Let's ponder the
definition. “Conservative” is holding to traditional attitudes
and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in
relation to politics or religion.
Sue Kerr, a blogger,
(I am a blogger too) is playing the role of a conservative and asking
people to vote “NO” to the City of Pittsburgh ballot measure that
I have championed because:
- She has not found
anyone with actual facts, however, she refused to answer my friend
request on Facebook and refused to discuss this with me despite my
repeated approaches to her. So, her seeking is more like planned
avoidance. Come on Sue. Why can't we be friends? One of my central
themes as a coach and advocate for better government is “playing
well with others.”
- Then she writes,
“the narrow exclusion would only benefit a few people.” Really?
You really want to put hardships on super-minorities? You think that
because only a fraction of the population is (insert letter of your
choice) that they don't deserve the rights of others? What about
protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity? Hey, that is a “narrow” and those protections
only benefit a few people. So, let's let things as they are. So
conservative of you.
Pittsburgh passed a
law with sexual orientation protection and that benefits few – and
I'm proud to have that as part of the fabric of our city's legacy.
Helping a few people helps us all be better, be stronger, be more
whole. At its roots, the ballot question is about non-discrimination.
I don't like discrimination, even for a few, and I'm puzzled why you
favor it.
- Vote no, posts
Sue, “because some are already coaching and teaching in public
universities as adjunct faculty (just Google a few names.)” What?
Who? Name names! I know of none. Should we google the entire city
payroll? And, what might that uncover? I don't have the names of all
the city workers. Sue, why don't you send this posting to Michael
Lamb, city controller. Does your partner work for CCAC? I don't know
what to think. I lost my decoder ring anyway. And, let's say it is
true in that perhaps there are a few workers in the city who are
already working another part-time job, against the norm and city
charter's stipulations, for CCAC and /or Pittsburgh Public Schools –
then what? Do you want to whistleblow? Or, would you just forgive
them and not allow others the same opportunities? Then vote YES with
me. Or, are you just without any logic and wishing to spread fog and
doubt?
- Since, as Sue
posted, “enforcement of this ban has certainly not been consistent”
then it makes sense to vote YES and be done with this opportunity for
meaningless rule-breaking. All should know that I championed this
ballot question because last year a newly-hired coach was forced off
of the PPS job because of his city employment with the department of
public works. Real work actions, to my knowledge, have been fully
consistent and ethical. He should not have worked last year – and
he didn't. But, he should be able to work as a coach next week if we
change the charter. And, I hope he applies, gets hired and takes
another coaching job as soon as possible.
- Sue thinks a no
vote is wise because of a lack of an informed perspective. Wrong. The
matter before the voters in the election is for part-time employment.
Part-time employment for public-school coaching and adjunct teaching
at CCAC is different. The charter's authors didn't visualize every
possible situation under the sun for the future of our city. This is
an enhancement. Be progressive.
The quote from Mr.
O'Connor of city council speaks against a broader exemption as being
problematic, but this ballot question is specific and NOT A PROBLEM.
Ms. Rudiak of city
council defends the ballot question too. The change is what it is. It
is not an exemptions for all types of government side work. It is a
question with focus. Perhaps Sue likes uncertainty and sinister plots
within her ballot questions. I don't.
- Sue goes on to
slam Natalia Rudiak for leaving office at the end of her term. She
didn't seek re-election because she is moving on to other chapters in
her life. “Who would champion such a thing?” is a direct question
from Sue. Answer: A reasonable person who listens to citizens'
concerns and does her job while she is hired to do her job. I'm happy
that Natalia has not been a lame duck for an entire year.
Sue attempts to
throw stones now at the messenger and not the message, a childish
ploy.
Sue then plays the
not forthcoming victim yet won't converse with me. Joke is on Sue.
Sue gets it wrong
again when she posts that the goal is to create more employment and
side income opportunities for City employees. Wrong! That is not the
goal. Sue knows what the goal is, as the first line of her blog post
reads, “… I think students in Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS)
deserve good coaches.” That's the goal. We had a good coach knocked
off of a part-time coaching job opportunity because of a city-charter
provision that worked AGAINST good coaching. Here is the formula from
2016-17 season on the PPS pool deck: 2 coaches, minus one, equals
less coaching. That's bad. Help fix it.
