As I learned more and more about policing and law enforcement in India, I began to theorize that the answer is not community policing writ large, but perhaps the fixing broken windows idea. While I was here there were two rapes in the city, one was a gang rape. A young woman with another woman was delivered to her home after getting off the evening shift. Evidently the cab driver did not accompany her to her door. In the US we would think that this was enough. But the police immediately came out with the idea that they would mandate that cab drivers accompany women at night. And the police would follow some cabs at night to make sure they were doing this. In another case, a woman was abducted who was with a male friend who could not prevent it. He ran around to call for help and then he ran around to see if any one saw the number of the car, but the police didn't come promptly and didn't listen to him according to the news story. But what the police can't fix is that now the family is in denial of what happened because her honor has been violated. The Chief Minister and others are investigating these rapes.
In big cities and elsewhere rapes do happen. What needs to be investigated is any ways that other government branches and NGOs, the companies can help rather than do everything. What the police need to fix is, perhaps, their response. But this is a more large scale and policing problem.
According to the broken window theory, the police need to be active in reporting, monitoring the urban environment so that people feel safe and people actually behave better. They need to reduce petty crime and vandalism. They have an excellent opportunity here in Delhi because neighborhood are gated and off the highways. This idea started with a recognition that if graffiti was removed from subway cars in NYC, people behaved better. If the street has litter, then more people drop litter and more people are disrespectful of others. If horn blowing starts (and it is all over the subcontinent), then it will continue and traffic will not follow the rules of the road. This means that police must monitor and arrest for some of the minor crimes, but also call upon the neighborhood associations to take ownership, call upon public waste departments, women's groups to help victims, and other agencies to create a civil society.
Indians speak regularly of creating a civil society. This idea fits with their world view of a democratic society for all in India no matter what religion, language, caste, or class. The petty issues, the litter, the crazy traffic do affect the quality of life and ultimately how safe they perceive themselves. It starts from the bottom up. Its not easy but it may be a start in light of so many big problems in India. But there is a mind set of pride in India as the biggest democracy and the public needs to feel safe.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Taj
Dec 11 and 12 Now for some sightseeing after a long week. Sat began quietly with me doing some grading and trying to figure out how to get to Connaught Circle where some tourism companies including the govt tourism office were. I spent a fair amount of time trying to find a company that had a bus to take people to the Taj Mahal and decide the best way to find one was to go where they were Connaught Circle. I took a motorized rickshaw there which was quite exhilarating because it was a tad cool, may be in the mid 60s. These motorized open air three wheelers are thrilling no matter what as they meander in the traffic. I knew there had to be some bus trips but it turns out to be difficult to find in New Delhi. Every cab driver (including the driver that I have had regularly accompany me) and every tourism company will provide you with a personal driver, but being by myself I wanted to go with others.
So I took a rickshaw and began to walk around. The center of the circle is filled with shops as are the spokes out from the circle. As I walked through one of the bazaars, of course, people want to befriend you and have you come to their stall. I said, no and more nos and one enterprising individual asked me what I was looking for. He directed me to an office. It's an approved office, but again it was to set you up with a driver. I consented at first and as I walked with one of the tourist office people to a bank machine to pay, I decided that I was being pressured into something I want.
I next found the government tourism office and asked for another place that I thought had tour buses but I never found it and ended back at the govt tourism office. I was befriended by an Indian travel writer sitting there and he told one of the people there could set me up with exactly what I wanted . Yea! But I was exhausted. After making arrangements--back to the bank machine--I returned to the circle.
On a side note, one of the problems with Rupees is that the denominations are larger so I was never getting enough money. And I have chosen probably the most expensive driver there is in Delhi, but since I started with him, Ghandi, and he cleans the car inside and out, holds the door, accompanies when necessary I stuck with him, and waits for me at appts). In the end, my Dad would say, you won't remember you spent what you deemed was too much.
I returned to the circle and got some 7-up and some sort of fried pastry. Good. Then back to another rickshaw and home.
I was so exhausted that I didn't hear my alarm that was to get me up at 6 o'clock to go catch what turned out to be 20 seater bus. That is not me! Ghandi waited for me and I made it in plenty of time. When I got there I was unsure whether I was really in the right place but Ghandi assured me it was right. It turns out that on Sundays early morning is the flower market. Imagine how beautiful and chaotic to get to the depot.
You would think that the road would be fairly good going to the Taj but part of it was dirt and there was a huge traffic jam. After a couple of hours we stopped for the tea and a snack/breakfast. Very nice. There are tourist restaurants, dhabas, along the way. This one happened to be indoors and there were nice looking brick or some form of cement cabins, a lawn, a horse for the kids to have rides on and a decent bathroom. I talked to four from a North Carolina university attending some sort of special undergraduate conference, two professors and two students.
We first went to Agra Fort. I can't tell you too much about it. The guide was not the most clear. It is a World Heritage site and right across from the Taj. It was built during the Mughal Empire days, built mostly during the 16th century by Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal.
After the fort we had lunch at a restaurant where we purchased our own food and I sat with an Indian family up from Chennai. He was an engineer and she was a teacher and there 14 year old daughter was with them. I asked her if she spoke a little English and she said yes and all her schooling is in English. She was shy as kids are that age. I told her she was very pretty and she was, of course, embarrassing her, but her Dad was very proud.
The Taj is all that you might think it is. It is breathtaking. I had my photo taken in front of it. It just seemed like the right thing to do. All I can tell you is that 22 is the magic number. The Chennai family and I stood in line to go inside the Taj, but unfortunately it was getting too late so we had to drop out of line. I figured out why our guide was rushing us to get through Agra Fort. No matter it was beautiful and the sky was blue. I figured it would be nice and hazy or polluted like Delhi, but it was just a beautiful day.
Stopped at a road stop on our way home. Had some peanuts that were roasting. Not so good. Later stopped at a dhabas. The Indian engineer asked me how I knew what to order (you go up to the counter and they bring it to you). I had to admit that right in Bangor, Maine there is an Indian restaurant and a Pakistani Restaurant. And I've been to Pakistan
Got back around 11:30 The bus was dropping off a couple so at the suggestion of my North Carolina friends
I asked whether we were going to be anywhere near where I am staying. He said right there so the other person on the bus walked out with me and we went over to the rickshaws. All of them were clamoring for me. The winner was the one who knew the colony (called colonies, enclaves, sectors for neighborhoods) I was staying in. So another exhilarating ride into the night.
Now on to Bangladesh.
