This beautifully penned LTE by the director of SUNY Brockport Women and Gender Studies program, says, much better than I why Palin is a step backwards in time as far as women’s rights goes:

Clearly, McCain and the Republican Party purposefully chose Palin as their VP candidate because they believe the answers to these Hillary Clinton/party hopping/female unity questions are yes. Their efforts here couldn’t be more transparent — and their logic forever flawed. Placing Palin — a conservative, inexperienced freshman — on the Republican vice presidential ticket to woo female Hillary supporters away from Obama is not only strategically faulty, it insults the intelligence and decision-making power of women nationwide. As a former Hillary, and now an Obama follower, I couldn’t possibly consider Palin as a legitimate substitute. And I am certain Hillary supporters nationally would agree here. I believe in democratic ideals, and I battle the front lines daily in the effort to achieve parity between the sexes. As a champion for gender equality, I do not, nor could I ever, support McCain/Palin.

This is why the whole idea of a Palin vice-presidency is so insulting, and Palin’s speech last night was just so much continued “Yee-haw” rhetoric. Watching the faces of those in the audience at the RNC last night, I was reminded of the extremely white audiences and the coiffures of the Lawrence Welk show. That’s right- several steps back.

I urge our readers to check out the whole letter.

The D&C has a post on why Sen. Joe Robach (R-56) didn’t give the Senate GOP State of the State (SOS) response. Here’s what the D&C has to say:

Robach said he wasn’t passed over, but that he told Senate staff that he wants to focus on Rochester.
“I think they had several people and I said my focus is going to be Rochester,” Robach said.

That sounds plausible, but Liz at Daily Politics has a further info that doesn’t really support Robach’s account of events:

When I asked why the Senate had chosen Lanza, I was told he’s viewed as a “young, rising star within the party.” Given that youth is at a premium - particularly in the Senate - and the fact that the GOP doesn’t have a very big back bench in this Democrat-dominated state, the selection of Lanza makes sense.

Sure, Robach could have told the Senate staff that he didn’t want to give the response because, as he put it, he wanted to focus on Rochester, but I doubt it. Robach is known for capitalizing on every opportunity he has to get his name out there. Delivering the GOP response would have given him a great deal of free media. Perhaps I’m missing something, but Robach turning down the GOP response because he wants to focus on Rochester doesn’t pass the smell test.

I’ve read the GOP’s response to the SOS. You can check it out for yourself here. If we look closely at the GOP’s response, it leads me to believe Robach may not have wanted to give the speech because it was too conservative for his Democrat dominated district. This is admittedly speculation, but take a look at what I consider a key phrase:

The Senate plan eliminates the complicated income brackets and eligibility limits put in place last year. No longer will this administration get to choose which families get property tax relief and which families don’t.

Somehow I don’t think this is a message that would fly in most of Robach’s district.

Yesterday we gave you a brief summary of Governor Spitzer’s State of the State address (SOS). Today we’d like to highlight some of the initiatives Spitzer outlined in his address.

In a deft political move, Spitzer sought to mend fences by naming his former primary opponent, Tom Suozzi, to head a commission tasked with studying a potential property tax cap. While I don’t think a property tax cap is a fiscally wise idea (at least without more specifics on how it would be implemented), I do think Spitzer will be well served by appointing Suozzi to this commission, especially given all the political fighting over the past year.

Spitzer also announced a $1 billion upstate development fund, which will help boost the upstate economy. Another great tool to boost the upstate economy is Spitzer’s proposed net metering legislation, which will allow small businesses and homeowners who generate their own power through solar or wind to sell more excess power back into the grid.

State parks will get $100 million more under Spitzer’s plan.

To address a growing lack of doctors in rural areas, Spitzer announced a new program called Doctors Across New York, which will offer grants to pay off medical school if the doctor agrees to work in an area lacking adequate medical care.

Finally, Spitzer proposed the establishment of a $4 billion Higher Education Endowment. Spitzer proposed allowing a private company to take a stake in the state lotto, which would be a one-shot revenue item. Some republicans are critical of this, but I don’t think using one-shots in this manner is bad. That’s because money derived from partially privatizing the lotto would be used to set up an interest earning endowment, making it a permanent revenue generator. That is totally different than using a one-shot to plug annual expenditures, because the annual expenditures will be back the following year, but the one-shot revenue will keep money coming in year after year.

There’s a great deal of promise on the horizon, but we all need to work together to ensure the Governor has the support needed to implement his worthy plans.

