Posted by …and What’s Horse Manure got to do with Anything?
Helen Hammons is once again roving the halls of the legislature, and sent us this report.
Pre-clearance from the Justice Department came last Friday related to the policy known as "double dipping," Chancellor Bradley Byrne, head of the two-year system, sent a memo (available here in pdf format) to his college presidents on Tuesday, March 4, stating the policies involved were to be implemented "effective immediately."
The memo set out the following information to the presidents:
Please note the following. Policy 220.01 prohibits employment of any member of the Legislature and any official elected to statewide office, and also prohibits entering into personal or professional services contracts under which services are to be performed by such officials.
However, this policy contains some important exceptions. A member of the Legislature or statewide elected official who is a current employee may continue in the position until his or her current term of office expires. Similarly, unexpired personal or professional services contracts do not have to be immediately terminated. Such contracts should be terminated on the earliest date possible where no penalty will result.
Policy 609.04 applies to any outside employment or activities by any employee during normal work hours. Personal, annual, or unpaid leave must be requested by the employee in these circumstances. Unpaid leave requests should be processed as stated in policy 611.01. For example, under section 611.01(2) an unpaid personal leave request requires submission of the proper written request by the President to the Chancellor for his final approval or disapproval.
A State Senator Responds and the Chancellor Responds to a Concern
State Senator Quinton Ross, D-Montgomery, the senator most directly impacted by the policies through his employment at Trenholm State questioned how the media got the policy and why it was being put out now.
"I’m going to be interested in why it went out through the AP now. That’s something that had been sent out probably three or four weeks ago. I’ve been functioning under that initiative since the beginning of session. The chancellor had already sent out directives to the college presidents as to how legislators were supposed to report their time. One of which was to use annual leave or personal leave. That it had to be documented weekly in a calendar that was readily available to the president as well as to anyone that asked. So, I’ve been functioning under that ever since, but that’s now in addition to the calendar that I keep overall. I keep three different calendars but they all have the same information. That’s what he’s asked for and that’s what we’re doing.
Late in the day I was strolling down the hall of the 7th floor when someone grabbed me by the arm and asked if I knew that Chancellor Byrne was in with Senator Hank Sanders. Never one to pass up a chance to camp out and get in a question, I eventually managed to get to Byrne for a second as he was heading back to his office and got his take on Ross’s perception.
"Well the memos are different. The memo that was sent out prior to the session was a memo that directed the presidents to make sure that everyone was keeping their time sheets accurately and just restated the ethics opinion that started all of this back in 2002 to the effect that you have to use your leave time. The memo that went out today was as a result of the pre-clearance of the flextime policy which goes beyond that which says you cannot use flextime at all. So it effectively directed the implementation of that policy. Now we’re an open body and if the press gets a copy of one of our directives then it’s a public document and it’s perfectly appropriate for the press to do whatever they want to with it as far as reporting – but we sent it to the presidents."
Ross says the situation is really no closer to a resolution, "What the Justice Department provided puts us no closer to a resolution then we were when they sent the information out to be reviewed by the Justice Department. Basically litigation (which is currently underway) will take place and we’ll just have to see how all of it plays out in court."
"It’s been my contention all along that I’ve always done the job, I’m going to continue to do the job and do what’s required of me by the chancellor. And particular by me living in Montgomery it’s a different situation. You’re talking about me never having to take a full day of leave to participate in the legislative process. I’m able to go to my job in the morning before I come. I’m able to go back when I’m finished and the nature of my program, a program that runs approximately 148 classes a week, day and night, just requires some flexibility because otherwise you wouldn’t have anybody responsible for the program in the evening if it was just during the regular workday."
"I think that you have to try to take as much of the politics out of it as possible and come to a realization that you have some legislators that are professional educators… To paint with such a broad brush, particularly if you haven’t done something wrong, but just for the sake of polarizing and politicizing the issue, I don’t think is the right approach."
"I don’t mind if I have to use my leave time to come. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to say you have to take unpaid leave. I do think it’s unreasonable for you to say all you can get is 10 days unpaid leave and if you get that you have to get permission from the chancellor and the chancellor has already said that he wouldn’t grant it for legislative purposes. That’s just not reasonable to me. [I'm trying to double check the 10-day thing with postsecondary but I think that particular limit ended up being removed.]
Another View from a Senator Whose Pay Takes a Hit
State Senator Rusty Glover, R- Semmes is in a unique position. Not only does he now blog on the Parlor, he is a high school history teacher whose pay gets docked for every day he spends working in the Legislature. I asked him for his reaction Tuesday.