So I took a rickshaw and began to walk around. The center of the circle is filled with shops as are the spokes out from the circle. As I walked through one of the bazaars, of course, people want to befriend you and have you come to their stall. I said, no and more nos and one enterprising individual asked me what I was looking for. He directed me to an office. It's an approved office, but again it was to set you up with a driver. I consented at first and as I walked with one of the tourist office people to a bank machine to pay, I decided that I was being pressured into something I want.
I next found the government tourism office and asked for another place that I thought had tour buses but I never found it and ended back at the govt tourism office. I was befriended by an Indian travel writer sitting there and he told one of the people there could set me up with exactly what I wanted . Yea! But I was exhausted. After making arrangements--back to the bank machine--I returned to the circle.
On a side note, one of the problems with Rupees is that the denominations are larger so I was never getting enough money. And I have chosen probably the most expensive driver there is in Delhi, but since I started with him, Ghandi, and he cleans the car inside and out, holds the door, accompanies when necessary I stuck with him, and waits for me at appts). In the end, my Dad would say, you won't remember you spent what you deemed was too much.
I returned to the circle and got some 7-up and some sort of fried pastry. Good. Then back to another rickshaw and home.
I was so exhausted that I didn't hear my alarm that was to get me up at 6 o'clock to go catch what turned out to be 20 seater bus. That is not me! Ghandi waited for me and I made it in plenty of time. When I got there I was unsure whether I was really in the right place but Ghandi assured me it was right. It turns out that on Sundays early morning is the flower market. Imagine how beautiful and chaotic to get to the depot.
You would think that the road would be fairly good going to the Taj but part of it was dirt and there was a huge traffic jam. After a couple of hours we stopped for the tea and a snack/breakfast. Very nice. There are tourist restaurants, dhabas, along the way. This one happened to be indoors and there were nice looking brick or some form of cement cabins, a lawn, a horse for the kids to have rides on and a decent bathroom. I talked to four from a North Carolina university attending some sort of special undergraduate conference, two professors and two students.
We first went to Agra Fort. I can't tell you too much about it. The guide was not the most clear. It is a World Heritage site and right across from the Taj. It was built during the Mughal Empire days, built mostly during the 16th century by Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal.
After the fort we had lunch at a restaurant where we purchased our own food and I sat with an Indian family up from Chennai. He was an engineer and she was a teacher and there 14 year old daughter was with them. I asked her if she spoke a little English and she said yes and all her schooling is in English. She was shy as kids are that age. I told her she was very pretty and she was, of course, embarrassing her, but her Dad was very proud.
The Taj is all that you might think it is. It is breathtaking. I had my photo taken in front of it. It just seemed like the right thing to do. All I can tell you is that 22 is the magic number. The Chennai family and I stood in line to go inside the Taj, but unfortunately it was getting too late so we had to drop out of line. I figured out why our guide was rushing us to get through Agra Fort. No matter it was beautiful and the sky was blue. I figured it would be nice and hazy or polluted like Delhi, but it was just a beautiful day.
Stopped at a road stop on our way home. Had some peanuts that were roasting. Not so good. Later stopped at a dhabas. The Indian engineer asked me how I knew what to order (you go up to the counter and they bring it to you). I had to admit that right in Bangor, Maine there is an Indian restaurant and a Pakistani Restaurant. And I've been to Pakistan
Got back around 11:30 The bus was dropping off a couple so at the suggestion of my North Carolina friends
I asked whether we were going to be anywhere near where I am staying. He said right there so the other person on the bus walked out with me and we went over to the rickshaws. All of them were clamoring for me. The winner was the one who knew the colony (called colonies, enclaves, sectors for neighborhoods) I was staying in. So another exhilarating ride into the night.
Now on to Bangladesh.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Indian Institute of Public Administration: Right to Information
12/10/2010 I was fortunate enough to be able to visit the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) with PS Bawa, Transparency International's Chairman. IIPA provides training and research on public administration and policy topics. They also publish the Indian Journal of Public Administration. Most relevant to this topic is its volume on the Right to Information.
That day, IPII was hosting a day long seminar for employees of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, a contractor of the state of India on the the 2005 Right to Information law The seminar was entitled, Initiation for Change: Addressing the Civil Society Expectations, Right to Information. ONGC wanted to be better aware of what they needed to share with the public. ONGC was the first adopter of the Integrity Pact, sponsored by Transparency International, to encourage honest business and stop corruption by ensuring that information is readily accessible and most importantly establishing a code of conduct for doing business.. On its website, you can see that ONGC has embraced the idea; it publishes its promotional programs and salary ranges for its executive, corporate governance, code of conduct, and annual reports. ONGC receives public funding so it is covered under the law. It wants to continue this effort by better understanding what it's responsibilities are under the right to know.
The panel I heard included Transparency International's chair, a faculty member of the Institute who was a journalist, and an attorney who presents to the Supreme Court.
India's agencies are all to have public information officers to spread the word about the public's right to information. As one speaker put it, you don't have the right to information if you don't have knowledge of it.
The law requires that authorities publish information such as what ONGC has already published but also "publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public." It should also "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons." Obviously this is a rather broad ranging, comprehensive law. The law even states that when a person cannot write or use electronic means to request information, a PIO should assist. The Supreme Court of India is even trying to figure out what it needs to publish regarding hiring practices. Even politicians' records must be known. This is an extension of the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act and the Central Information Commission is responsible for its implementation and arbiter if a PIO refuses a request for information. Mr. Bawa has asked the Central Information Commission to promulgate rules on this as a Right to Information Request.
What ONGC learned was to keep good records about their contracts and contracting with other companies. There is a fine if a public information officer does not do so, but the panel wanted to make it clear that the benefit of this law was that the attendees were citizens and they might wish information themselves one day.
Until 2005, the law and the attitude was more akin to keep everything secret. The need to know basis was that you don't need to know. Under the new law, one can think of the process in steps to make this law work 1) freedom of information 2) the right of people to information that affects them, 3) the right to access to the information. What Bawa suggested was that the Commission investigate what information is requested and working on making that more widely available.
It now requires pro-active disclosure not simply a method to request information. In that sense it is different from the US law in which it is a request process. There is no central location for requesting federal agency information. Additionally, with the increasing reliance on the web and directives from presidents and cabinet officials, the availability of information in the US has never been greater.
That day, IPII was hosting a day long seminar for employees of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, a contractor of the state of India on the the 2005 Right to Information law The seminar was entitled, Initiation for Change: Addressing the Civil Society Expectations, Right to Information. ONGC wanted to be better aware of what they needed to share with the public. ONGC was the first adopter of the Integrity Pact, sponsored by Transparency International, to encourage honest business and stop corruption by ensuring that information is readily accessible and most importantly establishing a code of conduct for doing business.. On its website, you can see that ONGC has embraced the idea; it publishes its promotional programs and salary ranges for its executive, corporate governance, code of conduct, and annual reports. ONGC receives public funding so it is covered under the law. It wants to continue this effort by better understanding what it's responsibilities are under the right to know.
