I saw this article in today's San Diego Union Tribune by Brian Skoloff about saving used "hotel" soap and providing it to people who need it. It describes Shawn Seipler's "Clean the World" organization.
MISSION: SAVING LIVES WITH SOAP | UTSanDiego.com There are a lot of organizations who make use of left over hotel soap and toiletries. But this one sounds like it is really doing it on a grand scale!
It is amazing how much we waste. The difficulty, of course, is collection and distribution. It all takes people's time and energy to gather, process and then redistribute.
On the front page of the same newspaper was a photo of food found in dumpsters showing how much usable food is going to trash. Another clear example of waste in our distribution system.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Friday, April 17, 2015
DRUG SEIZURES UP --At what cost?
According to this article in San Diego Union Tribune by Jeanette Steele, there has been a big increase in seizures of drugs going to the US and Canada during the past six months. DRUG SEIZURES UP | UTSanDiego.com
They value the "wholesale" value of the drugs at $848 Million during the past six months alone. Was it worth the expense? How much did those seizures cost to the American citizens? A typical, fully staffed navy ship can cost around $300,000 per day to operate. That is over $100 million per year! The article mentions the names of a couple of the ships involved. But to cover so much geography, the US and Canada must have over ten ships deployed -- that represents over a $Billion! The article also refers to flying a drone. An RQ-4B Global Hawk Drone costs about $49,000 per hour to fly. To keep just one on station over areas of interest 24 hours/day for a year would cost $429 million dollars. Those costs don't include the costs for guards and fences at our borders, inspections of all travelers on ships, planes, trains, cars, buses, trucks etc. I have to assume the Government also uses other sophisticated electronic systems such as sound-monitoring buoys, surveillance satellites and satellite communication links, which are all very expensive. We would also assume that Government spends money to pay for spies who work inside the drug operations in all of these countries. We pay hundreds of millions to South and Central American countries to provide them with training, equipment and operations against drug growers and smugglers. Other costs are the costs of prisons, prosecutors, judges, juries, balifs, courtrooms, probation officers, welfare for families who's breadwinners are in prison etc. None of those costs are ever shown as a cost of our drug war. We also don't talk about the loss of American Citizens privacy through the anti-money laundring laws and surveillance systems that are justified based upon the "war on drugs."
The bottom line is that even though the Government is bragging about their big "catch" in drugs this past year, the cost to the taxpayers was also much bigger. The cost might have been as much as an order of magnitude higher than the value of the goods captured. One of the reasons for the bigger drug haul, might be that the amount of drugs actually being transported is also higher. Are we catching a larger percentage of the total volume being transported? One of the best indicators is the street price for drugs. Has the price of those drugs increased since the interdiction success? Or stayed the same?
It still seems to me that those $billions could be better spent by offering free treatment for drug users, and we should legalize and tax the safer forms of these recreational drugs. Our country would be better, and our neighboring countries would also be beter off.
They value the "wholesale" value of the drugs at $848 Million during the past six months alone. Was it worth the expense? How much did those seizures cost to the American citizens? A typical, fully staffed navy ship can cost around $300,000 per day to operate. That is over $100 million per year! The article mentions the names of a couple of the ships involved. But to cover so much geography, the US and Canada must have over ten ships deployed -- that represents over a $Billion! The article also refers to flying a drone. An RQ-4B Global Hawk Drone costs about $49,000 per hour to fly. To keep just one on station over areas of interest 24 hours/day for a year would cost $429 million dollars. Those costs don't include the costs for guards and fences at our borders, inspections of all travelers on ships, planes, trains, cars, buses, trucks etc. I have to assume the Government also uses other sophisticated electronic systems such as sound-monitoring buoys, surveillance satellites and satellite communication links, which are all very expensive. We would also assume that Government spends money to pay for spies who work inside the drug operations in all of these countries. We pay hundreds of millions to South and Central American countries to provide them with training, equipment and operations against drug growers and smugglers. Other costs are the costs of prisons, prosecutors, judges, juries, balifs, courtrooms, probation officers, welfare for families who's breadwinners are in prison etc. None of those costs are ever shown as a cost of our drug war. We also don't talk about the loss of American Citizens privacy through the anti-money laundring laws and surveillance systems that are justified based upon the "war on drugs."
