Republican Plan to "Reform" Recall in Wisconsin

In the last several days, news reports indicate Wisconsin Republicans are again advancing proposals to change the recall process in Wisconsin.  One such report (from the Washington Post) characterized the proposal as follows: 

On Thursday, legislators will consider proposals to drastically change the standards under which an elected official could be recalled.  One new proposal would only allow a recall of a statewide elected official if the official had either been charged with a serious crime that would be punishable by at least a year in prison, or been accused of a serious ethics violation.  Another proposal would require a member of the legislature to be accused of malfeasance before a recall could proceed.

 

The proposal to limit recall to officials who have been charged with a felony makes little sense.  If an official is convicted of a felony, they are automatically disqualified from office as a result of their conviction anyway.  So what is the point of allowing officials charged with a felony to be recalled when they are going to be out of office anyway if they get convicted?  Second, the standard of being "accused of a serious ethics violation" is odd.  What does the term "accused" mean for that standard?  Accused by whom?  In what setting or venue?   Moreover, what is a "serious" ethic's violation as opposed to one not judged to be "serious?"  Who decides whether the alleged violation is a "serious" one? 

 While these objections are rational reasons to not tinker with the law, I am not sure they would help to sway Republicans intent on forcing the issue out of distaste for the recall attempt on Governor Scott Walker.  What might make a difference is to demonstrate why the change is bad policy by anecdote. 

 

In Canada, the city of Toronto's current mayor is Rob Ford.  Mr. Ford has generated massive amounts of publicity lately for engaging in drunken rampages, admitting to having smoked crack "in a drunken stupor," threatening to "kill" someone on a video, admitting to having purchased illegal drugs within the last two years, and (most recently) being accused of engaging in sexual harassment at the office.  Mr. Ford is an embarrassment to Canada generally and the City of Toronto specifically.  Apparently, however, the Toronto City Council and the voters are unable to force him from office because no "recall" mechanism is in place there.

Perhaps efforts to gut Wisconsin's recall procedure would be defeated if legislators considered that if Rob Ford were the governor of Wisconsin, or a State Legislator or Mayor here, the new recall standards being touted by the Republicans would prevent citizens from acting to recall him from office.  Ford has not been charged with any felony (and likely will not be) and who knows whether what he has been doing constitutes a "serious ethics violation." 

 

Another example from recent Wisconsin history would be former Sheboygan Mayor Bob Ryan who was recalled in 2012 largely due to several incidents of boorish behavior in his personal life toward women while drunk that he was never charged for criminally.  Since it involved activity in his personal life, not in his capacity as Mayor, it wouldn't have constituted a "serious ethics violation." 

 

Wisconsin citizens certainly would want to have the option of recall available in such circumstances.  Republicans are hell bent on trying to prevent such politicians from being recalled.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Changing a good law due to "sour grapes" is bad policy.  

Ryan Braun & PED use in Baseball

Ryan Braun's suspension has generated waves of controversy throughout Wisconsin and nationwide with much of it centering on what can be done to rid baseball of performance enhancing drug use.  Despite having the strongest penalties in major league sports, baseball continues to have its image tarnished by repeated scandals involving some of its major stars.   

Pundits reason that increasing the penalties even further is not likely to accomplish significant change since the penalties are already severe and the huge salaries being paid provide an incentive to cheat.  In fact, several commentators have argued that despite being suspended and penalized by baseball, Braun and other PED abusers will still reap millions of dollars in profits from the increased contracts attributable to their wrongdoing.  

Despite all the handwringing about how the problem is intractable, there is an easy solution.  If I say so myself, the solution is elegant.  The new system would merely graft an additional layer of punishment on to the existing suspension scheme.  The additional layer of discipline would simply add an additional clause as a standard, required provision in every player contract providing that a first violation of the PED policy would result in the player's contract being reduced to the major league minimum salary for the remainder of the contract term.  

Baseball would also enact a rule that this salary penalty would apply for a minimum of four years, regardless of how long the player had remaining on his existing contract.  This would ensure players who were at the end of their contracts or free agents would also be facing substantial economic disincentive. 

 

A second offense would contain the longer suspension and a provision that the player remain at the league minimum salary for the rest of his career.  A third violation would include a lifetime ban. 

Consider for a moment how such a policy would affect superstars like Ryan Braun.  Under the current penalty scheme, Braun will serve a 65 game suspension that will cost him approximately 3.5 million in lost salary.  However, when he returns, the PED use that enhanced his performance sufficiently to prompt the Brewers to sign him to that 10 year, $120 million dollar contract will still have 7 years remaining.   