The panel I heard included Transparency International's chair, a faculty member of the Institute who was a journalist, and an attorney who presents to the Supreme Court.
India's agencies are all to have public information officers to spread the word about the public's right to information. As one speaker put it, you don't have the right to information if you don't have knowledge of it.
The law requires that authorities publish information such as what ONGC has already published but also "publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public." It should also "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons." Obviously this is a rather broad ranging, comprehensive law. The law even states that when a person cannot write or use electronic means to request information, a PIO should assist. The Supreme Court of India is even trying to figure out what it needs to publish regarding hiring practices. Even politicians' records must be known. This is an extension of the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act and the Central Information Commission is responsible for its implementation and arbiter if a PIO refuses a request for information. Mr. Bawa has asked the Central Information Commission to promulgate rules on this as a Right to Information Request.
What ONGC learned was to keep good records about their contracts and contracting with other companies. There is a fine if a public information officer does not do so, but the panel wanted to make it clear that the benefit of this law was that the attendees were citizens and they might wish information themselves one day.
Until 2005, the law and the attitude was more akin to keep everything secret. The need to know basis was that you don't need to know. Under the new law, one can think of the process in steps to make this law work 1) freedom of information 2) the right of people to information that affects them, 3) the right to access to the information. What Bawa suggested was that the Commission investigate what information is requested and working on making that more widely available.
It now requires pro-active disclosure not simply a method to request information. In that sense it is different from the US law in which it is a request process. There is no central location for requesting federal agency information. Additionally, with the increasing reliance on the web and directives from presidents and cabinet officials, the availability of information in the US has never been greater.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
A Talk with the Chairman of Transparency International, India
Dec 10. I visited with the Chairman of Transparency International India today. After attending the Anti-Corruption Day sponsored by the UN, I wanted meet with SP Bawa, the Chair. He is a former Indian Police Service official and spoke at the conference. I asked him about the problems with the Indian police system. He had been with the Delhi Police for a number of years. India has an opportunity to reform law enforcement from both the top and bottom down. The Indian Police Service are federal appointees who pass a civil service test. They are then top officials in each state. The constabulary are chosen in their own states. The IPS move from post to post.
He mentioned that one of the problems is that there is no consistency of vision for law enforcement to be a service to the public. One IPS officer might institute a positive program only to have it disbanded when the next person comes along. He mentioned that he instituted crossing guards at school and even trained older kids to serve as wardens at the crossings. This is an absolute necessity since driving is so crazy. But it went away when he left. He thought that police needed more than the physical training and the proforma training on ethics and honesty. It not in their minds to consider anything else but legal obligations. They do not relate their appointments as part of a constitutional requirement to protect rights. Article 21 states No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 21 states No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted to assure the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation.
On a positive note, he believes in mission driven policing based on India’s constitution. He borrows from Karl Popper ideas: minimize hardship (create options), share hardship (be empathetic), do unto others—turn it around to do not do unto others what you would not want done to you.
After talking for awhile we then went to the Indian Institute for Public Administration. It was hosting a training program for a govt contracted oil and gas agency on the 2005 Right to Information law. More about that later.
Empowering Citizens to Combat Corruption Seminar
Dec 9
On December 9th I attended the Anti-Corruption Day conference sponsored by the UN0DC, the UN office of Drugs and Crime and India Vigilance Commission Conference. I rangled an invitation after visiting and talking with the Director of Transparency International here in India. The office is off a busy street in warren of little buildings with trees surrounding it. Transparency International lobbies for changes to reduce corruption, primarily by indirectly seeking to influence through its corruption rating index and by lobbying super NGOs such as the world bank (Nongovernmental agencies or nonprofits) to keep a tighter rein on how their money is used by reporting requirements and denying funding in the future.
Now back to the Central Vigilance Commission. What a name! Can you imagine having a state agency called the Central Vigilance Commission. It is a body that is to refer complaints to government agencies to investigate, somewhat like asking the fox not to eat the chickens when you put him the coop. It doesn’t have any real investigative powers or an ability to prosecute either informally through some sort of mediation or by putting forward a complaint to public prosecutors. What it was showing off at this conference is a start of some sort. It was showing a website where you could now lodge a complaint and follow it, the process through the system. It’s called Vig Eye on the web.
This was quite a coup to attend this. Guards there to check you and a UN sponsored event! You had to have a formal invitation which I did via email. There were flowers everywhere and in front of the speakers. The day began with lighting a flame by the first speakers to symbolize unity in fighting corruption. After each speaker had his/her turn, he/she was given a bouquet. What was interesting was that the former commissioner of the Central Vigilance Commission, Shri (Mr.) N. Vittal, gave a strong opening speech that this would be nothing but a paper tiger. He advocated a different approach, a punitive approach doesn’t work since corruption is so rampant. A participative approach, one of collective action was necessary to stop corruption, such as the UN Global Compact, Peer Review to identify groups who abided by laws against giving bribes, strengthening transparency, that is accountability of government, ethics education for citizens and officials. It subverted the rule of law. He and others used words from economics, asking for a bribe is the demand side, giving a bribe is the supply side. As he stated, collusive corruption is voluntary; bribes are demanded.
Speakers were very positive about e-governance reducing corruption. Getting permits and licenses and other government documents would gradually go on-line. Then there would be no one to bribe because it would decrease human interaction. Oddly, as US state governments began to embrace customer service, the interaction is now gone because of e-government.
What was left unsaid was that the poor who are indisputably more affected by corruption will not have access to E-governance unless there is a comparable plan to put computers in public spaces just as in the US we have made a concerted effort to have computers in libraries
Thursday, December 9, 2010
UN Anti-Corruption Day: Just Say No
December 9th was UN Anti-Corruption Day. While I was visiting South Asia I learned the terrible price citizens pay for corruption. Whereas the United States ranks 7.1 with 10 being the least corrupt, India ranks 3.3 and Bangladesh ranks 2. 4 Some of the Scandinavian countries, Canada and Australia rank as the least corrupt.
