those problems might play a key role in the outcome.  As voters we can force politicians to do their job, including the unpleasant parts of it, or be fired.  It is as simple as that.  But in order for that to happen, we must first do our job.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, Local Politics, State Politics

Politics Anyone? You Decide

Politics can be extremely frustrating but we must all partake of this bitter-sweet potion if we are truly to be a part of our great democracy.  It is hard to look at sometimes, as we all offer our own special ingredients, while the master chef blends the mixture and continuously stirs the pot.  Blah, it tastes terrible!  The chef continues to stir and blend, adjust the temperature – add a little more conservative spices, a bit more liberal spices and a pinch of independent spices before finally; bam!  The porridge is ready.  It’s time for a taste test.  Hey, not too bad!

To some it is tasty, to others it is okay, and there will always be some who find it to simply be edible.  Odds are that no one will find it to be delicious.  Despite which category you are in, you will find solace in knowing that you contributed added-value to the final product.  The only reason why it is not delicious is because the chef neither used all of your special ingredients nor did they include them in the amount that you specified.  You can take comfort in knowing that had you provided no ingredients at all it might not even be edible; and you would be left to either starve or be force-fed until your next opportunity to participate in the porridge preparation.

Okay, maybe it is a pretty dubious analogy but most likely you got the point.  We may find many things distasteful about our democratic process but it is what it is.  Obviously a democracy is messy but it cannot function properly and efficiently without all eligible voters being responsible and regularly voting.  Just because there is a lot of squabbling going on among our politicians in Washington doesn’t mean we should shirk our responsibility as voters.  As a matter of fact, it should make us even more determined to make sure to put people in office who are going to do their very best to represent us and look out for our best interest while looking out for the overall best interest of our country.

Keep these things in mind as we move toward the 2016 elections.  I mentioned in an earlier post that the damage has already been done – or the repair has already been made depending on whether your color preference is red or blue.  Regardless of that preference, the real issue is that we not allow politicians to flaunt the fact that they believe that the majority of voters are uninformed and can be constantly used as pawns to further their political ambitions.  We must always vote and show them that we will hold them to account.

In the meantime, following this post are links to articles that you can read to help bring you up to speed on some of the most recent political talk.

Federal Politics, Local Politics, State Politics

Voter Motivation

I have heard talk from politicians and pundits for many years now about how the electorate needs to be motivated to get out and vote in the presidential and midterm elections.  I’ll bet that many of you have heard those comments too.  They say things like; voters did not go to the polls because there were no major candidates or issues on the ballot, many voters feel like ‘my vote won’t matter anyway’ and so do not bother to vote, voters are completely frustrated with what is happening – or not happening – in Washington so they protested by just staying at home, the Democrats/Republicans did not do the things they needed to do to motivate their base to get out and vote, and the list goes on.

Are they serious?  Whether or not you are a sports fan I’ll bet that at some time in your life you have heard someone say things about their favorite professional sports teams like; those guys are paid a lot of money – the coach shouldn’t have to motivate them to play hard and give it their all during games, in order to overcome your ___________ (you fill in the blank) problem you have to want to overcome it; without that, all of the encouragement and prodding from support groups will be meaningless.

And how many of us as parents have at some point said things to our children like; if you want to be the best at something, you have to be willing to work to achieve it?  Or, even made less lofty statements like; if you want to be a ___________ (again, you fill in the blank) you have to believe in yourself and continue to work toward that goal no matter what others might say to try to discourage you.

All of these things are about motivation with the key being self-motivation.  My point is that you hold the key and not someone else.  Others can help to motivate us by encouraging us, they can try to dilute our personal motivation by discouraging us, or at worst – we can lack the quality of self-motivation and fail to even try to achieve anything unless we are pushed to do so by some outside force.

Whether we are Democrats, Republicans or Independents, the right to vote was not just handed to some of us.  Instead, it was achieved through hard-fought battles by our predecessors some of whom even died during this struggle.  To treat the right to vote as if it is something shallow and meaningless by failing to regularly vote unless we are constantly prodded to do so by politicians and pundits during election cycles is shameful.