The bottom line is that even though the Government is bragging about their big "catch" in drugs this past year, the cost to the taxpayers was also much bigger. The cost might have been as much as an order of magnitude higher than the value of the goods captured. One of the reasons for the bigger drug haul, might be that the amount of drugs actually being transported is also higher. Are we catching a larger percentage of the total volume being transported? One of the best indicators is the street price for drugs. Has the price of those drugs increased since the interdiction success? Or stayed the same?
It still seems to me that those $billions could be better spent by offering free treatment for drug users, and we should legalize and tax the safer forms of these recreational drugs. Our country would be better, and our neighboring countries would also be beter off.
House Votes to Repeal Estate Tax and give $269 billion to the very rich
Big news today in San Diego Union Tribune in article by By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
House passes bill to repeal estate tax | UTSanDiego.com. I can't believe that the Republican congress would waste its time passing something that is so ridiculous that they know would not get through the Senate (even with Republican majority) and certainly would not get signed by the President. It is purely symbolic. Its obvious that they are pandering to the very rich in the hopes of encouraging increases in campaign donations. That's because it gives a quarter trillion dollars to those very rich. Congressman Kevin Brady's (R-Texas) legislation clearly benefits only the VERY rich people (estates over $10.9 Million for married couples)--and only those rich people who have not planned their estate well to pass on their wealth to children via trusts or donate it through the various charity options. The bill also had no way to "pay" for the huge cost to the treasury($269 Billion over 10 years) by eliminating the tax. That is a complaint that Republicans scream loudly every time Democrats propose some sort of increase in spending.
The main objection I have to repealing the estate tax is that it would eliminate the "step up" when a person dies, and require estates to pay capital gains tax. That becomes a huge paperwork nightmare for the personal representative of the estate! The tax basis of properties that were purchased, and improved by the deceased and often very difficult to figure out or find historical information about improvements, land divisions, etc. The bill claims that if passed it was employ over a 100,000 people. I'm not sure who would be employed if this bill passes -- but it sounds like it would require an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it all out. We don't need that additional complexity as "financial relief" for lawyers and accountants!
It seems to me that the truly fair way to handle the estate tax would be to index the "deduction" so it adjusts annually with the CPI. The actual tax could be "graduated" so that people with $10-$20 Million estates are taxed maybe at less than today's 40%. However as estates grow larger, the taxes could be reasonably increased to 50% or 60% for the hundred million dollar type of estates. As the article points out, very few people with $100+ million estate will end up paying those higher taxes because of careful estate and tax planning. However, such a bill would help a lot of people, and could end up being somewhat "revenue neutral."
House passes bill to repeal estate tax | UTSanDiego.com. I can't believe that the Republican congress would waste its time passing something that is so ridiculous that they know would not get through the Senate (even with Republican majority) and certainly would not get signed by the President. It is purely symbolic. Its obvious that they are pandering to the very rich in the hopes of encouraging increases in campaign donations. That's because it gives a quarter trillion dollars to those very rich. Congressman Kevin Brady's (R-Texas) legislation clearly benefits only the VERY rich people (estates over $10.9 Million for married couples)--and only those rich people who have not planned their estate well to pass on their wealth to children via trusts or donate it through the various charity options. The bill also had no way to "pay" for the huge cost to the treasury($269 Billion over 10 years) by eliminating the tax. That is a complaint that Republicans scream loudly every time Democrats propose some sort of increase in spending.
The main objection I have to repealing the estate tax is that it would eliminate the "step up" when a person dies, and require estates to pay capital gains tax. That becomes a huge paperwork nightmare for the personal representative of the estate! The tax basis of properties that were purchased, and improved by the deceased and often very difficult to figure out or find historical information about improvements, land divisions, etc. The bill claims that if passed it was employ over a 100,000 people. I'm not sure who would be employed if this bill passes -- but it sounds like it would require an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it all out. We don't need that additional complexity as "financial relief" for lawyers and accountants!
It seems to me that the truly fair way to handle the estate tax would be to index the "deduction" so it adjusts annually with the CPI. The actual tax could be "graduated" so that people with $10-$20 Million estates are taxed maybe at less than today's 40%. However as estates grow larger, the taxes could be reasonably increased to 50% or 60% for the hundred million dollar type of estates. As the article points out, very few people with $100+ million estate will end up paying those higher taxes because of careful estate and tax planning. However, such a bill would help a lot of people, and could end up being somewhat "revenue neutral."
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Innovation Act: For or Against "Patent Trolls?"
Patents and patent law have always been very complicated and controversial. The amount spent for legal support to challenge and protect patents is a huge cost of doing business. With the many international agreements, patent law is getting even more complicated across international borders.
As a national and global policy, we should try to do everything possible to encourage new ideas and inventions. The financial protection provided by patents and copyrights does need to be maintained. This Gallegher Intellectual Property Law Site has good history of the problem. However, the business that "patent trolls" do is generally despicable, counter-productive, and does nothing to help the economy, other than enrich the trolls and their lawyers. Legitimate companies are generally willing to negotiate fair and reasonable fees for rights to use patents. I think the US Government does need legislation to put some sort of controls on those trolls. But what is the right answer? Who can we believe? A new version of the "Innovation Act" is now pending in Congress which purports to resolve this problem.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports the "Innovation Act" which failed to pass in 2014, and may get voted upon again in 2015. See this link: But the San Diego Union Tribune today published an editorial by Bryan Pate, CEO of EliptiGo, who says that his small business would be ruined if the Innovation Act passed, due to the additional legal costs required to defend his patents. This trial lawyer presents a solid argument at this web page, for why the Innovation Act will only benefit the large corporations and not really help the small innovator. Of course, if patent trolls are stopped, lawyers will generally lose business. Who can we believe? This website appears to explain both sides of the issue Fox Business also tries to explain both sides. . From the corporations that are lining up on both sides of the issue, it appears that the very large businesses have lined up in favor of the "innovation act" and the small businesses are against it. It is hard to figure out who's money is behind it -- see this link: Since now corporations can donate as much money as they want to politicians, I am suspicious that the so-called innovation act will actually benefit the very large businesses and squeeze out the little guy. Based upon only that, I would be suspicious of it and would prefer it not be passed. I've often thought that patent trolls could be stopped if they had to show that they were actively pursuing use of the patent they own. After all, the goal of the patent system is to push patent owners to deploy their idea as fast as possible, before the protection ends. A troll typically never actually uses the patent or even licenses it to anyone in good faith to employ in a design.
The same sort of thing happened with Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was a terrible piece of legislation, but was sponsored and funded by Disney and a few other very big corporations. When the act passed, Disney was able to extend the copyright protection for old books and movies from back when Disney first started so probably made hundreds of millions of dollars from the passage. Meanwhile the act generally screwed the public's rights to fair-use sharing of copyrighted material. I wonder if the innovation act will end up doing the same thing?
I have not yet written to Darryl Issa, my congressman because I'm not sure which way I would want him to vote. It does seem to me that if we want to stop the evil of patent trolls, we have to "raise the bar" for litigation, which, in turn, will raise the costs for someone to litigate to protect their patent. I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this subject.