The saying "just say no" has to do with drugs in the United States, but in India, it means say no when a bribe is requested by a public servant for services. That must be hard for the average person or poor person to do since they are giving money to grease the palm so that a service that is necessary such as getting a license, permit, or other official document will occur sooner than later. It may be easier for industry to just say no. As a UN backed campaign says, "your no counts." If a business is an American business trying to get permits, say, in India, the business is governed by an US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Transparency International lobbied in 1998 to put more teeth into this act. Transparency International is a nonprofit that works with business, super NGOs such as the World Bank, to improve reporting of how money is spent for public purposes and by business. Without transparency, TI reasons, the poor, in the end are most affected with loss of jobs, with loss of quality of life
But it is not really enough to have a law, it takes moral and ethical business practices to reduce corruption. What Transparency International suggests is that there are power in numbers. If more businesses agreed to not give bribes then they might have more success in stopping corruption. Other nonprofits such as Ipaidabribe.com (which asks people to record when they gave a bribe, didn't give a bribe, or a public servant refused a bribe) take the approach of showing how much money is siphoned off and shaming government for its action. Another nonprofit, the Fifth Pillar sponsors a zero rupee note to give to those who ask for bribes. This idea has spread to other countries and now the Fifth Pillar is creating zero denomination "money" to be used in other countries.
What surprised me most in India was that the police were one of the most corrupt units of government. We must be thankful that we are Americans, and our problems are minor. Rarely do you read of bribes of police officers. Indians fear their police. There is little to no understanding of the idea of "to protect and serve," let alone community policing. This undermines the whole of civic society. When government law enforcement officials are corrupt there is no recourse at the lowest level of government that has regular interaction with the public. In India the Supreme Court intervenes extensively by mandating reforms, but that is not really enough. Political officials and the highest level of law enforcement must believe it is important for officers to be honest and help citizens. Then they must institute training and reinforce it by their words and actions.
Right now that seems laughable when the the India Government Commission that sponsored a conference on transparency for Anti-Corruption Day may have as its highest commissioner a man accused of taking bribes.
The Supreme Court is considering whether it is a job requirement that the commissioner be beyond repute. I'd say the answer is yes!
The saying "just say no" has to do with drugs in the United States, but in India, it means say no when a bribe is requested by a public servant for services. That must be hard for the average person or poor person to do since they are giving money to grease the palm so that a service that is necessary such as getting a license, permit, or other official document will occur sooner than later. It may be easier for industry to just say no. As a UN backed campaign says, "your no counts." If a business is an American business trying to get permits, say, in India, the business is governed by an US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Transparency International lobbied in 1998 to put more teeth into this act. Transparency International is a nonprofit that works with business, super NGOs such as the World Bank, to improve reporting of how money is spent for public purposes and by business. Without transparency, TI reasons, the poor, in the end are most affected with loss of jobs, with loss of quality of life
But it is not really enough to have a law, it takes moral and ethical business practices to reduce corruption. What Transparency International suggests is that there are power in numbers. If more businesses agreed to not give bribes then they might have more success in stopping corruption. Other nonprofits such as Ipaidabribe.com (which asks people to record when they gave a bribe, didn't give a bribe, or a public servant refused a bribe) take the approach of showing how much money is siphoned off and shaming government for its action. Another nonprofit, the Fifth Pillar sponsors a zero rupee note to give to those who ask for bribes. This idea has spread to other countries and now the Fifth Pillar is creating zero denomination "money" to be used in other countries.
What surprised me most in India was that the police were one of the most corrupt units of government. We must be thankful that we are Americans, and our problems are minor. Rarely do you read of bribes of police officers. Indians fear their police. There is little to no understanding of the idea of "to protect and serve," let alone community policing. This undermines the whole of civic society. When government law enforcement officials are corrupt there is no recourse at the lowest level of government that has regular interaction with the public. In India the Supreme Court intervenes extensively by mandating reforms, but that is not really enough. Political officials and the highest level of law enforcement must believe it is important for officers to be honest and help citizens. Then they must institute training and reinforce it by their words and actions.
Right now that seems laughable when the the India Government Commission that sponsored a conference on transparency for Anti-Corruption Day may have as its highest commissioner a man accused of taking bribes.
The Supreme Court is considering whether it is a job requirement that the commissioner be beyond repute. I'd say the answer is yes!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Transparency and Policing in India
Imagine my surprise to pick up the paper, The Times of India, and see that one of the articles on the front page was about transparency efforts in the Delhi Police. Corruption is considered to be endemic in India and the police are not exempted. In fact, the police have a reputation for being corrupt. While most Americas feel comfortable calling the police or going to the police station, that is not the case in India. They are feared as authoritarian and ignorant of rights.
The Courts intervene much more so than in the United States and this time, a division bench (lower level court) has order Delhi police (similar to the Washington DC police) to put all arrests with the purpose of the arrest on the web. This is to be effective as of 2011 Feb, a very near date by bureaucracy standards (and in the author's opinion probably not feasible). This is much more than the police beat or police blotter Americans find in many papers that lists what the police did based upon dispatches. This relates to the constitutional requirement of a presumption of innocence of an accused and his or her right to know what the charges are. Further the court declared that this was a public document and therefore, the public not just the accused has the right to know. This actually goes beyond the current Indian law that allows an accused to obtain a court to obtain nformation on his or her violation of the law.
In the same paper, the prospective appointee to be Chief Commissioner of the Civil Vigilance Commission, an investigatory body to root out corruption, is facing sharp attacks from the media and the Supreme Court of India. He has been accused of taking bribes and is awaiting trial. This is hardly the ethical or moral high road for a parliament to take if the legislators feel that the Commission is important no matter what the outcome of his trial.
Finally, the Supreme Court is pressing for states to pass reforms to their state police acts. These suggested reforms are based upon a National Commission that was set up to make recommendations to the states to up-date and modernise law enforcement. Whether the suggestions are good or bad depends upon which of the many reforms you look at. What is clear is law enforcement is largely an authoritarian hierarchical structure and as such it is not particularly responsive to pressing needs of the public to feel secure and to serve the public. As such each state's police are insular, lack accountability and transparency. In a country that is fighting terrorism as the US is, it needs the support and the help of citizens to prevent terrorism. It is hard to do if police do not see its role as to protect and serve, the motto of many a city police force in the US,
These newspaper articles could not be more timely. 9 Dec is UN anti-corruption day and Transparency International (where I visited today) is a participant in the day hosted by the UN. I will attending the Engagement of a Civil Society in Addressing Corruption. I look forward to learning more about what India has been doing. The former Chief of the Civil Vigilance Commission will be chairing the panel.
The Courts intervene much more so than in the United States and this time, a division bench (lower level court) has order Delhi police (similar to the Washington DC police) to put all arrests with the purpose of the arrest on the web. This is to be effective as of 2011 Feb, a very near date by bureaucracy standards (and in the author's opinion probably not feasible). This is much more than the police beat or police blotter Americans find in many papers that lists what the police did based upon dispatches. This relates to the constitutional requirement of a presumption of innocence of an accused and his or her right to know what the charges are. Further the court declared that this was a public document and therefore, the public not just the accused has the right to know. This actually goes beyond the current Indian law that allows an accused to obtain a court to obtain nformation on his or her violation of the law.