"Well you know I think all legislators have to be accountable. The citizens of Alabama expect people, legislators to be prudent on their pay and not accept money for work that’s not done and I think most legislators understand that they need to be on the job when they’re working. I know for the last six years when I’m teaching, on the days we’re in the Legislature, I’m docked now $280-something dollars a day."
"And I feel okay with that. I’ve accepted that. It hurts my family in the spring and it’ll hurt my family in the years after I get out of the Legislature because it will affect my retirement. I will be receiving about $6,000 less each year for the rest of my life because of the years I’ve spent in the Legislature because of the way it affects my retirement, but I’m okay with that…"
As far as Byrne goes Glover says, " I think what he’s trying to do is bring accountability and I think most of the people in the state are accepting this. I think he’s trying to do the best he can."
Dr. Reed’s Take
Some days you just run into everyone in the halls of the State House and who should I bump into but the Alabama Education Association’s Dr. Joe Reed – "It doesn’t surprise me because he’s going to do everything he can to frustrate the ability of legislators to serve in the Legislature. He’s committed to that and that’s what he’s going to try and do. This doesn’t surprise me. I think he’s going to do more than that, I think it’s just going to be a matter of time before we see it."
The AEA Journal has made Byrne an ongoing focus of its front page (I’ll have more of that in another post at some point). Dr. Reed say he’s not concerned what anyone thinks,"If folks don’t like it – sue us. We don’t lie on anybody; we’ve never told a lie on anybody, so AEA – we have a very responsible journal. People may not like what we write but I don’t like the editorials I see in some of the daily newspapers, but there isn’t anything I can do about it. They buy the paper by the ton."
Difference of Opinion
I am going to probably catch some flak for the next section but this item shows what two people watching and listening to the same event can have a different view on the subject. The February 4th issue of the AEA Journal talks about the January 24 budget hearings at which the two-year college chancellor gave his budget presentation.
The AEA article says:
At the Legislative Budget Hearings on Thursday, January 24, the same day Chancellor Roy Johnson pled guilty on federal corruption charges, State Senator Parker Griffith, D-Huntsville and Representative Alvin Ho[l]mes, D-Montgomery, backed Byrne into a corner about his intentions to use his chancellorship to spring board to a run for governor in 2010.
Byrne fell silent when Griffith asked him to support a bill to make the chancellor’s office non-political by prohibiting any chancellor from running for governor for two years after leaving the chancellorship.
After the chancellor did not respond, Griffith asked the question again. An agitated Byrne finally retorted, "Are you trying to keep me from running for governor in 2010?
Holmes said to Byrne,"The question Mr. Byrne is: ‘Are you running for governor in 2010?’ Byrne again refused to answer."
A Different View
I was sitting in the gallery and my notes record a different scene. Although it’s true I did not catch every single word, I caught a lot of them. I stand by what I wrote then for the Parlor:
Later in the day, there was someone else who apparently was concerned about how much attention Byrne has been getting in the rumor mill about a possible run for governor in 2010. Senator Parker Griffith tried to convince Byrne during the question period about the postsecondary budget that it would help take the politics out of the two-year system and restore faith in the system if Byrne would get something approved that would prohibit any person holding the position of chancellor from running for office for a period after they were chancellor.
Byrne quietly reminded Parker [Griffith], "If you go forward in the plea it also talks about problems with legislators…" Byrne went on to tell the legislator that with the Legislature involved in the funding of the system things would never completely be de-politicized. Byrne went on to say, "If an individual or committee is intent on doing inappropriate things…it will happen anyway." Parker responded, "Couldn’t we go for that goal?"
Byrne responded that it’s a good idea to try to drive politics out of decisions, but "when you have an elected body…that’s made policy…you can’t take politics out of it…."
Once again Griffith espoused his theory that the chancellor removing himself from consideration of any other office in 2010 would be good for bringing back a positive perception of the two-year college system with the public and again asked Byrne if he would do that.
Byrne replied,"Let me get this straight, are you asking me to support something that says I wouldn’t be allowed to run for governor in 2010?" Parker said, "Yes." Not even breaking stride Byrne replied with a grin, "I’m not in favor of that idea."
Immediately upon Senator Griffith leaving the podium, Representative Alvin Holmes (D – Montgomery) spoke from his seat and told Byrne what Griffith was trying to do was "pass a law so you can’t run for governor in 2010. I’m not in favor of that law. I think anyone ought to be able to run for anything they want to run for…."
Who would have thought it, Alvin Holmes supporting Bradley Byrne. Don’t worry folks things quickly got back to normal. A short while later Holmes said to Byrne, "Your job is supposed to be non-partisan and non-political. I don’t want to find out that you’re just going after the blacks and not going after the whites doing the same thing (with regard to wrongdoing)."