As a national and global policy, we should try to do everything possible to encourage new ideas and inventions. The financial protection provided by patents and copyrights does need to be maintained. This Gallegher Intellectual Property Law Site has good history of the problem. However, the business that "patent trolls" do is generally despicable, counter-productive, and does nothing to help the economy, other than enrich the trolls and their lawyers. Legitimate companies are generally willing to negotiate fair and reasonable fees for rights to use patents. I think the US Government does need legislation to put some sort of controls on those trolls. But what is the right answer? Who can we believe? A new version of the "Innovation Act" is now pending in Congress which purports to resolve this problem.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports the "Innovation Act" which failed to pass in 2014, and may get voted upon again in 2015. See this link: But the San Diego Union Tribune today published an editorial by Bryan Pate, CEO of EliptiGo, who says that his small business would be ruined if the Innovation Act passed, due to the additional legal costs required to defend his patents. This trial lawyer presents a solid argument at this web page, for why the Innovation Act will only benefit the large corporations and not really help the small innovator. Of course, if patent trolls are stopped, lawyers will generally lose business. Who can we believe? This website appears to explain both sides of the issue Fox Business also tries to explain both sides. . From the corporations that are lining up on both sides of the issue, it appears that the very large businesses have lined up in favor of the "innovation act" and the small businesses are against it. It is hard to figure out who's money is behind it -- see this link: Since now corporations can donate as much money as they want to politicians, I am suspicious that the so-called innovation act will actually benefit the very large businesses and squeeze out the little guy. Based upon only that, I would be suspicious of it and would prefer it not be passed. I've often thought that patent trolls could be stopped if they had to show that they were actively pursuing use of the patent they own. After all, the goal of the patent system is to push patent owners to deploy their idea as fast as possible, before the protection ends. A troll typically never actually uses the patent or even licenses it to anyone in good faith to employ in a design.
The same sort of thing happened with Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was a terrible piece of legislation, but was sponsored and funded by Disney and a few other very big corporations. When the act passed, Disney was able to extend the copyright protection for old books and movies from back when Disney first started so probably made hundreds of millions of dollars from the passage. Meanwhile the act generally screwed the public's rights to fair-use sharing of copyrighted material. I wonder if the innovation act will end up doing the same thing?
I have not yet written to Darryl Issa, my congressman because I'm not sure which way I would want him to vote. It does seem to me that if we want to stop the evil of patent trolls, we have to "raise the bar" for litigation, which, in turn, will raise the costs for someone to litigate to protect their patent. I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this subject.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Why would God Bless the "Old America?"
Our friend Grace Armstrong Lewis posted this on her Facebook page:
It started me wondering: Why would "God" bless the "Old America" rather than the current America? How "old" is the "old America" that the sign is referring to? If alive today, it must be since the 1920s during prohibition, when crime was rampant, minorities and women were treated terribly, Klu Klux Klan were freely doing lynching and many children died in childbirth or disease. Could it be the 1930s, during the depression -- there weren't many good times then!. How about the 1940s? World War II, Hitler & Japan's atrocities, food and gas rationing, Japanese-Americans sent to remote camps? Could it have been the 1950s with McCarthyism, Polio, Korean war and the start of the Cold War with fear of global world nuclear war? It is hard to believe we miss the 1960s when we lost 50,000 lives fighting a stupid Vietnam war, and still had the threat of global nuclear war. The US war on Vietnam killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam and the region, and what did we gain? -- would God "bless" that? It is possible that someone might "miss" the 1980s, but I'm not sure why. Crime was much higher than today. The Government created inflation that reduced the value of the dollar by about half to pay for the previous wars which decimated the savings of many..particularly retirees on fixed incomes. President Reagan intentionally fought against rights for gays, women and blacks and refused to step up to stopping HIV/AIDs which contributed to the death of tens of thousands.
I think the world and American citizen's lives are much better today than any time in history. I think the "moral standard" of America and the United States Government is better now than it ever has been. Crime is down, traffic fatalities down, food is safer, water and air is cleaner, education is better and fairer. We have a good national "safety net" which protects poor, elderly and disabled better than ever before. In international relations, we seem to have relatively good relations with China, Vietnam, and now even Cuba. We are having a rough time with Russia --but our efforts show we are trying to bring peace. Yes we are fighting some "wars" but they are all relatively low level, and the number of soldiers being killed and wounded seems to be lower than most times in history. Why would we ever want to go back to the "old days?"