In the same paper, the prospective appointee to be Chief Commissioner of the Civil Vigilance Commission, an investigatory body to root out corruption, is facing sharp attacks from the media and the Supreme Court of India. He has been accused of taking bribes and is awaiting trial. This is hardly the ethical or moral high road for a parliament to take if the legislators feel that the Commission is important no matter what the outcome of his trial.
Finally, the Supreme Court is pressing for states to pass reforms to their state police acts. These suggested reforms are based upon a National Commission that was set up to make recommendations to the states to up-date and modernise law enforcement. Whether the suggestions are good or bad depends upon which of the many reforms you look at. What is clear is law enforcement is largely an authoritarian hierarchical structure and as such it is not particularly responsive to pressing needs of the public to feel secure and to serve the public. As such each state's police are insular, lack accountability and transparency. In a country that is fighting terrorism as the US is, it needs the support and the help of citizens to prevent terrorism. It is hard to do if police do not see its role as to protect and serve, the motto of many a city police force in the US,
These newspaper articles could not be more timely. 9 Dec is UN anti-corruption day and Transparency International (where I visited today) is a participant in the day hosted by the UN. I will attending the Engagement of a Civil Society in Addressing Corruption. I look forward to learning more about what India has been doing. The former Chief of the Civil Vigilance Commission will be chairing the panel.
Monday, December 6, 2010
India: the first two days
I began to collect names of people that I need to see and made two appointments to see people later in the week. It was a rather uneventful first day. A couple from Montreal were here and I tagged along with them to FabIndia to get a shalwar kameze so that I would be dressed similarly to the natives. I shared their lunch here. Another couple went out to meet a friend and were gone the whole day. The Montreal couple were leaving that evening and had their own worries. They couldn't confirm their booking with Air France back to Montreal so I ordered in while they prepared to go the airport. It seems that flights from Europe leave late. Their flight was leaving at 1 AM so they left at 9:00 PM since they couldn't confirm. So I couldn't do much else because I didn't want to walk alone and I didn't have the right size money so I was kind of stuck.
My next day was much more interesting. (I met the staff. It is Monday here as I write and the director contacted my research affiliate for me. She also arranged for me a driver so I could do some sightseeing. I went to the India Gate, a huge war memorial, the Lotus Temple made in the form of petals (not open but I will go back), but a great picture, and Humayun's Tomb which is actually a whole series of buildings circa 1565 of the Mughal era. The driver was not the least interested in talking about the sights so that was a little disappointing. If I could have gotten him talking then I could have gone on to more interesting aspects of Indian society.
At 3 PM I began my research business and visited Jamai Millia Islamia which means National Islamic University. I talked to 3 professors there and got more contacts with police officials. I'll be going back there to give a brief talk on community policing in the United States. One of the professors there, Professor Ray, who is working on his PhD dropped me back at the Institute. Not too long after that a driver took me to the the nearby market place I had vegetarian dosa. It is kind of very thin crisp pancake or bread filled with potatoes and a few other vegetables. I took a bicycle rickshaw back. It's not more than a half mile and everyone says it is safe to walk, but I don't want to. There is no one here that I can walk with and I certainly don't want to walk alone. I'm taking my American friends and family's advice.
My next day was much more interesting. (I met the staff. It is Monday here as I write and the director contacted my research affiliate for me. She also arranged for me a driver so I could do some sightseeing. I went to the India Gate, a huge war memorial, the Lotus Temple made in the form of petals (not open but I will go back), but a great picture, and Humayun's Tomb which is actually a whole series of buildings circa 1565 of the Mughal era. The driver was not the least interested in talking about the sights so that was a little disappointing. If I could have gotten him talking then I could have gone on to more interesting aspects of Indian society.
At 3 PM I began my research business and visited Jamai Millia Islamia which means National Islamic University. I talked to 3 professors there and got more contacts with police officials. I'll be going back there to give a brief talk on community policing in the United States. One of the professors there, Professor Ray, who is working on his PhD dropped me back at the Institute. Not too long after that a driver took me to the the nearby market place I had vegetarian dosa. It is kind of very thin crisp pancake or bread filled with potatoes and a few other vegetables. I took a bicycle rickshaw back. It's not more than a half mile and everyone says it is safe to walk, but I don't want to. There is no one here that I can walk with and I certainly don't want to walk alone. I'm taking my American friends and family's advice.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
On to India
I arrived in India at 01:35 AM. It took until 2:30 to get through Customs. I was amazed at how many people were in the airport at this time. I got in one line and it seemed to not move so I got in another and then in another. I think the customs people felt they just needed to do something so they stared at the passports. The official asked me what research I was doing but, of course, it said what I was doing in the visa. The driver was there to take me to the American Institute of Indian Studies. It turns out there was another car there picking up two others. Why one driver couldn't have picked us all up is unclear. Got here around 3:15 AM. It also turns out this is a temporary facility while the Institute is being rebuilt so there are only 3 rooms, a dining room, kitchen and outer office where I can email. India has Sat and Sun as the weekend so the hotel manager is not here and there are two men here to make breakfast and handle other issues. The couple that came at the same time I did are going to get a phone so I hope to be able to get a phone when they do.
Mr Ashok Kumar and Mr VJ are here to help us today.
We talked about getting a driver for tomorrow I don't want to have to rely on taxis since I will not know what it is an appropriate charge so Mr. Ashok Kurmar will arrange a driver.
British Air is very class based. (No kidding) They had two other classes, one with little pods so that you could actually lie down so what I was interested in was that those levels of service could have electronic equipment charged. That meant that I in economy class couldn't really use my ipod on the plane. So now I have only 20% charge left and have to find out how to recharge it.
Mr Ashok Kumar and Mr VJ are here to help us today.
We talked about getting a driver for tomorrow I don't want to have to rely on taxis since I will not know what it is an appropriate charge so Mr. Ashok Kurmar will arrange a driver.
British Air is very class based. (No kidding) They had two other classes, one with little pods so that you could actually lie down so what I was interested in was that those levels of service could have electronic equipment charged. That meant that I in economy class couldn't really use my ipod on the plane. So now I have only 20% charge left and have to find out how to recharge it.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Transparency in Elections and Other Places
Do we Care?