Under my revised penalty plan, Ryan's decision to break the rules by using PEDs would cost him dearly.  He would still be bound to the Brewers, but would be playing for the league minimum during next 7 years - usually the most productive (and high paying) of a player's career.  In one fell swoop, this change removes the financial incentive for players to cheat. 

Fahrenheit 451

Almost exactly a year ago (June 17, 2012), I wrote a blog entry about a list of my favorite science fiction books.  I was recently amazed when - out of the blue - a stranger e-mailed me about having read that entry on my blog.  Who knew anyone was reading!  Jack Collins (who wrote) alerted me to a short (only 3 minutes) video about "Fahrenheit 451" - one of the books on my list.  The video is from Academic Earth.  Enjoy!

Link to video

For bonus points, figure out why the book was named Fahrenheit 451!

Pride

The focus of this post is now former Chicago Bear linebacker Brian Urlacher.  As an avid Green Bay Packer fan, you would expect me to hate the Bears and your expectations would be correct.  However, hating the team does not require one to revile its human constituents.  In fact, over the years, I have had a certain respect and fondness for two Bears in particular; former head coach Lovie Smith and Urlacher.  While (on the down side) Urlacher was a Bear, he was also a fierce, talented competitor who was respectful of the sport and his opponents.  I liked that.  He has been a classy guy.  So, I was sorry to see the Bears part ways with Urlacher.

But the subject of this post is pride.  Although it remains to be seen whether my speculation is correct, I think perhaps fault for the divorce between the Bears and Urlacher should be attributed to Urlacher's bruised ego or (if you will) his pride.  Urlacher reported being offended by the Bears stance during contract negotiations.  Urlacher said he and his agent sought an amount significantly higher than they expected to sign for expecting to give some during back and forth negotiations.  What upset Urlacher is not the Bears original position to offer a contract of 2 million per year (which Urlacher admitted knowing to be "a lot of money") but their refusal to negotiate up from that figure.  So, Urlacher concluded, there was no negotiation, the Bears just gave him a "take it or leave it" deal.  He was insulted and offended the Bears would treat him like that.  So far, although media pundits have questioned whether Urlacher can expect to do better on the free agent market, they have generally agreed with Urlacher's view that the way the team handled its non-negotiating "negotiations" treated Urlacher shabbily. 

As Lee Corso is wont to say "not so fast my friend."  For the sake of argument, assume the media pundits are correct it is doubtful free agent Urlacher can find another team willing to pay him 2 million dollars per year or more.   In fact, pundits seem to believe Urlacher will ultimately sign elsewhere for less.  With that background, consider again the Bears offer.  In this light, instead of giving Urlacher an unrealistic low ball initial offer (to offset the unrealistic demand made by Urlacher) the Bears stepped up to the plate and gave Urlacher the respect he deserved as a lifetime Chicago Bear. Instead of trying to save money by trying him to sign for less than he was worth, they offered him a contract for every nickel of the 2 million per year he was worth.  In fact, perhaps we will learn what they offered would have given him a premium to have remained a Bear.  Of course, we won't know until Urlacher signs with another team.

I suspect Urlacher's concession that 2 million a year is "a lot of money" is not quite as candid as it might seem to you or I who will never make anywhere near that much money.  Professional athletes sometimes reach the point where they become blind to the obscene amounts of money they are being paid to play a game and fail to consider they possess no other talent that would allow them to earn so much.  instead, athletes use the salaries they are being paid relative to others in the same sport as a measure of their self worth.  They are "insulted" if a team is proposing to pay them less than a player they consider themselves to be superior to, regardless of whether the player being paid more actually merits that salary.  I suspect what insults Urlacher is that he can't wrap his head around the idea that a long time favorite of Bear fans, a player the Bears have built their defense around, and a future hall of famer should be paid less than the average middle linebacker.  His pride is getting the best of him.  Sad, but understandable. 

UPDATE - News broke on May 22, 2013 that Urlacher announced his retirement.  No team was willing to step up and match or exceed the $2 million the Bears offered Urlacher to return.  For that matter, at least publicly, no team offered him a contract to play even at the league minimum (which for a player with more than 10 years of service would have been $820,000).  I wonder if this proof that the Bears initial offer to Urlacher was exceedingly generous will cause Urlacher - and the public - to reevaluate how Urlacher was being treated by the team.  I would hope so, but I won't hold my breath.