Today Governor Spitzer gave his State of the State address. There seemed to have been one or two uncomfortable moments, when the Gov expected applause and none came, but it was nonetheless an overwhelmingly positive and substantive speech. He touched on some good issues: campaign finance reform (albeit briefly), paid family leave, reproductive rights, children’s healthcare, and many others. He also outlined some bold new programs. We’ll have more on that tomorrow. In the meantime, you’re strongly encouraged to check out the Governor’s State of the State website; it has tons of great information.

Also, if anybody has video of the GOP response, shoot us a comment or email. Unfortunately, the State Senate doesn’t archive broadcasts on their website.

Earlier we told you Sen. Joe Robach was set to give the GOP response to Gov. Spitzer’s State of the State address. Well, the D&C political blog reported this morning “the Republicans have designated Sen. Andrew Lanza” to give the GOP’s response.

This could be interesting because Daily Politics cited “Republican sources” in her claim that Robach was set to give the response. Could this be a sign of a struggle going on in the Senate GOP? Or could it just be a simple miscommunication?

Perhaps after the GOP response we’ll find out more…

UPDATE: Daily Politics has more:

When I asked why the Senate had chosen Lanza, I was told he’s viewed as a “young, rising star within the party.” Given that youth is at a premium - particularly in the Senate - and the fact that the GOP doesn’t have a very big back bench in this Democrat-dominated state, the selection of Lanza makes sense.

The republican response to Governor Spitzer’s State of the State address will be given by GOP Sen. Joe Robach, according to Liz at Daily Politics. Bruno will not be giving the GOP response due to the recent passing of his long-time wife.

This could be a major boost for Robach, who is likely to face the most competitive campaign of his senate career. As Liz notes in her post, Robach may face off against former Democratic State Senator Rick Dollinger. Some other names that have been mentioned as possible Robach opponents are former Rochester City Councilman and Mayoral candidate Wade Norwood, Brighton Supervisor Sandy Frankel, and Robach’s 2006 opponent Willa Powell.

Please, if I’ve overlooked any possible candidates, post them in the comments.

Stay tuned to RT for analysis of Spitzer’s State of the State and the republican response.

New York State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno’s wife, Barbara Bruno, passed away Monday at the age of 77. The Bruno’s were married a remarkable 57 years.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bruno family during this understandably difficult time; a time to put all politics aside. Please keep the Bruno family in your thoughts today.

I’m sure many of you recall the Siemens contract (read:giveaway) Monroe County entered into last year (as well as other contracts in earlier years). Well, we alluded to an interesting side story in our previous coverage. Here’s the relevant portion:

In 2004, Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. was found in violation by the National Labor Relations Board regarding their operation of the Iola Power Plant.

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision in the Siemens’ case is available here. Apparently, Siemens refused to recognize or negotiate with the International Union of Operating Engineers, local 832. Here’s what the NLRB had to say:

The Respondent (Siemens) contends that it refused to recognize and bargain with the Union because the Union had lost majority support.

(snip)there is persuasive evidence that the Respondent (Siemens) decided not to recognize or bargain with the Union for reasons other than a good-faith reasonable doubt of the Union’s majority status.

(snip)the reasons advanced by the Respondent (Siemens) for its claim of doubt of the Union’s majority support do not withstand scrutiny.

(snip)We therefore conclude that the Respondent has not demonstrated that it had a good-faith reasonable doubt regarding the Union’s majority support, let alone evidence of the Union’s actual loss of majority support, at the time the bargaining obligation attached. Accordingly, the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition violated the (National Labor Relations) Act.

As if these facts weren’t damning enough, we’ve also learned of more investigations into alleged public corruption by Siemens and it’s subsidiaries. The following data are from documents filed with the SEC on November 28, 2007. Unfortunately, there are too many investigations to list them all here, but feel free to go to the SEC link and look under the “Legal Proceedings” section.

Some highlights (lowlights?) include:

…the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting an investigation of possible criminal violations of U.S. law by Siemens in connection with the matters described above and other allegations of corruption. During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, Siemens was advised that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) enforcement division had converted its informal inquiry into these matters into a formal investigation. The Company is cooperating with these investigations.

The SEC and the DOJ are also investigating possible violations of U.S. law by Siemens in connection with the Oil-for-Food Program. The Company is cooperating with the SEC and DOJ. A French investigating magistrate commenced a preliminary investigation regarding the participation of French companies, including Siemens France S.A.S., in the Oil-for-Food Program. German prosecutors also began an investigation in this matter and conducted searches of Company premises and private homes in Erlangen and Berlin in August 2007. Siemens is cooperating with the authorities in France and Germany.