Should groups disclose who is contributing to candidate's campaigns or to advertising in elections for or against candidates? Should contributions be transparent to the public? We've all seen the ads from candidates that end with, "I approved this message", this past political season. That is meant to create transparency in campaigns. Then there are other ads put forth by various political action committees (PACs). They are registered with the Federal Election Commission and required to submit a list of donors quarterly with limitations set on how much they can donates to candidates, but not limited in how much they can spend independently. In this election new committees formed as nonprofits, known by their IRS category, 501 c (4)s. In the nonprofit TV ads, similar to the PACs, there is a disclaimer that the nonprofit funded the ad. Unlike PACs, we don’t know who the donors are. These new groups have forced us to think about whether we care who the donors are. Does it affect our vote?
In this country we have used words like open meetings, sunshine act to describe the requirement that the conduct of public business be available to citizens. We’ve enacted whistleblower laws to protect those who discover illegal or unethical actions of politicians, and government agencies. We talk about making politicians accountable for what they say and do. So where did this idea of transparency come from that seems so similar?
Transparent has been used to describe something that light can transmit through or it is used in phrases such as “the meaning is transparent,” clear to the listener. But its present use as a political word begins in the 1990s in formal documents surrounding the creation of the European Union, European trade agreements, and activities of NGOs, in particular the creation of Transparency International. Peter Eigen, a manager at the World Bank, became increasingly frustrated by the use of World Bank funds that were misused because of corruption. When he failed to get a change of policy he created, Transparency International. This organization called for transparency, that is openness in government practices as an antidote to corruption. As it has moved across the pond, transparency has become the catchword for not only openness of communication in the private, public, and nonprofit sector, but also greater accessibility to information through the web, an up-front means of accountability, and a process organizations can develop to involve the public in decision-making to reporting the outcomes. The IRS recently modified their reporting requirements on nonprofits to require greater information on the charitable service they provide to the public and the salaries of executives. Nonprofits that take out political ads without reporting their donors may be within their constitutional rights, but it certainly violates the evolving idea of transparency.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Transparency and Insurance Companies
Maybe you have heard the word transparency or maybe not, but our public officials have begun calling for more transparency, that is openness and less secrecy in decision-making of government agencies, nonprofits, private corporations, and even Congress itself. In a sense this is just a retooled idea for the sunshine acts, open meetings and freedom of information applied beyond government agencies. Recent IRS changes require more transparency from nonprofits concerning executive compensation, fund raising, organizational structure, and governance. This is in part due to public outcry over what were deemed excessive salaries for nonprofit executives without any accountability to the public. (see GuideStar, www2.guidestar.org). Scandals relating to the financial meltdown have increased the pressure for greater accountability and transparency by banks, loan institutions and government corporations (the SEC, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) and the regulators (Federal Reserve, FTC, and the Attorney General’s office). And oddly enough, calls for transparency are an outgrowth of a movement to put pressure on non-democratic countries to stem corruption, open up their decision-making, and be more accountable for the way they spend money given to them. Transparency International (www.transparency.org) regularly publishes report cards on government corruption and bribery. Befitting its goal, Transparency International places its audit, annual report, its governance process, a code of conduct, and an ethics policy on its website (www.transparency.org).
In the age of the web, this transparency ought to apply to other companies beyond banking, nonprofits and whole countries. My particular focus is on health insurance. My recent personal experience has been with a long term care insurance company. I have been assisting my parents with obtaining reimbursement. The first step was to call claims when we began to receive letters indicating that the company needed more information. This meant punching in information before you could speak to a claims rep who, in turn, asked the same information and more. This, of course, is to prevent fraud to insure you have the right to the information, but it had an unintended effect. My father grew weary of trying to get information he was entitled and he turned it over to me so he could take care of my mother.
Transparency means balancing a company’s privacy or, in this case, the policy holder’s privacy, with easily accessibility and a quick turnaround. What I encountered was a lack of accessibility and obfuscation once you got past the automated system, the reverse of transparency. I repeatedly asked for clarification, forms, or examples of the information required. The company claims reps, in turn, repeatedly told me that the providers would know what to send. When I pestered, begged, or yelled, the company hid behind privacy rules. Healthcare privacy regulations have given insurance companies an excuse not to be forthcoming. We have sent the permission form for me to make enquiries three times (known as a Hipaa form for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). In the latest round, I called to obtain the Hipaa form for a new provider. The insurance company would not fax the form or email to our chosen provider, but would fax it to me. I, in turn, faxed it to the provider. This is a form, not private healthcare information!
Transparency means accountability. When we did receive a letter from the insurance company, it was often sent namelessly making it difficult to inquire. When we did receive a letter with a name and tried to speak to that person, the claims representative could not transfer me, was not familiar with the person, had never heard of the department. Most recently I asked to transfer to a supervisor. That failed. On the web, the insurance company does have a place to email, but I have never had a response in the 3 times I have tried that.
Transparency requires a clear process. When I tried an alternative tactic of asking the company to identify providers that would meet its requirements, it did not pre-approve providers. Writing is usually the answer when talking does not help. But transparency has to be in place for this to work. The company, in fact, has two mailing addresses making for confusion, one location scans in information and the other takes calls. I wrote letters asking for explicit information on what the insurance company wanted and for providers’ names only to discover that my requests were scanned but no one replied. It’s difficult to ask for information when you have no names.
When claims were finally denied, a “nameless” letter simply stated that we were entitled to a management review. Because the company did not provide directions, I wrote an appeal winging it documenting all that we had done to seek reimbursement. I finally did receive a call from a very nice employee who was going to assist with getting an approved provider and forwarding our appeal. For the first time, I had a direct phone line. When I called back a few weeks later and got voice mail I presumed the person was on vacation. People do have the right to take time off. But when no one answered for over a month and voicemail became full, I had no recourse except to call claims. The claims rep had never heard of the liaison’s (she had no title) office or her name and again repeated that the claim had been denied. A transparent process should be seamless without a customer needing to understand the behind the scenes details.
If ever there is a case for transparency, it is with insurance companies. A requirement of public traded companies is that they have an annual report. It lists the executives, the board, and its financial status. From what I gather from the web and the annual report, the company is run by four executives and the claims representatives! The local field office representative does not handle claims (in essence refusing to assist me) and is just as much in the dark about departments and phone numbers as the claims reps.
Transparency resides along with accountability, integrity, honesty of actions, and caring about employees and the public. I feel sorry for those claims representative who are the public side of the company and who are considered so low that they do not have a company directory, a web interface to look up information, or e-mail capability. I do understand that the company cannot have policy holders calling all sorts of different people. The reality is that the web has made it possible for greater transparency to be immediate and we now demand it. Transparency is procedural transparency, greater openness in decision-making as well as the availability of information. This huge company presents itself as having an outdated claims process with little to no information on the web. It does not email anything slowing down the process. Even my 88 year old father emails! At the very least, I should be able to trace what information they have and obtain the necessary forms to submit a claim. Countless hours have been wasted by claims reps, by me, and my father when greater transparency should be the norm. Transparency makes for good customer service!