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs
I've always thought that state regulatory boards were in a strange "conflict of interest" situation that made them appear to be working to restrict the supply of people in their profession more than trying to protect the public. Even when their obvious goals were to protect the public, they were always under suspicion and had to go out of their way to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. Michael Hiltzik's column in today's Los Angeles Times explains how that situation might change a lot based upon the February 25 2015 Supreme Court ruling on NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTALEXAMINERS v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. See Michael's article at this link.
Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs - LA Times
Michael Hiltzik
With respect to this Supreme Court case, it is clear to me that "tooth whitening" does not require the same sort of regulation that dentistry requires. However, It probably does need some sort of regulation to protect the public from poor sanitization etc. The essence of the case is should a state regulatory board be exempt from antitrust law, which would, in effect, protect professionals serving on a state board if they "restrained trade" by monopoly-like practices. See this SCOTUS Blog. The fact that the Dentist profession wanted to maintain control over that procedure does appear to be an attempt to restrict the supply of teeth-whitening service providers and keep the profits from that service for the Dentists. The same concept could apply to almost every other state licensing board, in every state. Doctors, dentists, contractors, lawyers, hairstylists, swimming pool maintainers, and Realtors all are in the same situation.
One of the problems is that the best people to write laws about a specific profession and enforce those laws are the people who know the most about the field. So, for example, the Dentists propose the laws, serve on the Dental boards, and hole hearings and either perform or recommend discipline when malpractice is determined. Discipline is often very slight and usually very slow, even for egregious offenses. Professionals are viewed as loathe to discipline members of their own ranks.
Another part of the problem is that the top members of a professional hierarchy are often the ones who serve on boards regulating professional requirements for "lower tier" professions. For example Dentists are the board members who write and enforce the rules for dental hygienists and dental assistants. Medical doctors serve on the boards that license physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and the many other lower-tier medical professionals, such as phlebotomists, or x-ray technicians, General contractors serve on the boards that regulate lower tiers such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile setters etc. In Michael's example, Veterinarians regulate Veterinary Technicians That puts those at the top of the hierarchy in a position where they can restrict what those lower tier professionals are able to do in their state to make sure that the members at the top of the hierarchy continue to get their "cut" of the revenue from those lower tier workers. For example, requiring all dental hygienists to work under the direct supervision of a dentist in a dental office -- as opposed to allowing them to open their own office. To reduce the appearance of this apparent conflict, the boards often have "token" representation from the lower tier professions on the board, such as one Veterinary Technician on a board of Veterinarians.
There is a good argument for having those "top tier" professionals serve on the boards for the lower tier jobs. The top professionals are the best educated, usually have the most experience, and have the most to lose. Since the top profession is dependent upon the lower tier, they do need to make sure that they are protected from poor performance from lower tier employees. In many instances, the top profession's liability insurance acts as an umbrella for the other employees.
Serving on a board is usually in imposition on professional's valuable time. Even though most of the boards do pay members for serving it often doesn't represent the full "opportunity cost" to a professional for attending board meetings. They have to make room in busy schedules, they have to consider their employees, travel time, overnight accommodations near the meeting location (often near state capitol cities). and impact on friendships, professional society positions, and personal liability. The goal of altruism and serving the state to improve their profession could easily be overshadowed by the possibility of increasing total earnings by making minor changes in board rulings, license exams, or laws.
I see this Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to structurally change how many services are provided and reduce the cost of those services to the public, by reducing the ability of professions to earn excess profits from monopolistic pricing. I'm amazed at how much more reasonably priced similar services are in other countries. Dentists in Thailand go through almost the same sort of training, and require the same types of equipment and office operation as used in the US, but high-quality services are provided at much less than half of the costs in the US. I believe services are cheaper in every country of the world. Why do we pay so much more in the US? Possibly because of this sort of board oversight.
