repubgazette7-26-07tablegames21rethinkingungerhillary

If you're uner 21 and employed at one of the West Virginia racetracks preparing to install table games, count on looking for another job.

According to the table games legislation passed in March, individuals under the age of 21 are prohibited from being in the vicinity of the games -- including employees.

And, contrary to what Lottery Commission attorney John Melton told MetroNews on Wednesday, the law cannot be changed via the rules writing process.

Pro-gambling lawmakers were so anxious to approve the table games bill that they rushed the legislation even though it contained provisions that are coming back to bite them. In this case, Chapter 29-22C-29-A(6) of the bill specifically states the following:

"A racetrack table games licensee is guilty of unlawful operation when... the licensee knowingly permits an individual under the age of twenty-one years of age to enter or remain in a designated gaming area..."

That is the law, and West Virginia Code makes clear that while rule writing can clarify or describe implementation of law, it cannot alter the law itself.

In fact, established West Virginia State Code specifically addresses the subject of "Limitations on authority to exercise rule-making power" (§29A-3-2) and says, "To the extent any such grant of power and authority, not so exempt, shall be deemed to exceed the limits and provisions of this article, such power and authority to promulgate legislative rules is hereby revoked."

Lottery attorney Melton told MetroNews that "there's probably a way to grandfather the current workers by either setting a date when all have to be over 21 or having them work in other areas of the racetrack."

There's probably a way, but only through the legislative process, not through rule writing. If Melton was right, laws approved by the legislature would be meaningless if they could simply be changed during the rule writing process -- not that it hasn't happened before.

If the Lottery tries to change the law through rule writing, it sets itself up for a likely successful court challenge.

As reported by MetroNews, the new table games law also makes another change in that if table games are installed at racetracks the betting age goes up to 21 for table games and video lottery machines at those particular tracks. Currently those 18 and older can play video lottery machines.

There comes a time when you have to take stock of the position you have taken on a given subject, look around at what others say, and consider whether you are so off base that you must re-think your position. Such is the case with the Republican Gazette and John Unger.

The Republican Gazette has been hard on the state Senator who is now running for Congress. We questioned what he does for a living, and how much he gets paid for doing it. After he finally admitted his $88,000 salary from EG&G, we wondered why he didn't bother to include it on his financial disclosure form as making up at least 20 percent of his income.

Then, we dared to point out that Unger was late in filing his second quarter report with the Federal Elections Commission, a rather serious offense for most candidates.

But in retrospect, the Republican Gazette has obviously been way out of bounds. Why, just this week, Unger informed everyone that the executive director of the state ethics commission -- the ethics commission, mind you -- had already told him that there is no need to file an amended financial disclosure form. It was perfectly OK, apparently, to falsely indicate that 20 percent of his income came from his part-time radio work at WEPM, and no other source of income -- including the $88,000 from EG&G -- needed to be included in the 20 percent category.

Who are we to argue? Even the Charleston Gazette, which rarely criticizes Republicans, chastised the state GOP in a painfully accurate editorial entitled "Nitpick." The editorial chided the GOP for daring to question Unger's honesty for not revealing the amount he makes from EG&G. After all, he reported several times on the disclosure form that he works for EG&G -- what's it matter how much he makes? It is rather nitpicky, isn't it?

(And the newspaper is especially gracious in defending Mr. Unger, given that Unger stiffed the Charleston Gazette itself when it was trying to nail down his salary and ran to the Charleston Dail Mail with the details instead.)

And filing his FEC report late? Again, apparently no big deal, especially considering that not a single mainstream media outlet in the state has reported on the fact that Unger missed the deadline on his very first FEC campaign finance report. We must be nitpicking. After all, laws are made to be broken, truly.

Again, when you are doing one thing, and everyone else is doing something else, you eventually have to conclude that it is you who is wrong.

There is some good news out of all this. State lawmakers can now assume that when they fill out their financial disclosure forms, there is no need to worry about accuracy. In fact, there's no need to worry at all, given that the ethics commission almost always comes down with the full force of a feather pillow, and if anyone makes an issue of it, they will be nitpicking.

For example, if a lawmaker makes, say, $100,000 a year holding down a patronage job at a state university, and makes $10 a week mowing his neighbor's yard, he can safely get away with reporting "lawn mowing" as his major source of income. This is apparently as it should be.

And, as the Charleston Gazette editorial accurately points out, the Republican Party wouldn't be filing an ethics complaint if this case involved a Republican. Correct again. That fact simply cannot be denied. Of course, some might think that's part of the function of the two-party system -- one party keeps an eye on the other, since parties are notoriously reluctant to police themselves.

But again, the GOP's flaws have been exposed for what they are. The Republican Party is partisan -- partisan -- unlike the non-partisan Democrats. When did this happen? How did this happen? The GOP must re-think its purpose, which should not be to criticize the Democrats.

Senator Unger's defenders have helped the Republican Gazette see everything in a new light. Henceforth, we shall endeavor to be a kinder, gentler chronicler of Mr. Unger's life and activities, adopting the general consensus that whatever he does, it must be the right thing to do.

Therefore, to right past wrongs, the Republican Gazette shall tomorrow unveil a new feature -- "Saint John of Martinsburg." Perhaps it will allow us some small measure of redemption.

Hillary Clinton, the future nominee of the Democrat Party who will singlehandedly provide the "one" in the Republican Party's one in a million chance of keeping the White House next year, has miraculously found extra time in her schedule for a public event in Charleston on Friday.

As you might recall, Hillary earlier dissed Hardy County, which was hoping for a visit from Senator Clinton later in the day. But time constraints and "logistics" squelched that deal, according to the campaign (in fact, overzealous state employees circulating the Hardy fundraising invite via government email was the real culprit).

Now, though, Hillary's schedule has suddenly freed up, and she will regale the masses and not just the high rollers with her magical presence.

In reporting the joyous news, the Charleston Gazette went to the new West Virginia "go-to" political guru, Prof. Robert Rupp of West Virginia Wesleyan. Prof. Rupp is a very, very nice guy. He's had me in to speak to his class. I hate to criticize him. But sometimes I don't follow his professorial conclusions.

Prof. Rupp told the Charleston Gazette that Hillary's decision to do a public event was great news, because, “We’re starved for attention. She’s coming here with a full show.”

Starved for attention? Seriously? West Virginia has had more presidential visits in the last six years than Camp David. Plus, John Edwards has been here, Mitt Romney has been here (at least twice), John McCain has been here (back in November), Rudy Giuliani is coming in August. Starved for attention? How needy are we?

And, "She's coming here with a full show." What does that mean? She's bringing the Rockettes? The cast of "Hairspray?" J.D. Sumner and the Stamps Quartet? (That last one was a blatant self-satisfying "inside" Elvis warm-up act reference.)

Hey, even I think it's exciting that Hillary's coming to Charleston. The satire possibilities will be endless and should provide fodder for days, given that the legislative interims have been timed to coincide with Hillary's visit to Charleston and Mojo's delicate handling of the situation will be fascinating to watch.

But a West Virginia visit by a presidential candidate or a president himself is hardly rare lately. If we're starved for attention, we need a diet.

The following column is in regard to a recent directive from the West Virginia Department of Education that schools, and not parents or teachers, are responsible for purchasing basic school supplies like pencils, folders, erasers, glue, crayons, wipes, tissues, notebooks, etc.

By WALTER DUKE

Delegate, 54th District

This “school supplies policy” was NOT the result of any legislative action in 2007. Its origins stem from a 1995 WV Supreme Court of Appeals (WVSCOA) decision about Randolph County charging a total of $30 to $90 per student for all textbooks provided to them during the school year. The justices cited constitutional language requiring WV to provide a “free education.” In their opinion, the court stated that the local schools systems were to provide free textbooks and materials.

A state oversight agency, the WV Office of Education Performance Audits (OEPA), recently discovered that parents--not local school boards--were paying to provide some school supplies for students. The OPEA says this violates the 1995 WVSCOA decision.

The State Superintendent of Schools, along with the State Board of Education, is now reviewing the “school supplies” issue in order to provide our 55 county boards of education and the OEPA with more specific guidance in interpreting the Supreme Court's decision.

Personally, I would hope that state officials consider that parents bear some responsibility for bringing their children into the world, and providing for them—including providing some of the basics for their children's education. Yes, society can (and does) provide some assistance to help those who are from low income families (free and reduced school breakfast and lunch programs, clothes banks to help provide coats and other clothing to those in need, etc.).

Why should county school systems in WV provide ALL school supplies (pencils, pens, paper, backpacks, folders, three-ring binders, index cards, tissues, etc.) needed for ALL students? School systems in our neighboring states do not do that--why should WV?

I taught for 33 years in public schools in WV. I have seen that "well intentioned state policies" have unintended consequences. They have actually harmed local school systems financially, eroded the fabric of our society, and undermined the teaching of personal accountability for parents and students in our public schools. Here are a few examples that quickly come to mind.

We went from students being required to buy their books, to then requiring them to pay a few dollars to rent textbooks, to now providing all textbooks "for free"--and the result was an increasing number of students not taking care of

their school books. That resulted in increased cost to the county school systems (meaning the taxpayers) regarding repairing damaged books and replacing lost books.

We went from pay-as-you-go for school lunches (and almost no bad debt that had to be absorbed by the county school system and taxpayers) to a "charge your lunch and we will see if we MIGHT be able to collect for it later" system. This costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in expense that must be absorbed by the school system and county taxpayers.

Through such WV policies as cited above, we are not teaching personal responsibility and accountability. And we are not being good stewards of taxpayer dollars with which we are entrusted. The limited tax dollars that are available for public education (pre-K through grade 12) must be spent in the most judicious and equitable manner in providing for the needs of our education system. This “school supplies policy” prevents that.

WV's 55 county school systems will collectively spend millions of dollars to provide these school supplies to ALL students. That money could be used by county school systems to provide further teacher salary supplements to help recruit and retain teachers in WV.

It could be used to help make teacher salaries in WV financially more competitive with other states. That in turn could slow the exodus of highly qualified WV teachers to our neighboring states so that our current and future school kids, our taxpayers, and the state of WV will not be negatively impacted.

Unless Governor Manchin would call a special session AND include this specific topic as one that the legislature could take up, the legislature cannot address this issue until the next regular legislative session which starts in January of 2008.

I would urge anyone who is upset about this “school supply policy” to contact Dr. Steve Paine at the WV Department of Education (dvermill@access.k12.wv.us), Governor Manchin (www.state.wvgov.org), and the WV Board of Education (vharris@access.k12.wv.us) to express your displeasure and urge them to alter this rule.

If you are a member of WVEA or AFT or some other state teacher association, urge them to advocate for changing the “school supplies policy.”

When they hold their first meeting in August, the faculty senate at each school in WV could put the “school supplies policy” issue on their agenda and vote to send letters of concern to the appropriate state authorities.

We should not be spending education dollars unnecessarily on things that are not a responsibility of the state or county school system. We need to direct our current education dollars to where they are most needed.