In the age of the web, this transparency ought to apply to other companies beyond banking, nonprofits and whole countries. My particular focus is on health insurance. My recent personal experience has been with a long term care insurance company. I have been assisting my parents with obtaining reimbursement. The first step was to call claims when we began to receive letters indicating that the company needed more information. This meant punching in information before you could speak to a claims rep who, in turn, asked the same information and more. This, of course, is to prevent fraud to insure you have the right to the information, but it had an unintended effect. My father grew weary of trying to get information he was entitled and he turned it over to me so he could take care of my mother.
Transparency means balancing a company’s privacy or, in this case, the policy holder’s privacy, with easily accessibility and a quick turnaround. What I encountered was a lack of accessibility and obfuscation once you got past the automated system, the reverse of transparency. I repeatedly asked for clarification, forms, or examples of the information required. The company claims reps, in turn, repeatedly told me that the providers would know what to send. When I pestered, begged, or yelled, the company hid behind privacy rules. Healthcare privacy regulations have given insurance companies an excuse not to be forthcoming. We have sent the permission form for me to make enquiries three times (known as a Hipaa form for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). In the latest round, I called to obtain the Hipaa form for a new provider. The insurance company would not fax the form or email to our chosen provider, but would fax it to me. I, in turn, faxed it to the provider. This is a form, not private healthcare information!
Transparency means accountability. When we did receive a letter from the insurance company, it was often sent namelessly making it difficult to inquire. When we did receive a letter with a name and tried to speak to that person, the claims representative could not transfer me, was not familiar with the person, had never heard of the department. Most recently I asked to transfer to a supervisor. That failed. On the web, the insurance company does have a place to email, but I have never had a response in the 3 times I have tried that.
Transparency requires a clear process. When I tried an alternative tactic of asking the company to identify providers that would meet its requirements, it did not pre-approve providers. Writing is usually the answer when talking does not help. But transparency has to be in place for this to work. The company, in fact, has two mailing addresses making for confusion, one location scans in information and the other takes calls. I wrote letters asking for explicit information on what the insurance company wanted and for providers’ names only to discover that my requests were scanned but no one replied. It’s difficult to ask for information when you have no names.
When claims were finally denied, a “nameless” letter simply stated that we were entitled to a management review. Because the company did not provide directions, I wrote an appeal winging it documenting all that we had done to seek reimbursement. I finally did receive a call from a very nice employee who was going to assist with getting an approved provider and forwarding our appeal. For the first time, I had a direct phone line. When I called back a few weeks later and got voice mail I presumed the person was on vacation. People do have the right to take time off. But when no one answered for over a month and voicemail became full, I had no recourse except to call claims. The claims rep had never heard of the liaison’s (she had no title) office or her name and again repeated that the claim had been denied. A transparent process should be seamless without a customer needing to understand the behind the scenes details.
If ever there is a case for transparency, it is with insurance companies. A requirement of public traded companies is that they have an annual report. It lists the executives, the board, and its financial status. From what I gather from the web and the annual report, the company is run by four executives and the claims representatives! The local field office representative does not handle claims (in essence refusing to assist me) and is just as much in the dark about departments and phone numbers as the claims reps.
Transparency resides along with accountability, integrity, honesty of actions, and caring about employees and the public. I feel sorry for those claims representative who are the public side of the company and who are considered so low that they do not have a company directory, a web interface to look up information, or e-mail capability. I do understand that the company cannot have policy holders calling all sorts of different people. The reality is that the web has made it possible for greater transparency to be immediate and we now demand it. Transparency is procedural transparency, greater openness in decision-making as well as the availability of information. This huge company presents itself as having an outdated claims process with little to no information on the web. It does not email anything slowing down the process. Even my 88 year old father emails! At the very least, I should be able to trace what information they have and obtain the necessary forms to submit a claim. Countless hours have been wasted by claims reps, by me, and my father when greater transparency should be the norm. Transparency makes for good customer service!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Demise of the Public Administration Department
This one is more personal than others. It was written for and published by the Kennebec Journal, Augusta Maine in conjunction with two alums of the University of Maine Public Administration Programs
Public administration at the
Within the greater
In a state hard-pressed to fund its services even in good times, a public administration degree is cost efficient. It is far cheaper for state employees, area town managers, or nonprofit managers to take a UM course in Augusta leading to an MPA degree than to attend short seminars, stay over a night in Boston or some other city, and lose a day or two of work. The flagship university’s courses are specific to the needs of the state for public servants who are knowledgeable about finance, personnel, planning, organizational development, ethics and many specific relevant subjects. Further, UM’s MPA is accredited which means the MPA is a value-added degree recognized nationally as having the rigor and course work identified as relevant to meet today's needs for public servants.
As public administrators, we need to respond to the public to reduce the size of government, while maintaining its effectiveness. We must also offer a solution. And there is a solution that will save money and add value. It is time to merge the public administration programs of UM with those of the University of Southern Maine (USM) and UM Augusta (UMA).
The University of Maine Augusta offers a BA and Associate degree in public administration (2 faculty); the
This solution even has a name, the
Carolyn Ball is MPA director at the University of Maine and teaches classes in Orono and Augusta; Tina Plummer is a current student in the MPA program in Augusta and has BA in Public Administration from UM Augusta and Nathan Poore, Falmouth Town Manager, has a BA in Public Administration from the University of Maine and a Master’s in Public Policy and Management from the University of Southern Maine.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Incrementalism and Healthcare Reform
The healthcare reform, increased coverage for more people, that has taken place divided Congress as absolutely as it possibly could. Part of the problem was that President Obama took an approach of hands-off at the initial stages. To make a major non-incremental change requires major funding, leadership by the President, positive publicity and a public behind the idea rallied by the President. Non-incremental reform is rare because it much different than making other policies. Certainly, Presidents do take the lead in pushing for policy changes, but non-incremental policy making requires that not only does the President rally Congress but the public as well and have the money for the project. President Obama's biggest mistake was to leave it to Congress to develop the details of healthcare reform. By doing so he lost the ability to make any major change.