My suggestion is that board structures be changed throughout the US. The Supreme Court ruled against the current structure, but did not suggest how it could be corrected. The only advice was that:
1) the challenged restraint on competition is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy and
2) the policy is actively supervised by the state.
I will be greatly interested in hearing what the experts come up with. However here are some of my suggestions:
1. No voting member of a professional state regulatory board should be a member of the profession being regulated.
2. Boards should, however, be made up of state-licensed professionals from other professions, with no two members from the same profession, and none, of course from the profession they are regulating. Board members shall have short term limits to make sure that many have opportunities to serve.
3. States need to provide "active supervision" over the board and the professions. So all boards should serve in an advisory role to a state official. A state civil servant shall be assigned to approve all recommendations from the board, and the civil servant shall be nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative committee(s) that control the profession. The number of civil servants could vary depending upon the number of legislative committees a state has, the size of the profession, etc.
4. Boards should have a budget, from which they can hire professionals (often from the profession they are regulating) to perform studies and provide recommendations to the board. In general, the budget should be proportional to the number of people in the profession being regulated, and should be funded from fees collected for testing, licensing, and annual license renewal fees.
5. It seems crazy for a state to establish a statutory restraint on competition, so I doubt that would happen. But if for some reason a state wanted to do so, it could. Conversely, I believe states should encourage competition and should include the requirement for the boards to take steps to encourage competition as much as possible.
Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs - LA Times
Michael Hiltzik
With respect to this Supreme Court case, it is clear to me that "tooth whitening" does not require the same sort of regulation that dentistry requires. However, It probably does need some sort of regulation to protect the public from poor sanitization etc. The essence of the case is should a state regulatory board be exempt from antitrust law, which would, in effect, protect professionals serving on a state board if they "restrained trade" by monopoly-like practices. See this SCOTUS Blog. The fact that the Dentist profession wanted to maintain control over that procedure does appear to be an attempt to restrict the supply of teeth-whitening service providers and keep the profits from that service for the Dentists. The same concept could apply to almost every other state licensing board, in every state. Doctors, dentists, contractors, lawyers, hairstylists, swimming pool maintainers, and Realtors all are in the same situation.
One of the problems is that the best people to write laws about a specific profession and enforce those laws are the people who know the most about the field. So, for example, the Dentists propose the laws, serve on the Dental boards, and hole hearings and either perform or recommend discipline when malpractice is determined. Discipline is often very slight and usually very slow, even for egregious offenses. Professionals are viewed as loathe to discipline members of their own ranks.
Another part of the problem is that the top members of a professional hierarchy are often the ones who serve on boards regulating professional requirements for "lower tier" professions. For example Dentists are the board members who write and enforce the rules for dental hygienists and dental assistants. Medical doctors serve on the boards that license physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and the many other lower-tier medical professionals, such as phlebotomists, or x-ray technicians, General contractors serve on the boards that regulate lower tiers such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile setters etc. In Michael's example, Veterinarians regulate Veterinary Technicians That puts those at the top of the hierarchy in a position where they can restrict what those lower tier professionals are able to do in their state to make sure that the members at the top of the hierarchy continue to get their "cut" of the revenue from those lower tier workers. For example, requiring all dental hygienists to work under the direct supervision of a dentist in a dental office -- as opposed to allowing them to open their own office. To reduce the appearance of this apparent conflict, the boards often have "token" representation from the lower tier professions on the board, such as one Veterinary Technician on a board of Veterinarians.
There is a good argument for having those "top tier" professionals serve on the boards for the lower tier jobs. The top professionals are the best educated, usually have the most experience, and have the most to lose. Since the top profession is dependent upon the lower tier, they do need to make sure that they are protected from poor performance from lower tier employees. In many instances, the top profession's liability insurance acts as an umbrella for the other employees.