- Sue asks a
question for another day and another referendum, “Why not allow
employees to do holiday temp work with the postal service?” That's
not the issue. Your thinking that voters should pick “NO” because
this ballot question is not going to help the postal service is crazy
talk. I'm happy Sue thinks coaching is important. No amount of her
lengthy googling should get in the way of a YES vote on this simple
measure.
- Sue asks: Is it
reasonable to amend our City constitution to address select
employment vacancies in PPS? Isn’t that the responsibility of PPS?
NO! The sticking point is the city, not PPS. The problem is with the
city's charter, not PPS. When fixing a problem, go to the source of
the problem. Victims are not to blame.
We’re talking
3,100 people who would be ineligible out of the whole population of
the City. Is that a reason to change the constitution? YES. Vote yes.
Problem fixed. Changes made. No blood required. This is not a drastic
measure. I hate to write such a drastic blog post too.
The 3,100 people who
work for the city account for the second largest block of employed
people in the city. If five great coaches come from the ranks of the
city's work force, they could impact hundreds of kids a year. Whole
schools and neighborhoods could change. Teen violence might reversed
itself. I know that I help to teach about 200 kids how to swim and
swim better every year. In the course of my career, more than 10,000
kids have called me “coach.” The impact of a few coaches can be
tremendous. I think that some of the folks who work in the city
should have the same opportunities to contribute to the community in
meaningful ways as I have had the good fortune to do as well.
I've been known to
recruit coaching help for employment needs anywhere and everywhere.
Even at UPMC and at AGH. Last year, an kid of an AGH employee was
employed with our Summer Dreamers Swim & Water Polo Camp.
Furthermore, it is HARD to find qualified candidates to coach in
part-time positions. There is a world-wide shortage of lifeguards.
Coaching shortages are, well, just google it yourself, Sue.
Sue says that this
proposed change will disproportionately benefit men. Sue, ever hear
of Title IX? There are not fewer opportunities for women coaches.
And, women and men make the same money in coaching with PPS as it is
a union-negotiated amount. Double-wrong.
OMG Sue, here is my
answer for your absurd question that follows. Yes. Anyone can sue
anyone at any time. Sue's Q: “Does this set up the possibility for
excluded employees to sue the City because they are not able to
pursue a sorting gig with the USPS over the holidays?” No one
answered that question – except me.
Only a conservative
crank would use the lack of a robust research process on the charter
provision’s history – paralysis by analysis – as an excuse for
a no vote.
Coaching is a
privilege. I am privileged. I coach boys and girls. Title IX insures
that the boys and girls get equal treatment.
I do not want to see
our police union in Harrisburg at the PA Supreme Court in litigation
seeking rights to move their homes and their kids into school
districts that are out of the city. Rather, I'd be more willing to
permit employees of the city, such as those on the police force, to
be permitted to coach their sons and daughters and their classmates
in the city's schools programs of sports, music, chess, drama, debate
– with part-time jobs. For some, being engaged in the lives of
their children is important. And, it is important enough that if my
city prohibited that from happening, moving out of the city makes
great sense. Let's keep those people here.
And you'd rather
have a volunteer coach from the ranks of city employees – for
further hardships on families. A volunteer coach isn't accountable. A
volunteer coach has no standing with the district and can be flicked
aside by the PFT in a heart-beat. Clueless odds are high. I do not
want evenly applied coaching employment. I want talented, inspiring
coaches. You seem to want to keep employees of the city within
financial distress.
Your commending of
the city employees who put forth this suggestion is misplaced too. A
city resident and a PPS coach, acting on my own, seeing the reality
of situations, put forth the ballot measure. The city and the
district have been reserved. Let's all applaud people who act with
integrity and let's all fix flaws, together. Both big and small flaws
count. Don't get in the way of progress because it has always been
done in another flawed way. This is fair. This is complete for what
it is. If you want utopia, put it on the ballot yourself.
A good reason for
you to block this YES vote is because a women helped get it in front
of the voters and she is quitting. We are losing women in elected
roles so we should not pass measures that they help to advance. Come
on.
You, Sue, can write
the post-office ballot measure for 2018. Go for it.
By the way, off of
society's needs can't be put into one YES or NO ballot measure. By
voting YES, the citizens of Pittsburgh get to side-step and fix a
WORST-PRACTICE clause in the city's charter. It isn't about
“best-practices” – but rather about making improvements.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment