Star-Telegram.com: Linda Campbell

CAMPBELL: Political candidates should demonstrate acquired knowledge

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:13 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

Ask just about any Republican politician who’s been paying attention, and she probably could give you chapter and verse about Supreme Court rulings she doesn’t like.

How could the justices possibly have said that the Constitution doesn’t prevent cities from using their powers of eminent domain to force out homeowners who stand in the way of economic development projects?

Or that the state of Louisiana can’t execute child rapists.

Or that colleges can continue practicing affirmative action by tossing race into the mix of admissions factors.

Or that states can’t outlaw homosexual sodomy.

If you asked Vice President Dick Cheney, surely he’d rattle off a series of rulings that put the brakes on the Bush administration’s free-wheeling power grabs in the name of waging a war against terrorism — the most recent decision coming in June and upholding the right of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus petitions.

All those rulings have come in the past five years. From a Supreme Court dominated by Republican presidents’ appointees. That’s a fact that irritates conservative Republicans no end.

But Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin couldn’t think of one of those cases when asked about a ruling with which she disagrees. Besides Roe v. Wade, of course.

Hard to believe that people in the heartland from which she supposedly comes don’t gripe about such things.

At least when they aren’t fretting about grocery prices, grousing about the latest doctor bill and dropping their jaws over their shriveling 401(k)s.

What’s even harder to believe is that Palin couldn’t even tell CBS News’ Katie Couric that in June she was saying how the Supreme Court had "gutted" a jury’s decision by ruling that plaintiffs were limited to only $507.5 million instead of billions in punitive damages stemming from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Palin could have said, perhaps, that she would abide by the law as decided by the highest court in the land — but still didn’t like it.

Instead, she gave an incoherent answer and then in a later Fox News interview proclaimed herself "annoyed" because she didn’t get questions she wanted to answer.

You might consider Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden self-serving by citing for Couric a ruling that struck down legislation he wrote, the Violence Against Women Act.

And you might believe the court correctly found that Congress shouldn’t be federalizing state crimes, something Congress too often does. (On the other hand, you might call the ruling brazen usurping of elected representatives’ authority, something that "conservative" jurists aren’t supposed to do.)

But at least he had a clue.

If Palin were as sharp as her campaigning elbows, she would have one-upped Couric by naming Red Lion, a case that’s probably not in the repertoire of your average hockey mom but certainly on conservatives’ radar screen.

In Red Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, the court upheld a rule called the fairness doctrine that required broadcasters to give air time to competing viewpoints on controversial issues. Broadcasters disliked the regulation. So did President Reagan.

The FCC dropped it about 20 years ago. But in the past couple of years, Republicans have frantically warned that Democrats want it reinstated to drive conservative talkers off public airwaves. President Bush earlier this year said he’d veto any fairness doctrine bill. (Obama has said he doesn’t support reinstating it: www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html.)

Palin probably would have studied the case en route to her journalism degree. Maybe it isn’t red-meat enough, but it’s an issue that actually matters to some of her core constituents.

Campbell: As Wal-Mart shoppers go, so goes the election?

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:18 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

Some thoughts to ponder the next time you’re standing behind 10 people in the slowest line in the local Wal-Mart, grousing that you won’t ever shop here again, or at least not until you absolutely need to:

Every week, 137 million Americans file through Wal-Mart, including 1 of every 5 women.

Wal-Mart’s why you can now pay around $5 a pound for salmon, why double-strength liquid laundry detergent has become ubiquitous.

Wal-Mart shoppers — women, specifically — supposedly are the swing voters who’ll decide the presidential election between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

Pollsters and political reporters, from Time to Business Week to Britain’s The Financial Times, have been analyzing the campaigns’ efforts to woo "Wal-Mart Moms," a shorthand for middle-aged white women, mostly lower-income and without college educations.

Wal-Mart’s taken its own snapshots of its shoppers, and here are some of the results that corporate communications VP Mona Williams shared at the recent National Conference of Editorial Writers convention in Little Rock:

People more likely to shop Wal-Mart in August than six months earlier: 54 percent.

Women more likely: 57 percent.

Minorities more likely: 73 percent of African-Americans, 70 percent of Hispanics.

Political leanings: 63 percent of Democrats more likely to shop Wal-Mart; 48 percent of independents; 46 percent of Republicans; 48 percent of undecideds.

Undecided voters who shop Wal-Mart regularly or occasionally: 71 percent.

Among Wal-Mart Moms, Williams said, 63 percent agreed that "I worry about having enough money to pay for my daily necessities like groceries and rent." Forty-five percent of them consider their financial situation the same as six months ago; 35 percent feel worse off, and 19 percent are better.

A September poll taken in five battleground states (Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia) depicts "Walmart Women" as pragmatic and focused on pocketbook issues, a Sept. 23 company memo says.

"Walmart Women" work (74 percent), are married (70 percent), attend church regularly (47 percent), have college degrees (34 percent) and call themselves politically moderate (42 percent), according to that survey. "Walmart Moms," though, are more often married (86 percent), less likely to work outside the home (68 percent) and lean more conservative (44 percent call themselves Republicans, 34 percent Democrats.)

The common wisdom says that McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to lure Wal-Mart Moms to his camp.

The hunter, fisher, wife and mother, former small-town mayor, regular gal might even shop at the Wasilla Wal-Mart: she did cut the red ribbon when it became a Supercenter last November, after all.

Democratic VP pick Joe Biden, by contrast, was chiding Wal-Mart in 2006 for what he called inadequate wages and employee health benefits.

I’m curious to see how each one of them reaches out to Wal-Mart Moms at tonight’s vice presidential debate.

But the key question isn’t whether a President Obama or a President McCain could feel the pain and frustration of Wal-Mart shoppers. (I can’t see McCain buying Better Homes and Gardens accessories at Wal-Mart for any of his multiple luxury abodes. Obama probably doesn’t pick up his arugula there, though it’s available in salad mixes.)

The question is which of the presidential candidates is likelier to have smart, workable ideas for improving the areas that regular people care about and struggle with every day: educating their kids and sending them to college; feeding their families on wages that are stagnating when prices are rising; paying the mortgage, the utilities, the gas to get around, taxes and other essentials; saving for retirement; affording doctor bills and prescription costs.

CAMPBELL: Little Rock desegregation continues to echo

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:55 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

"If not us, then who?

"If not now, then when?"

— U.S. Rep. John Lewis,

a former Freedom Rider

LITTLE ROCK — Gloria Ray remembered the night FBI agents knocked at her home to take her fingerprints so they could identify her body when they found it later.

Can you imagine sending your 15-year-old off to school with that specter haunting your thoughts?

To a new school, where she’d have to walk past hostile crowds just to enter — and be confronted with strangers in the hallways and classrooms?

I don’t think I could have done it.

But nine families did in Sept. 25, 1957. Sent their nine teenagers to integrate Little Rock’s Central High School under the guard of federal troops.

The splendid, sprawling school looked peaceful and inviting last week when I walked its grounds in the late afternoon with colleagues attending the National Conference of Editorial Writers annual convention.

A trio of girls wearing gold paper crowns practiced their balance standing on posts near a corner. At the adjacent stadium, an inflated yellow tiger stood ready for that evening’s football game.

Today, Central has 2,400 students and strong academic programs. It’s also known as the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, part of the National Park Service.

But from a visitor center catty-cornered to the campus, you can look across South Park Street and listen by telephone receiver to the story of that chaotic September when Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus called out the state’s National Guard, ostensibly to "prevent violence."

The troops prevented African-Americans Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas and Carlotta Walls from entering the all-white school.

After members of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division arrived to shield the teens from unhappy residents who gathered outside the school, the nine finally enrolled in Central High. It was three years after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that racially separate public schools denied students their constitutional right to equal educational opportunity.

"My heart breaks to see what African Americans went through — and to see the ignorant hate in so many people’s eyes. Thank you for this center, for helping to open my eyes just a little more."

— Sept. 19 entry in the center’s visitor book

Opened last year, the visitor center draws travelers from around the world: Visitors from Austin, Nederland, Munich, Scottsdale, Edmonton, Japan, India, New York City, and Luling, La., had scrawled messages in a notebook near the pillar featuring John Lewis’ words.

A video shows footage outside the high school during those tumultuous times. A touch-screen panel provides background on each of the Little Rock Nine and other major figures in the 1957 events. There, you can learn where life took each of the students.

Ray, for instance, became a patent attorney and eventually retired in Europe.

CAMPBELL: Constitutional protection of individual and privacy issues is an ongoing and central issue before the Supreme Court

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:52 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

Sure, you sometimes want to shake Joe Biden and shout, "When are you going to get to your question and let the witness speak?"

But can Sarah Palin say she’s helped evaluate the qualifications of every sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice?

Biden, the Democrats’ nominee for vice president, voted on 11 of the last 12 Supreme Court appointees. (He was sick and didn’t vote when the Senate approved Justice Anthony Kennedy 97-0 in 1988.)

Biden voted to approve Republicans as well as Democrats — though he opposed "conservative" heroes Robert Bork, whose nomination failed in 1987, and Clarence Thomas, both of whose hearings were surrounded by ugly and contentious interest-group battles.

It might be surprising to learn that, while Biden voted against both of George W. Bush’s appointees, the accomplished and likable John Roberts and longtime appellate Judge Samuel Alito, the 35-year senator voted for Justice Antonin Scalia, who’s been one of the court’s most doctrinaire conservative members.

But Scalia was approved 98-0 in 1986, despite resisting efforts to probe his judicial philosophy, as Democrats focused on opposing (unsuccessfully) Justice William Rehnquist’s elevation to chief.

Unlike Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, Biden has a long record to examine for insight into how he might influence the selection of Supreme Court justices.

But there’s more to it than just looking at his votes.

Legal affairs writer Jeffrey Rosen argues that, during the Bork and Thomas hearings, Biden didn’t do the bidding of abortion-rights groups, something for which "women’s groups remain angry at Biden to this day." Instead, he was interested in a broader concept of privacy, important to most Americans, the idea that the Constitution protects such things as the contraception choices of married couples.

Biden opposed Roberts and Alito in part because he found their answers lacking on the scope of constitutional safeguards for privacy.

Palin, who has a journalism degree, is neither a lawyer nor has she taught constitutional law, like Biden.

But in Alaska, the governor selects judges from a committee’s recommendations, and the appointees later run in retention elections.

In her less than two years as governor, Palin has appointed 13 judges, including a state Supreme Court justice, Joe Palazzolo and Tony Mauro wrote recently on law.com.

They reported that Palin asked at least one candidate whether the Constitution is a living, breathing document — a bugaboo for those like Scalia who favor an "original intent" approach to constitutional interpretation.

On the other hand, liberals might give Palin points for supporting a $200,000 appropriation for the Alaska Legal Services Corp., given that Republicans do not have a history of particularly favoring legal services agencies.

Nowhere is the vice president charged with helping pick Supreme Court members, but the last two VPs have been heavily involved. The next president almost surely will name one or more justices.

I’m not convinced that hopes or fears about how the next president might shape the Supreme Court should decide which candidate to choose.

Keep in mind that it’s easier to predict the volatile and divisive issues likely to come before the court in the short term — property rights, the death penalty, business regulations, etc. — than those likely to be thrust upon them unexpectedly: Bush v. Gore, anyone? Detainees’ rights?

But, also consider that it’s been the Supreme Court that’s checked the Bush administration’s power-grabbing attempts and managed to maintain the Constitution’s balances.