Serving on a board is usually in imposition on professional's valuable time. Even though most of the boards do pay members for serving it often doesn't represent the full "opportunity cost" to a professional for attending board meetings. They have to make room in busy schedules, they have to consider their employees, travel time, overnight accommodations near the meeting location (often near state capitol cities). and impact on friendships, professional society positions, and personal liability. The goal of altruism and serving the state to improve their profession could easily be overshadowed by the possibility of increasing total earnings by making minor changes in board rulings, license exams, or laws.
I see this Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to structurally change how many services are provided and reduce the cost of those services to the public, by reducing the ability of professions to earn excess profits from monopolistic pricing. I'm amazed at how much more reasonably priced similar services are in other countries. Dentists in Thailand go through almost the same sort of training, and require the same types of equipment and office operation as used in the US, but high-quality services are provided at much less than half of the costs in the US. I believe services are cheaper in every country of the world. Why do we pay so much more in the US? Possibly because of this sort of board oversight.
My suggestion is that board structures be changed throughout the US. The Supreme Court ruled against the current structure, but did not suggest how it could be corrected. The only advice was that:
1) the challenged restraint on competition is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy and
2) the policy is actively supervised by the state.
I will be greatly interested in hearing what the experts come up with. However here are some of my suggestions:
1. No voting member of a professional state regulatory board should be a member of the profession being regulated.
2. Boards should, however, be made up of state-licensed professionals from other professions, with no two members from the same profession, and none, of course from the profession they are regulating. Board members shall have short term limits to make sure that many have opportunities to serve.
3. States need to provide "active supervision" over the board and the professions. So all boards should serve in an advisory role to a state official. A state civil servant shall be assigned to approve all recommendations from the board, and the civil servant shall be nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative committee(s) that control the profession. The number of civil servants could vary depending upon the number of legislative committees a state has, the size of the profession, etc.
4. Boards should have a budget, from which they can hire professionals (often from the profession they are regulating) to perform studies and provide recommendations to the board. In general, the budget should be proportional to the number of people in the profession being regulated, and should be funded from fees collected for testing, licensing, and annual license renewal fees.
5. It seems crazy for a state to establish a statutory restraint on competition, so I doubt that would happen. But if for some reason a state wanted to do so, it could. Conversely, I believe states should encourage competition and should include the requirement for the boards to take steps to encourage competition as much as possible.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Coastal Commission makes controversial decision concerning Del Mar San Dieguito Boardwalk
It appears that the California Coastal Commission may have made a very controversial decision concerning the relocation of a boardwalk built with volunteer labor and donated material. The decision was a result of a 5-5 tie vote. I suspect that the Commission staff possibly slanted their arguments, and scheduled the vote on a day when the commission wouldn't have their normal 11 members, which would have avoided a tie vote.
Coast News articles about the Coastal Commission's denial of the boardwalk:
https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/coastal-commission-denies-request-to-leave-the-boardwalk-where-it-is/
https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/coastal-commission-denies-request-to-leave-the-boardwalk-where-it-is/
Editorial in Coast News: https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/letters-to-the-editor-64/
Sierra Club suit over boardwalk decision: https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2014/01/sierra-club-sues-coastal-commission-over-fairgrounds-decision/
Coastal Commission Decision being protested: https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/supporters-walk-the-planks-to-save-the-boardwalk/
Editorial in Union Tribune by Steve Kinsey: Chairman of Coastal Commission, in favor of boardwalk decision:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/27/relocating-boardwalk-best-for-nature/
Editorial in Union Tribune by Greg Cox, opposed to the decision: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/27/another-view/
I do hope that there is another hearing, with the full commission and all of the factual information provided. There may be additional facts, analyses, and alternative mitigation options. It appears to me that there is a realistic compromise solution. They should leave the boardwalk in place for a reasonable number of years that would allow for the normal life of the structure (maybe 10 years) and after that time, the boardwalk could be removed and rebuilt in a new location.
On 5 April, the Union Tribune had an update written by Edward Sifuentes that said the boardwalk supporters were going to meet with the California Coastal Commission's staff on Monday. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/05/tp-groups-want-state-to-reconsider-boardwalk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)