There’s more, much more. I strongly encourage everyone to go to the Siemens SEC filing (linked to above) and see what this company is truly all about. It’s a disgrace that we are supporting them with out tax dollars.

We’ve gotten word that on January 15 at 7:00 p.m. the Parma Town Board will hold a public hearing (at the Town Hall) regarding an “impasse” with the Highway Department workers, who are represented by the local union UNITE-HERE.

According to sources close to negotiations, Parma Town Supervisor Rick Lemcke has long held a desire to rid the workers of the protections they get from the union. The problem, according to these sources, is Lemcke’s long held desire to rid the town of it’s elected Superintendent of Highways, in favor of an appointed head of a newly created Department of Public Works. By breaking the Union, Lemcke feels he can drive a wedge between the Highway Department head and the workers, thereby giving the workers greater incentive to demand a new leader who can truly advocate for them. In effect, Lemcke (and the Town Board) want to neuter the Highway Department Head.

This situation presents a double whammy for the people of Parma: Their elected officials are going down a path that could lead to less control over their Government (by replacing an elected official with an appointed one) and they’re going to destroy the last bastion of meaningful services provided by the Town.

Working families need greater protections, not less. If you’re interested in this, please attend the hearing on the 15th; it should be interesting to say the least.

In our continuing series of monthly wrap-ups, today we look back to August 2006.

Back in the day, the D&C had the fortitude to investigate some COMIDA fraud; it makes one wonder where their back-bone has gone.

August 06 gave us the Democratic Primary for Joe Lieberman’s CT Senate Seat. Pitting Lieberman against progressive darling Ned Lamont. Lieberman’s people were whining about their website, but, in the end, Lamont beat Lieberman for the Democratic nod. We were all pleased to see our very own Chuck Schumer endorse Lamont’s candidacy.

A great new blog named The Fighting 29th burst into the blogosphere, helping set the record straight on Randy Kuhl. Speaking of Kuhl, back in August 06 Eric Massa secured the endorsement of a powerful NYS Union, mainly because Kuhl had a history, in the NYS Senate, of voting against worker’s rights.

We had Jim Walsh sending out false literature, while Dan Maffei challenged Walsh to a debate. Speaking of lit, Assemblyman Joe Errigo was sending out what appeared to be taxpayer funded campaign mailings.

Willa Powell announced her candidacy for the State Senate’s 56th district, running against entrenched incumbent Joe Robach.

Local TV weatherman, Kevin Williams, displayed an absurd aversion to science. It’s OK, though, because we’re here to help guide Mr. Williams to the light.

Finally, with the September 06 NYS primaries around the corner, we had Eliot Spitzer facing off against Tom Suozzi and John Faso (remember them?) in a Rochester debate.

On to September….

Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, was assasinated this morning. She’d been in the news a great deal lately, and my impression of her is that she genuinly cared about the people of her country. Although my knowledge of her is admittadly limited, I am sad to see this happen. Reports indicate there was a suicide bombing, but there are conflicting reports indicating she was killed by gunfire.

We try to stick with local stories, but this deserves everyone’s attention.

I was skimming East Rochester’s website when I noticed something a little strange. If you’ll join me on this page, you’ll see a list of websites meant to provide constituents with a variety of information (i.e. Government, Fire, Weather, Local). What’s interesting about this list is only one private for-profit corporation is named: Parrone Engineering.

For those of you who haven’t been playing along at home, that’s the same Parrone Engineering who may have donated almost $2,000 more than the legal limit.

Hmmm….Could that be why the taxpayers of East Rochester are paying for a Parrone Engineering advertisement?

This raises some questions. How did Parrones’ firm’s website initially get linked to the ER site?; When did that occur?; and so on….

This is where I would ask you to send an email to the ER Boardmembers asking some questions, but the email addresses aren’t listed on the website…It’s ok, though. Check out this site, it’s full of great info.

The situation in East Rochester is crazy. These corrupt republicans are flopping around like a dying fish. Just take a look at this from today’s D&C:

Paul Bonacchi was arrested after showing up at an Aug. 11 fundraising barbecue for Koon’s mayoral campaign. Koon says Bonacchi swore at some of his supporters, one of whom went to the police.

After the charges against him were dropped on Nov. 26, Bonacchi sued claiming false arrest, malicious prosecution and violations of his right to free speech.

snip

On Dec. 13, the board went to into executive session to discuss the notice of claim and Bryson recommended that they pay Bonacchi $10,000. Four board members voted to pay the sum. Koon abstained from the vote.

After the vote, Koon obtained a second opinion from East Rochester lawyer Frank Odorisi, who said that the payment of such a claim without pretrial discovery was premature.

“That’s when we made the decision to terminate the attorney,” said Koon, who says he will try to recoup the money.

In a statement, Koon wrote, “I believe the payment of this claim without proper discovery gives at the very least the appearance of impropriety on behalf of the board but in fact may be a political payout.”

On Nov. 26 the former Mayor’s brother sued the village. Less than one month later the village board votes to settle the suit for $10,000, that time-line raises serious questions. How could they have possibly evaluated the suit in such a short period of time?

If any of you have further info about goings on in ER, please let us know in the comments. We’d love to hear how the village board came to their decision to pay off the former mayor’s brother.

Following up on BTP’s fantastic post, we’ve learned further info on some of the Village officers Mayor Koon is dealing with.

Check this out, from the MP article:

Village Engineer Edward Parrone said he wrote Koon a letter saying his firm…was not an appointed position, that’s there’s no need to resign and he’d be more than happy to sit down and discuss the matter. Koon says the current budget for the engineer is $115,000 a year and that he will review that and may suggest engineering services be submitted for competitive bidding.

This is Ed Parrone, owner of Parrone engineering. Parrone Engineering is registered with the state as a “domestic professional corporation” (DPC). If, as I suspect, a DPC is treated as a corporation under NYS election law, Mr. Parrone’s firm made campaign contributions ($7,240) in excess of the legal limit ($5,000) for corporations.

I really don’t understand what the republicans are complaining about. From what I can tell so far, Koon isn’t firing anyone. If Koon asks an administration official for their resignation, and the official willingly hands it over, that should be end of story. Period.

Over at the D&C Greece Blog, Petrena links to an article about Special Education spending in the Greece School District. Petrena, while I’m sure meaning well, has this to say in her post:

I…was wondering how many students are placed in special ed but might not need it.

Too many people think the problem, with everything, is taxes. That’s the underlying premise in Petrena’s question. That is, if some kid is in a special ed program, but doesn’t need it, then we are wasting precious tax dollars.

The problem is NOT taxes; it never was and never will be. The problem, I believe, is the mindset where the number one priority is reducing, or, at least, not raising, the tax rate, without regard to the non-monetary costs. The tax rate should simply be one component of the evaluation process, it should not be the primary component. The primary component of any discussion on spending should revolve around the this question: How does the spending advance the organization’s (or school district, town, etc…) commitment to their mission.

For example, the mission of the Greece School District (GSD) should be to provide every student with a sound, quality education. Under my theory, when the GSD creates their budget, the primary focus must be advancing the quality of the education given to the students. Instead, the focus will surely be how to reduce spending while (hopefully) maintaining the current level of educational benefits.

Obviously, the political forces in Greece won’t allow for this to happen anytime in the near future. But that doesn’t mean all is lost.

Progressive policies, where community benefit, not cost, is the primary focus, are being implemented when and where feasible. Simply take a look at this law, which the Governor signed in August:

Governor Eliot Spitzer today announced that he has signed legislation creating a fair and effective process for parents of children with disabilities who chose to challenge school districts’ decisions about which educational services are appropriate for their children.

This new law puts the burden on the school district to prove that it is satisfying its legal obligation to provide an appropriate individualized education program for a student with a disability.

snip

Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), every child with a disability is entitled to receive a “free appropriate public education.” To that end, school districts are required to develop a plan to meet the specific needs of each child with a disability. The IDEA protects children’s rights by giving parents and school districts the right to an administrative hearing if they cannot agree on which services the child needs.

For more than 30 years, when these administrative hearings were brought in New York, school districts were required to prove the appropriateness of the individualized education program. A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling put the burden of proof on the party requesting an administrative ruling, most often parents, for all states that did not have a specific law or regulation on this issue. Because New York did not have a law or regulation on this subject, the Supreme Court’s decision effectively reversed the State’s longstanding rule.

Shifting the burden of proof to the School Districts is the morally correct way to proceed. Too many parents, especially those of special education students, will not have the resources to prove their child’s school district isn’t providing a quality education. This law correctly puts the burden on the districts to prove they are providing a meaningful education to the special ed student.

Of course, by placing the burden on districts, they will no doubt have to spend more tax dollars defending their special education programs. But the community benefit gained from giving special education students a meaningful education, while giving their parents the ability to challenge that education, far outweighs any additional cost to the districts.

Now the question: do you think my premise (that taxes shouldn’t be the #1 consideration) is correct?