Rosen wrote in The New Republic that, "with Biden at his side, [Barack] Obama has more than a like-minded defender of civil liberties; he has one of the nation’s most effective spokesmen on their behalf."

CAMPBELL: See which vice presidential candidate has the better grasp of issues pertinent to the job

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:16 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Actually, I believe that the e-mail called me a hateful slut. And it wasn’t in Saturday Night Live-style jest.

Then there was the woman who left a voice mail at 1:03 a.m.: "You’re such a hag according to your picture that you probably don’t have any children. You’re just jealous that she’s beautiful and you’re ugly."

So much for John McCain’s "We’re all God’s children, and we’re all Americans."

Scrutiny of Sarah Palin has generated some downright vicious nasties — from her fans as well as her foes.

Don’t dare raise impertinent questions about the GOP vice presidential candidate, whom the McCain campaign wants us all to treat with "deference." The same kind of deference, I suppose, that Republicans showed to presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

When I wrote last week about the difficult choices Palin will have to make to balance family and White House aspirations, readers accused me of hypocrisy, misogyny, specious argumentation, vitriol and sanctimonious desperation. Others thanked me for expressing their sentiments.

The e-mails and phone calls were almost evenly split. And most on both sides raised legitimate points that should be part of the debate over who should get the most votes in November.

Why not ask Barack Obama about juggling work and family?

He’s written about the angst of being away from his wife and two young daughters when he first went to Washington as a senator. As president, he’d have his family living with him, but he wouldn’t see them as often as in a 9-5 job. Of course, he didn’t give birth to a child five months ago, but his choice to pursue presidential ambitions tells us something about him. Individual voters should factor that into the mix of what they know and how they view him.

As for Gov. Palin, she’s portraying herself as a "hockey mom," her party’s touting her as a "family values" paragon and her supporters are calling her a "real" person who understands real folks’ concerns. Seems like she’s opened the door to that line of questioning, as the lawyers say.

But the questions shouldn’t stop there. There’s a vast range of pertinent questions to ask.

How might she overhaul our wretchedly inadequate health insurance system? Reduce the federal deficit so that our grandchildren and hers won’t be saddled with crippling debt? Make us more energy-independent but also leave our heirs a cleaner environment?

Would she close Guantanamo Bay prison? McCain has said he would.

Is waterboarding torture? McCain thinks it is.

Do her views on immigration tilt toward Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy — with whom McCain drafted comprehensive reform legislation — or toward Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who wants to kick them all out, including children born here, and lock down the borders?

Are her favorite Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, like McCain — or Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, like President Bush? What about pioneer Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, now retired? Or John Paul Stevens, a Republican-appointed maverick too often mislabeled a liberal?

And how might Palin exercise the main vice presidential function dictated by the Constitution: breaking tie votes in the Senate?

Since 2001, Dick Cheney has broken eight ties, the same number as Richard Nixon (1953-61), Alben Barkley (1949-53) and Thomas Marshall (1913-21) and the most since Schuyler Colfax’s 17 in 1869-73, according to the Senate Historical Office.

Cheney tipped the vote the first time in a budget dispute over billions of dollars for Medicare prescription drug coverage. In 2005, he made the difference on a spending package that, among other things, cut federal funds for child-support enforcement and increased fees for Medicaid recipients.

CAMPBELL: A once-in-a-lifetime chance and a parenting conflict

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:59 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

In his book Babies and Other Hazards of Sex, goofball Dave Barry gets it absolutely right on Page 33.

There, a cartoon depicts a platoon of strangers — including the sheriff, the preacher, the cleaning lady with mop bucket and the neighborhood dog — watching a woman in childbirth, the most vulnerable, embarrassing moment she’ll ever experience.

That’s the kind of thing Bristol Palin has to look forward to now that her mother is running for vice president.

And it’s really no laughing matter.

Bristol is the five-months-pregnant-but-unmarried 17-year-old daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who was chosen last week as Sen. John McCain’s running mate on the Republican ticket.

The young woman and her 18-year-old boyfriend we’re told she plans to wed have virtually lost their privacy to her mother’s political ambitions.

Probably ranks right up there with the nightmarishness of having to tell their parents about the pregnancy in the first place.

Republican religious conservatives for whom Sarah Palin holds enormous appeal as a candidate sounded amazingly reserved about it all.

"All it really means is that she and her family are human," Focus on the Family’s James Dobson was quoted as saying.

Now, I don’t believe for a minute that these same "family-values" Republicans who insist that "liberals" have shabby, if not nonexistent, morals would be so tolerant if this were Barack Obama’s 17-year-old who was pregnant or if Michelle Obama had gone back to work three days after giving birth to a son with Down syndrome (as Palin reportedly did).

But maybe a national spotlight on a working mother who is facing crises at home will be good for public debate about the challenges American families juggle every day — and the choices American women have to make.

This hasn’t been a factor in any previous presidential race.

"Life happens in families," said Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist.

Republicans, Democrats and folks who claim no political party at all can attest to that.

Clear-cut rules and well-defined standards are necessary and wonderful aspirations. But they often bump head-on with the gray areas and unintended consequences and ill-timed turns of events that go along with human frailty.

It might be unfair, but as voters assess Palin’s character, she’s in for scrutiny not just as an elected official but also as a mother.

She accomplished no small feat by going from homeroom mom to mayor to governor and learning to play not just against the good ol’ boys but with them. She’s a serious multitasker, as any modern working mother has to be.

She deserves credit for continuing her fifth pregnancy after learning that her son had Down syndrome (though I wouldn’t for a minute question another woman’s decision to take a different course under undoubtedly wrenching circumstances).

She was back on the job within days of giving birth, which isn’t unusual. Thousands of American women return to work three months, three weeks, even three days after their children are born, though many do it not because they want to but because they can’t afford not to.

With a special-needs infant and a pregnant teenager in the house, Palin would have her hands full even if she didn’t have a more-than-full-time job leading a state.

CAMPBELL: Michelle Obama combines traditional values with progressive ones. Isn’t that the kind of equality women want?

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:15 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

In almost any other setting, Michelle Obama would represent the epitome of an accomplished woman from a traditional, hard-working, humble American family.

Neither of her parents went to college — but they made sure she and her brother had the confidence and preparation to go.

She grew up in a small apartment, the daughter of a Chicago city worker and a stay-at-home mother — but she went off to expensive Ivy League schools, Princeton and Harvard Law, with the help of work-study and financial aid.

She’s worked at a big-deal law firm and a major university and helped groom young people for public service — but her world centers on her two, impossibly cute, school-age daughters.

Where else but in America could a talented, ambitious black woman from a normal background stand at the threshold of being the nation’s first lady?

I didn’t get to see Michelle Obama on television Monday night. I was in Dallas watching my daughter’s soccer game, the kind of thing Obama’s been known to do.

Watching her speech online Tuesday, I liked the Michelle Obama who spoke lovingly about her parents, respectfully about her brother, adoringly about her daughters, proudly about her husband and movingly about her vision of building a better world.

I liked the values she expressed, the goals she outlined. I could relate to the ideal she presents as a mother, wife, sister, daughter and professional woman.

Strip away the politics and cynicism for just a minute and look at the Obama/Robinson family she talked about.

Mom Marian Robinson taught her two children to be decent, responsible and caring.

Dad Frasier Robinson (who died in 1991) was the family provider and "rock" who taught his children to persevere, as he did himself, living with the deterioration of multiple sclerosis.

Older brother Craig, now the men’s basketball coach at Oregon State University, was Michelle’s "mentor, my protector and my lifelong friend," who sized up her future husband with a game of basketball.

I could relate to the story of a close-knit family, the parents who emphasized education and struggled to give their children more opportunities than they had themselves.

I could relate when Obama spoke of being attracted to her husband because of their shared fundamental beliefs in what’s important: "like you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond; that you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them."

I absolutely could relate when she described her husband driving his new baby daughter home from the hospital, "inching along at a snail’s pace . . . feeling the whole weight of her future in his hands."

When she referred to "People like Hillary Clinton, who put those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling, so that our daughters and our sons can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher," I took it as recognition of what every mother of both daughters and sons understands: that the quest to improve conditions for our daughters sometimes has ignored our sons, and neither should have to suffer at the expense of the other.

Clinton and what she called her "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits" must believe that they’ve been denied the moment they’ve worked decades to achieve. But beyond the monumental accomplishment of having a woman run for president, isn’t Michelle Obama what they’ve worked for, too?

A woman who doesn’t apologize for being smart — or for dressing smartly.

Who doesn’t apologize for being strong — or for expressing tenderness in public.

Who doesn’t apologize for being a well-paid professional — or for cherishing her role as wife and mother.

CAMPBELL: For Fort Worth school trustees, moral question complicates budget debate

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:58 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

Is it enough for a school district to pay competitive wages, or does it have a moral obligation to make sure all employees are making a living wage?

To ask the question is not to answer it.

The Fort Worth school board tried Tuesday night.

The discussion mixed passionate advocacy with sober reflection on the precarious balancing act of spending more money when revenues are down and the tax rate will need to go up.

The district faces the prospect of dipping into reserves for at least $42.8 million to help fund the $587.7 million 2008-09 operating budget proposed by Superintendent Melody Johnson and her staff. The budget would include a 3 percent pay boost for all employees, with an extra $2.2 million to give additional teacher raises in some categories.

But new board member Carlos Vasquez, a former principal, questioned why bigger raises weren’t included for workers making less than $25,000: "Are we giving all our employees wages they can live on?"

Johnson pointed out that the district has increased hourly wages for cafeteria workers, bus drivers and others to make them more competitive in the local market. She said the recommended budget would reduce the reserve balance to "the bottom line where we can take it."

When new board President Ray Dickerson framed the debate as two issues — competitive wages and the harder one of broader obligations to low-wage workers — he added, "I’m not sure this board’s charge rises to that level of responsibility."

To that, Trustee Juan Rangel took umbrage. "I think all of our employees are our responsibility," Rangel said. "I take offense to that."

I thought Rangel’s huffiness was off-base, though not as off-base as board member Jean McClung’s when she berated Chief Financial Officer Ron Wilson for not providing figures showing the impact of giving administrators an increase of less than 3 percent.

Almost every board member weighed in. Chris Hatch brought up a constituent’s complaint that people are losing their houses because of rising property tax rates. Vasquez said the board should "stop looking at the numbers and start looking at these individuals." And Rangel said he wouldn’t support the budget "if we do not address these employees."

Fact is, the board faces an unenviable choice, with many factors in the mix:

The district’s lower-wage workers were underpaid for years, officials said, but the market-rate adjustments that started in February were designed to rectify that. For instance, cafeteria workers’ pay increased to $10.96 an hour from $8.62, and bus drivers went to $14.47 an hour from $12.68. These workers would also be included in a districtwide 3 percent raise.

The proposed budget includes a 6.7-cent tax-rate increase. That would mean a tax increase of $146 a year on a home with an assessed value of $108,915, the district average. The district will need to consider an election next year seeking voter approval for an even larger tax increase if revenues don’t improve.

The proposed budget would bring the reserve fund balance down to about $64.2 million, which would cover operations for about six weeks. Taking even more from reserves could affect the district’s bond rating, which will be a concern as the district proceeds with the bond program voters approved in November. School districts receive better bond ratings for larger reserve funds; perversely, the Legislature views big reserve funds as evidence that districts need less state funding.

Giving 3.5 percent raises, instead of 3 percent, to employees making less than $25,000, as Vasquez suggested, would deplete reserves even more, unless the board cuts something from the proposed budget. On Tuesday night, Wilson gave a "best guess" of $2.7 million for the added cost but told the Star-Telegram Editorial Board on Wednesday that it could be less. Even a half-percent more wouldn’t provide a living wage, though, Johnson pointed out. (The federal poverty level is $21,200 for a family of four.)

The cost of a 3 percent raise for administrators at the director level and up is $270,000, with $30,000 of that being for the most senior officials in the superintendent’s Cabinet, she said. Each 1 percent reduction would save $90,000.

In an industry where raises as high as 3 percent are rare, I might argue that 2 percent more on a six-figure salary still is a nice bonus. But when I spoke with Johnson after the meeting, she sounded reluctant to consider giving any group less than what’s proposed for all employees. She said some of the district’s top-level administrators are being recruited by other districts, and assistant principals have left for systems where they can make $6,000 more. Retaining good people when the district is working diligently to improve is a valid concern.

But so is Vasquez’s point: that district employees making better wages can better help their children who are students in Fort Worth schools.

Trustees plan to hold a public hearing and to vote on the budget on Aug. 26. The goal of paying public employees a living wage is a noble one to set but complicated to meet.

CAMPBELL: Gas drilling near my back yard? Oh, my!

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:59 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

I’m not sure which is more worrisome: the prospect of a gas pipeline less than 50 yards from my house or the misinformation being peddled in the name of promoting safety.

Dozens of people filled a church fellowship hall in my southwest Fort Worth neighborhood recently, ostensibly to hear "the other side" — a contrary view to information presented at an earlier open house sponsored by Chesapeake Energy and its pipeline company, Texas Midstream Gas Services.

One speaker, who said he had worked for years in the industry, groused about the dangers of piping odorless "wet" gas through neighborhoods. But instead of providing dollar figures or other solid arguments about why it would make sense — economic, common or even just public-relations sense — to add the chemical mercaptan to make leaks easier to detect, he dismissed statements from the companies with insults such as "sham," "scam" and "B.S."

Another speaker displayed graphics about the 1937 New London school disaster, an explosion in Palo Pinto County and a fatal gas well accident in Forest Hill last year.

Problem is that none of those, traumatic though they were, sheds much light on the potential hazards from the kinds of pipelines that will move Barnett Shale gas along Fort Worth streets.

For instance, the New London elementary school exploded because gas and air collected in unventilated space under the first floor and then ignited when a sanding machine was switched on, according to the Interior Department’s investigation report, which is posted online at www.nlse.org.

The school had tapped into an oil company’s gas residue line, but the connection was faulty, according to the Handbook of Texas Online.

After the accident, which killed a reported 298 students and teachers, companies were required to odorize the gas provided to homes, schools and businesses, an essential feature that probably ought to extend to gas that’s piped through urban neighborhoods.

In Palo Pinto County, a well exploded when a drill bit hit an underground gas pocket, according to Star-Telegram archives.

And, in Forest Hill, a valve blew off a natural gas well casing head as a worker prepared to remove it, and the force killed him, the Star-Telegram reported.

All three incidents illustrate perils, but they do more to spread alarmism than to add pertinent facts that can inform the current pipeline debate.

Of course I’m concerned about the pipeline that’s supposed to run north of my back yard and down a long street that passes within a block of a middle school. It’s undeniable that gas drilling and transportation involve multiple risks along with the rewards.

Along with the safety issues, there’s the whole idea that people can be forced to have a pipeline run under their yard — with just compensation, of course.

Texas law seems to give gas companies the power to acquire right of way through the use of eminent domain against reluctant homeowners. But there are legitimate questions about whether the companies actually qualify as "common carriers" the same as telephone or electric companies.

It sets up a curious clash of interests that Texas long has valued.

