Rumble Coming Over Who Runs Schools

FEBRUARY 23, 2009       POLIITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS


   In case it has slipped your notice, your local school board and the man in charge of education statewide are about to go to war.

   Opening shots have been fired, but the real hostilities should ensue during the legislative session when State Superintendent Paul Pastorek asks lawmakers to impose term limits on local school board members and to stop them from interfering with the day-to-day management of schools.

   Now that revamping public healthcare is on hold until the Obama administration gets around to reviewing the state's new Medicaid plan, the battle over control of public education is emerging as a major issue in the year ahead, or two or more.

   "I think we have to reinvigorate the governance of local schools," said Pastorek. Until that's done, "you will not see significant improvement in the dismal rankings."

   Besides term limits, Pastorek wants to end salaries for board members and to set minimum education requirements, like a high school diploma, to hold office. He would strengthen anti-nepotism rules and would prohibit board members from interfering with the superintendent on matters of hiring, firing and entering into contracts.

   Not surprisingly, representatives of parish school boards think Pastorek should stay out of their business and let them run their schools as local voters elected them to do. The state does not impose term limits, salary limits or education requirements on any other local officials. Why should school boards be picked on?

   They have a point, a small one. A number of parishes have term limits for school boards, and more should, without the state telling them to. A policy-making board ought to turn over at least once a decade, in order to have fresh perspectives and not to get so set in its ways. It's usually the members who stay the longest that tend to exert the most influence on a board and school system itself, and that's not always healthy.

   In some cases, in fact, that long-held power is corrupting, especially when school staffing and contracts are seen as sources of patronage and bases of power.

   Yet getting hung up on another fight over term limits misses the thrust of what Pastorek is getting at. Term limits or not, the best way for the state to improve local education is to get school board members to do their jobs and not the superintendent's or some principal's. Board members should set policy. Superintendents and principals should run schools, without some board member telling them who they should hire, transfer or do business with.

   "Superintendents have been fired when they try to fire bus drivers," said Pastorek. "Cafeteria workers sometimes rule the roost in some school districts." School board representatives say Pastorek exaggerates, but there is enough anecdotal evidence to point to a real problem. Is there the political will for a solution?

   Every few years it seems we're told of another "fundamental flaw in the system"--another Pastorek term--that is keeping Louisiana schools at the bottom of the stack. Teacher pay, certification, social promotions, lax curricula, truancy have been cited and, to some degree, addressed, though with only marginal improvements in test scores and rankings.

   That's not to say the superintendent isn't raising valid concerns about control of local schools. He has the right idea. But he will need to bring some strong political firepower to the Capitol to overcome the skepticism of legislators, many of whom started their careers on school boards and feel closer to them than to Pastorek.

   The key will be for Gov. Bobby Jindal to see the urgency of the cause and to support all or part of the superintendent's agenda. So far, the governor has shown reluctance to wade into controversies, especially if he isn't strongly confident about winning.

  This is one of those issues that deserves not just the governor's attention but the public's as well.

  The outcome likely will not be decided in a year or even two. In Texas, it took well-organized advocates and the business lobby seven years to get even some of the changes like what Pastorek proposes through that legislature. If that time is to come here one day, the good fight best get started now.

Jindal's Fine Line to Walk in the Sun

FEBRUARY 16, 2008  POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS


   It's nice to think, but hard to believe, that the whole
nation will be watching when Gov. Bobby Jindal offers the
Republican response to President Barack Obama's first address
to Congress on Tuesday night. As soon as the president
concludes his remarks, millions will tune out for other
programming, while in south Louisiana, very many will be zoned
out as Mardi Gras weaves and stumbles to conclusion.
 

   Yet, for many who stick around, it will be the first time
they hear or lay eyes on the young governor hailed to be the
future of his party. It won't exactly be a make-or-break
impression, but close enough that failure is no option.
 

    What to say, what to say. His words won't be entirely,
perhaps not mostly, his own, but, rather, largely outlined by
the congressional leaders who tapped him.  And there are hard
feelings aplenty in Republican circles toward the opening acts
of the new president and Democratic majority in Congress.

   This won't be the speech Jindal would have thought 30 days
ago he would be giving. Besides a personal affinity between
the two, he and Obama have cast themselves as forerunners of
post-partisan politics, intent on putting aside petty rancor
and reaching across aisles for the common good. Unfortunately,
the leaders on both sides in Congress did not get the memo.
Democrats seized the opportunity to fatten up the economic
stimulus package with new programs denied them for eight
years, while Republicans, who were at a loss for explanations
during the elections, rediscovered their voice (also lost for
eight years) in opposition to ballooning spending and debt.
 

  The president, no doubt, will offer the olive branch again,
because he got what he wanted, though he had to play rougher
than he wished. How does Jindal, prompted by his patrons,
respond?

   One reason Republican poobahs picked him is that he stuck
with them, unlike some of his colleagues. The Washington Post
headline read: Governors Root for Stimulus Package. Not ours.
While other Republican governors of states in fiscal crisis,
from Florida's Charlie Crist to California's Arnold
Schwarzenegger, openly or tacitly supported the Democratic
bill, Jindal said he would have voted against it. It's a low
profile in courage, since no House Republicans voted for it.
Still, he is on record in dissent, even if he will find a way
to spend virtually all that's coming to the state.

   He will want to continue basing his opposition to the
massive debt incurred instead of lobbing grenades about
porkish excess, unless such is demanded of him. That's the
trick for the governor of the largely non-partisan state, who
could always operate as his own man instead of the party's he
is coming to aid. Having just been hit by a truck, at the
polls and on the Hill, most Republicans are looking for more
of a fighter than a peacemaker. Not a bruiser so much as
someone who can at least throw a punch when needed.

   In a speech, leadership is conveyed as much by body
language as the Queen's English. That could be a problem for
Jindal, who is rusty on that score. From a campaign with
little opposition to an agenda with little resistance, it's
been a while since he has had to really stand and deliver.
Some recent in-state speeches before important audiences have
been flat, rote recitations of his accomplishments, lacking
feeling or even inflection, as though he's bored with us
already. He may think he can turn it on when it matters, but
he would be wise to invest in a speech coach, so as not to
turn off a nation.

   This may be just an unequal time response that won't change
anything in Washington, but it is a big-time, high-stakes
speech, for him and for us. The last time a Louisiana governor
had nearly so large a national stage, it was on the front
steps of a federal courthouse. The country, now being urged to
not forsake this still-ravaged state, needs to know Louisiana
has picked an effective leader and has not fallen for another
glib fast talker. His true believers will be cheering and
praying for him, but even his critics need wish him well.
Break a leg, Bobby, and bring it.

Jindal Going Places, But Is He Leading?

FEBRUARY 9, 2009              POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS



   On the same day Gov. Bobby Jindal attended a fundraiser for himself in Charlotte, N.C., officials at Nucor Corp., based in the same town, made headlines by raising doubts about locating its proposed $2 billion steel mill in St. James Parish. Jindal did not contact Nucor officials, and it would not have made much difference if he did, since the company's concerns about the world economy and coming tougher federal environmental standards are above the governor's pay grade.

   So it was just a coincidence, though it could have been an embarrassing one for him had the news from Nucor been worse. That's comes with the territory--and it's a big one--as Jindal continues raising political money and making speeches around the country, befitting his status of rising Republican star.

   In past months, he's been to Florida, Texas and Connecticut to graciously accept checks from the GOP elite, as well as from neighbors in southern Mississippi. Arkansas may be a poor state, but Jindal squeezed three money events out of it last weekend, including stops at Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods headquarters.

   The more he tells audiences that the Republican Party has lost its way and deserved what it got in the last election, the more he's hailed as a leader for the next, whether as a candidate or not.

   Not to suggest he is neglecting the homefront, for during the week he gets around the state a lot. The farther off the beaten path the better, his itinerary of town meetings reads like a Johnny Cash song.

   At whistlestops and Chamber of Commerce banquets, he has been laying out his legislative agenda, the centerpiece of which is a crackdown on sex offenders. His proposals will have scant opposition, but he will still talk about them a lot.

   In state and out, he keeps his profile high and free of blemish. But there is the nagging sense that something is missing here. Gov. Jindal gets all over the place, except where the real action is. There is a lot going on in Louisiana now, but he seems to go out of his way to avoid anything controversial.

   Most people don't mind that we have a governor who is going places. But in these uncertain times, more are asking where, or if, he is leading us.

   Fear is running through state government and universities among employees who don't know if they will have jobs when projected budget cuts are made. Hospital administrators and college presidents have been directed to prepare worst- to best-case scenarios, though none of them are good.

   What we've not heard is some expression of keeping faith from the governor, an acknowledgement that our state workers are valued and that everything is being done to preserve their jobs so they can continue to serve the public. A few words from the bully pulpit would do much to shore up shakey employee morale.

   Last month, Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek was heckled by protesters when he asked the state board to take control of ten schools from two local school boards. Jindal is on record supporting the takeover of failing schools, but he could have reinforced that with a statement of confidence in Pastorek and the board. He also could have encouraged and challenged the half dozen parish boards with schools under state supervision to improve them and thus maintain control.

   Jindal also supports LSU's plan for a new teaching hospital in New Orleans, but you wouldn't know it from his silence while preservationists accuse state healthcare officials of plotting to destroy a neighborhood alleged to be historic.

   Jindal knows how to delegate and he needn't be holding his administrators' hands with every controversy. Yet there are moments when they should know that he has their back, because he says so publicly, even if some other people don't like it.

   It doesn't matter how many weekends he spends out of state, or even that he's back at his desk first thing Monday morning. When it comes to leadership, it's not his perfect attendance that we need, but, rather, his presence.

D.C. Has Wrong Mardi Gras Spirit

FEBRUARY 2, 2009              POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS


   In Washington, D.C., last week, it seemed like the migrating Krewe of Louisianians was the only bunch in town who still knew how to have a good time.

   Usually, Mardi Gras on the Potomac is appreciated even by those who don't fully understand it. This year, the atmosphere seemed less welcoming in the post-inaugural week that was devoted to the deadly serious work of pulling the nation out of the deepening recession. With the changed environment came a raised standard of ethics, with tighter rules and attitudes designed to break with past decades of business as usual.

   This sudden ethical conversion quickly clashed with D.C. Mardi Gras' party as usual, with its internecine hobnobbing among elected officials, staffers, lobbyists, campaign contributors and, of course, lovely princesses. Even the benign Louisiana Alive! party, a mob scene open to anyone who could secure freely distributed wristbands from congressional offices, drew fire from ethicists deeply troubled that lobbyists underwrote the event and had little signs up proclaiming their sponsorships. Talk about a bunch that needs a drink.

   The prudes notwithstanding, the second-lining Louisiana crowd actually was right in step with action on Capitol Hill, where congressional Democrats were throwing a pre-Lenten spending bash--some would say orgy--of their own. No entreaty of "throw me something, mister" from state and local governments, federal agencies and interest groups seemed to go unheeded in the $819 billion stimulus package passed by the House and bound to be exceeded by the Senate.

   The only party poopers were House Republicans, who voted unanimously against the package that they were given little role in crafting--some would say shoveling--into law. Republicans, however, were no more inclusive when they held the White House and Congress.

   GOP congressmen were not opposed to all of the deficit spending, since, given their recent record, they had little room to complain. Yet they made a valid point that the Democrats' bacchanalian appropriations went well beyond stimulating the economy to bailing out deficit-ridden state governments and beyond that to rewriting the nation's social contract with a large segment of the people. All without a single hearing.

   To raise an objection, to call for debate, was to border of treason. The most chilling sentence on the week in Congress came in a news story in The New York Times that read, "Democrats said the current economic crisis did not allow time for public hearings on the legislation."

   That calls to mind the insistence of the Bush White House last fall that its $750 billion banking bailout bill be passed before sundown lest the financial system collapse. We saw how well that worked out.

   Whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge, Washington has only so much credibility in managing the economy, especially when operating at warp speed. The president and the Democratic leadership easily could separate the true stimulus portions of the package, tax cuts and ready-to-go public works projects, from the creation of new agencies and broad policy changes that will take longer to implement and last longer still.

   Take, for example, a far-reaching provision in the House bill that would grant Medicaid coverage to anyone receiving unemployment benefits. Democrats even rejected a Republican amendment for means testing.

   To illustrate, take two employees at a company that does not offer health insurance. A manager making $75,000 is laid off and gets a Medicaid card, which is honored at any hospital or doctor's office that sees Medicaid patients. His secretary, who makes $35,000, keeps her job but gets deathly ill and is crushed by medical bills she can't pay. Fair?

   Consider also that this unemployment healthcare benefit expires in December 2010, by when it will be considered an entitlement, like other so-called temporary stimulus provisions that Congress will be loath to end.

   Even some supporters of the stimulus' Medicaid expansion are calling it the first step toward national health insurance. If that's what America wants, so be it. But shouldn't we discuss it first instead of just sliding into it? Unless the Senate slows things down, that's where this is headed.

   So while some in Washington who are out to save civilization in a hurry may look askance at the foolishness of Mardi Gras, one wonders which really is the city that care forgot.