Senator Sanders and the Opening I Couldn’t Refuse
I had a nice chat with Senator Hank Sanders. D-Selma; well, I kind of ambushed him between votes and he was kind enough not to send me away, and I will have more of what he had to say in another post. But he did say the back-and-forth that’s been ongoing between proponents of differing views on what’s happening with the two-year college system is not healthy for the system.
"If there’s a fight between some people and other people involving that it can’t help but to hurt the two-year college system and it can hurt in ways you may not even see for a period of time. And then, you look around and the foundation would have been shattered and so would everything you tried to build up on it. So I hope there’s not a fight about the two-year college system. In order to avoid a fight sometime you have to avoid fighting words. That’s my opinion… There are people who could be more judicious with their words. I’m not saying Dr. Hubbert or Chancellor Byrne ought to be more judicious, but I don’t want to see the two-year college system hurt."
I tried to get Byrne, a former state senator, and Senator Sanders to spill the beans on what they were talking about late in the day to no avail.
Outside the State House I asked Byrne what he and Sanders were discussing to which Byrne responded, "We were renewing an old friendship."
Sometimes you just have to call an answer what it is. "Byrne, you’re full of crap," I said. We both laughed.
"Is that still recording and is that on the record?"
My answer, "Yes, of course it is." And, so it is. Thus endeth the day’s story.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
I have serious questions about any attempt to ban members of any profession from a serving in elected office.
Going back to Washington, we have generally avoided having soldiers holding elected office. They retire, resign their commissions or nowadays transfer to the Guard before campaigning.
I understand SamfordDem’s heartburn about the ban, but something has got to be done. How can a person be paid for doing two full time jobs in one day. If a legislator is being paid to be in Montgomery on a Tuesday, how can we be paying him to do a job in another city at a college on the same day? Further, a Rep or Senator is paid (and paid well for a part-time job) to represent the people and entities of his district because he represents them. Then if a Rep or Senator gets hired by a college in his district as a disguised lobbyist, then we are paying him twice to do just one job – represent a school in the district. Here’s an interesting article about Rep. Greeson and his 3 state jobs.
http://times-journal.com/story.lasso?ewcd=09c7ce045b0e978e
I agree with Samford Dem, I believe it’s downright anti American to ban members of any profession from holding an “elected” office.
What about the four year college employees, city employees, and state employees such as teachers and state troopers? Why the emphasis on just the two year folks? Seems discriminatory to me.
Most of those employees you cite in post #5 are not controlled by the State Board of Education. The board controls k-12 and 2 year colleges.
Uh, any of you folks ever heard of the Hatch Act? It prohibits active military and federal employees from running for office. State Rep. Ron Grantland got in trouble with the feds a few years ago because most of his Department of Public Health salary came from federal dollars. There is ample precedent for what the school board did.
Here is a problem with elected officials working for junior colleges: the junior colleges let these guys have time off to go to the legislature. People with “regular” jobs often cannot serve due to having to be at work most days. So forcing JC workers who are legislators to use vacation time is no different than what others have to do. This position levels the elective playing field.
And no one is barring ANYONE from running for office. You just have to make a CHOICE just like any other citizen has to make.
Uh, #7, the Hatch Act specifically excludes education employees, so it does not apply in this case.
So it is not ok for two year employees to have time off to serve in the legislature but it is ok for four year employees, state employees, city employees, all of which have salaries that are paid in some manner with your tax dollars. I just don’t understand the inconsistency. Let people serve but make them take unpaid leave. Don’t single out a group of people and tell them they can’t run for office.
Much of the rationale behind the ban has been disengenuous at best. The standard argument in favor of the ban was to preclude members of the legislature employed by the system from influencing state budgets directly or indirectly affecting the two year college system. This rationale is clearly flawed because we have executive directors of state regulatory agencies serving in the legislature, as well as a number of other state employees, but there seems to be no concern regarding their influence in the budget process. No one is up in arms that there are attorneys in the legislature who create laws that may ultimately benefit members of their profession. The point regarding the Hatch Act is well taken, however do not lose sight of the fact that Alabamians have a long history of practicing democracy in the Jacksonian tradition. The people of Alabama like to have a voice in things and we want to vote-on and elect whom we choose. I don’t think the decision to preclude a certain group from serving in elected office will sit well with Alabamians. So much so that I think this could be a significant impediment to the Chancelor’s aspirations.
From looking over the comments, it appears the majority would be in favor of all state legislators holding a job somewhere else in government, said job’s duties and attendance to be secondary to their legislative duties. Or am I hearing it all wrong?
Nope. I just believe in democracy and think that people ought to be able to elect whomever they want. If the voters don’t like what their rep does for a living, let them deal with it in the next election.
Nope. I just believe in democracy and think that people working for the government, should not be serveing in a body that oversees themselves. If the double dippers don’t like that, let them find another job before the next election. Oh, but that would take away the kickback Uncle Paul gave them.
Is there any one profession that is not ever affected or influenced by an action from the Legislature?
Thank goodness we live in a republic and not a democracy.
Here’s a simple question: If an entity with business before the Legislature bribed a legislator, namely gave them money for their person and not their campaign, would those defending “democracy” on this page suggest that we should ignore that situation so long as that legislator was re-elected? Of course not.
We are a nation governed by laws, not men. When a two-year college employee is paid for work they did not undertake, that is a criminal act. That so many believe there is nothing wrong with such a situation only underscores why it is that the Democrats have been in power too long. Given enough time, one becomes insulated to corruption. As I have said on this page, most of the anger coming from those involved with this scandal derives from the fact that for decades such practices have gone on and there have been no repercussions. Suddenly, those who are only taking advantage of a situation that legislators have enjoyed since before they were ever elected find themselves facing criminal charges. I can see why they are annoyed. What I cannot see is why the so-called “party of the people” has no qualms with rampant corruption in a collegiate system that, at least in theory, was designed to educate the people.
How about when a Senator is paid for work not done?
Such as attending a committee hearing that your a member of.
Will, let me add to your post…
You are probably aware that in the past year and a half, the Postsecondary Education system has had one scandal after another. One of the most embarrassing chapters of the Postsecondary corruption occurred at Bishop State Community College in Mobile. This college was headed for many years by state representative Dr. Yvonne Kennedy, a college president who retired [under pressure] on July 31 after many years of being a “double dipper.” In fact, her obvious failure to provide proper supervision as president of Bishop State–where such ridiculous things occurred as a 67 year old one-legged grandmother was awarded athletic scholarships and a culinary arts instructor enrolled himself in his own classes for credit–is one of the major reasons why there has been such a public outcry against the practice of “double dipping.” There have been numerous investigations by SACS, federal investigations, and state investigations of athletic scholarship money and other funds as well as other improprieties over the years. Their local district attorney, a Democrat named John Tyson, has diligently had many college employees arrested as a result of the investigations.
Yes, JD, this is the part where you bring up Larry Dixon. Now I’m supposed to explain how his committee is not funded by budget allocations as is the case with the two-year colleges. I’ve heard this debate before.
To make it easier on all parties, let’s make a deal: I’ll trade Larry Dixon if you trade all of those double-dippers you defend. Sound fair?
As a fellow Republican, I’ll even sweeten the deal Will is offering. I’ll throw in Todd Greeson and Blaine Galliher if you’ll give up all the Democrats who double-dip.
What about Mike Hubbard?? He was on the Education committee getting millions of dollars for Auburn.
At one time he owned the company,(while opn the committee) then he sold it, now he only contracts through it but his livelihood
depends on the financial well being of Auburn. How can you say that is not a conflict of interest. In addition his wife is a professor at Auburn. Do you think him being on the Education Finance Committee ever influenced her getting raises since the 4 year school president and senior staff decides who and how much the raise are. Hypocrites!!!! The board let Roy Johnson steal millions, their answer, blame it on the legislature. Hey Mobile boy, How many public hearings did Randy McKinney have in Baldwin County
about the mismangement of Bishop??? I am asking you a direct question. How many public hearings did any of the board members ask concerning coruption in their districts?? NUN because they were asleep at the wheel
and let Roy Boy rob, hire, steal and plunder while they sat on their asses and drew nice paychecks.
Look at the “Big Picture”. It’s their fault and the Guv was the Chairman of the Board. When a company like Enron goes down the CEO is brought to court and all board members are also liable. It will be interesting to see how many of these “pious board members” are indicted as well. John Caylor who never saw a college paycheck his wife didn’t like should be indicted. He worked for every college in the state and couldn’t hold a job. Give me a break…….
You bring up a very interesting point, poljunkie. Sweeter Deal may be on to something here. I’ll trade all the Republicans who are on state boards, who themselves are employed by publicly funded institutions, or who have spouses who work for publicly funded institutions. In return, poljunkie, you trade all Democrats on state boards, who themselves are employed by publicly funded institutions, or who have spouses who work for publicly funded institutions. Fair deal?
and to think I thought the main goal was to eliminate corruption….
Ethically, if you’re hired by two different people to do the same job… you should only get paid once. Regardless of party affiliation, we’re talking about tax dollars. My money and yours… Do these individuals deserve double pay?
Scrooge McDuck, you may be onto something. Many states prohibit the holding of more than one office of profit from the state. Unpaid volunteer work by legislators should be encouraged.
Some people sure expect a lot from legislators for the $10.00 per day we pay them. Maybe they should sue the state for violation of minimum wage.