On the one hand are the companies, whose exploitation of natural resources for profit along with public benefit follows the tradition of oilmen, ranchers and other independent spirits whom the state has encouraged to flourish. On the other hand are private-property owners, whose right to do as they prefer with their land Texas typically has defended against encroachment.

Both sides would benefit from having the courts interpret the law. Better yet, let the Legislature, which meets next year, consider whether more due-process protections for landowners are in order.

In the meantime, residents need to arm themselves with information, not just emotion. It’s disconcerting to overhear one of your neighbors grouse that the gas companies "are going to continue until someone goes postal on them."

It’s plain rude when someone who stands up in a public meeting to say, "We need to be rational" gets shouted down.

All residents have a right to voice their perspective — whether their key interest is in maximizing that fat lease-signing bonus or in keeping a pipeline off their street. By bringing forward good data and compelling arguments, residents can persuade — and pressure, if necessary — industry and government officials to protect public safety, even as they promote the other interests that derive from sitting atop a rich energy source.

CAMPBELL: Food police have an impossible task ahead of them

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:56 CDT

LINDA P. CAMPBELL

What I want to know is who’s going to stop the young mother who takes her precious little 2-year-old into the 7-Eleven for breakfast, grabs a banana and a package of vanilla creme cookies and then hands her daughter a bag of Cheetos?

How is government going to regulate that?

You can ban certain food additives as nutritional pariahs. You can require that fast-food vendors strike fear in their customers’ hearts by reminding them how noxiously they’re eating. You can even outlaw TV ads that pitch yummy junk directly to kids.

But how do you counter the bad eating habits that parents teach by rote and example?

Lawmakers from coast to coast are trying to stop the blimping of America.

New York City health inspectors have started enforcing a requirement that restaurants post calories for food "in a font and format that is at least as prominent as the name or price of the menu item."

The Los Angeles City Council has voted to put a one-year hold on any new fast-food places in 32 square miles in South L.A., with the goal of attracting more sit-down eateries with healthier offerings.

New York and the entire state of California now require restaurants to phase synthetic trans fats (which bump up bad cholesterol) out of their cooking.

But how much of a dent can the food police really make in the growing obesity of our society?

I’m skeptical not because of any kind of libertarian objection to forcing people into better habits — but because it’s so complicated to change behavior, even when it’s self-destructive.

I argued several years back that lawsuits against the fast-food industry had made an impact by pressuring companies to be more forthcoming about the ingredients they were serving — and getting rid of some of the worst additives.

And I fully support getting sugary sodas and junk food out of public school corridors, whether it’s a result of government restrictions or collective parental demands.

And I think that Federal Trade Commissioner Jon Leibowitz wasn’t out of line when he got on his soapbox this week and told food and beverage marketers that they should ramp back their appeals to kids or the next administration might be inclined to do it for them.

The FTC reported Tuesday that 44 companies spent $1.6 billion to promote their products to kids younger than 17 in 2006, largely through ubiquitous TV ads but also through toy tie-ins, movie-themed limited-edition foods, free ring tones and Webisodes.

Ads for carbonated sodas alone accounted for $492 million.

More than a dozen of the largest food and drink companies already have started limiting their child-targeted ads and developing healthier kid-friendly foods, but the agency recommended that they do even more.

And, of course, they should, both in the public interest and in their own interest in cultivating consumers who actually would choose the apple slices over the onion rings sometimes.

But even if we aren’t bombarded with ads and we know what we’re eating, where’s the incentive to go for the better-for-you items when it’s cheaper not to?

The crispy chicken sandwich at Wendy’s for 99 cents (330 calories/14 grams of fat) or the Mandarin Chicken Salad (180 calories/2 fat grams before dressing) for $4 more?

The $2.69 Chick-fil-A sandwich (410 calories/16 fat grams) or the chargrilled chicken sandwich (270 calories/3 fat grams) for $3.39, wheat bun 20 cents extra?