Now it is true that many perceive what has taken place as a major change, one that means that government intrudes into an area that they have not before. This view has to do with another idea related to policymaking. That is distributive and redistributive, a couple of fancy words. Simply put distributive policies are those that have large consensus behind them and are perceived to help the general public. The bureaucracy, that is federal employees, specific Congressional subcommittees, and regular lobbying groups establish policy on and on-going basis. The classic is agricultural supports for various crops. They do not rise to a battle. Redistributive policies are policies that are perceived to take from one group and give to another, the classic is welfare policies. The president may get involved, opposing interest groups rather than simply supportive interest groups, and many members of Congress. Many of these policies get nowhere or only minor changes occur, because Congress cannot agree.
Incremental policy change is exactly what happened with healthcare reform. It was contentious and in the ultimate of divisions, all Senate Republicans disagreed with all Democrats and few Republican house members crossed party lines. And in a reversal of roles, the AMA, the hospital associations and other well-known health service associations supported reform and were opposed by new temporary interest groups forming to oppose healthcare reform along with the insurance industry.
Its incremental because the new healthcare reform did not lead the federal government into intruding into healthcare for the first time. We have a huge veteran's healthcare system (something I would argue should be eliminated in favor of veterans going to private and nonprofit hospitals that are much more readily available.) Medicare regulation is highly intrusive. It sets the standards of reimbursement that other insurance companies generally follow. It requires hospitals to calculate costs in a certain way, a very intrusive mechanism. Second, as most people know, most of us will obtain our health insurance from employers, not from the federal government.
It does require citizens to pay a tax if they choose not to be covered, perhaps the most damming and radical aspect of the healthcare reform. I do not wish to downplay this aspect.
But let us return to other aspects that are incremental. The reform will fix the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D, prescription coverage. Right now once seniors have used their prescription coverage up to a certain $ amount, they must begin paying on their own. After they pay a certain amount, then their Medicare coverage will again pay. It is good fix to end this donut hole but has nothing to do with mass coverage of the population.
It sets up a series of experiments to contain costs and has no new cost controls. And of course, one of the reasons for having health care reform was to reduce costs. It also allows parents to keep their children on their policies for a longer period of time. This expands the pool of citizens covered without costing much since college age kids are one of the healthiest groups to cover. It does nothing about the costs of illegal alien healthcare. The legislation states that illegal aliens are not covered, but indirectly they are. That is because hospitals cannot refuse to accept a patient in need. They can transfer a patient who has no insurance one stabilized. What this means is that you and I as taxpayers must support their care through our city and county public hospitals. And so, the new healthcare reform, as vitriolic as the debate was is largely a piece of incremental legislation that will be tweaked in the years to come.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Amy Bishop and Domestic Violence
Amy Bishop and Domestic Violence
In 1986 domestic violence was still a new idea. How could domestic violence be an idea? But that is what it was, an idea, only then finding its way into specific laws in the states. Amy Bishop was 21 and her brother 18. They were both living at home with their father and mother and going to area universities. If the term domestic violence were used, it wouldn't apply to sister against brother. That would still be a family dispute.
The press has reported that Ms. Bishop had a fight with her father that day. We don't know whether this is true or not, but certainly it's not unusual for parents and adult children to have disagreements , yell at each other, and even make threats that don't make a lot of sense. And there was also a gun in the home. That's not unusual either. Many people have guns. Amy was cleaning the gun, a somewhat odd thing for a college student to be doing, but perhaps she was a hunter. She pulled the trigger and shot her brother. She ran to get away from the scene.
We know that at least her mother supported her and charges were dropped. As a parent now of an only child that might be natural as well. There is nothing you can do to bring back a child so certainly protect your other child.
We also know now that Ms. Bishop had a temper and perhaps the police knew it then.
All this adds up to domestic violence: anger in the home, guns, and sometimes family members taking the side of the perpetrator rather than the victim.
So why wasn't Amy Bishop arrested and charged? Domestic violence as an enforced crime has a relatively short history. Karl Weick, the author of Sensemaking (1995), has pointed out that our understanding of words and problems evolves over time. As we speak to each other, we begin to develop common meanings. In the 21st century domestic violence connotes physical violence in the home and even in the workplace. Domestic abuse connotes psychological, physical abuse, a fear for one's safety. Battered wife implies physical force used by a husband against a wife that may lead to emotional problems. Child abuse connotes physical aggression by a stronger adult against a defenseless child. The words elder abuse brings forth the idea of adult children taking advantage both physically, financially, and emotionally their elder parents. As we begin to define the words, we begin to form an opinion of what domestic violence. Our opinions help define the need for laws, and laws help develop our opinions of what is harmful and wrong. Thus, Weick would say that domestic violence is socially enacted. Family violence comes closest to the words to describe what occurred in the Bishop home, but we still don't have words for violence between adult children or between an adult parent and adult child. Still violence between adult children (but not between juveniles) now comes under state domestic violence laws.
The situation in the Bishop home occurred just as awareness of domestic violence between husbands and wives was beginning to be recognized. For the most part, common law, rather than statutes, governed whether an assault, homicide, or battery would result in an arrest. And practice was to only arrest if an officer witnessed an incident that could be classified as a felony. Well-publicized events and reports in the 1980s began to change police practices. In particular, a suit won by a woman against the Torrington, Connecticut Police Department for failure to protect her from violence from her husband (Thurman v. City of Torrington,1984) was publicized in the law enforcement community. Connecticut's own domestic violence act went into effect shortly thereafter in 1985.
A 1984 report by the US Attorney General's office called for domestic violence to be "criminalized." A well publicized report on the police in Minneapolis to assess the value of arrest policies as a deterrent to domestic violence also had an impact on the law enforcement community. The resulting publicity, including a news story in the New York Times," virtually changed overnight" enforcement practices from one in which a majority of cases were screened out as non-law enforcement incidents or family trouble calls to one in which arrests were made.
These events and their interpretation led states to pass domestic violence/abuse violence legislation for a variety of reasons: fear of liability; political demands of the women's movement or local citizens, and, a belief in the value of mandatory arrest. Today the very terms used to define the crime –domestic violence, family violence, domestic abuse–, the relationships covered by law, and the role of arrests differ from state to state, and the types of crimes specifically covered. Just looking at New England shows the variety in statutes. Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut mandate arrest with probable cause in cases of domestic violence (along with New York, New Jersey, Missouri, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska). In states such as New Hampshire officers have "presumptive arrest powers" and often Attorneys General, Commissioners of Public Safety or individual police departments have a protocol for arrest. In between are such states such as Massachusetts that leave domestic violence arrests to the officer's discretion with arrest "preferred." The decision to arrest is based upon whether the officer believes there is probable cause that a crime has occurred. The Massachusetts law calls for a warrantless arrest when court orders such as temporary or permanent restraining or no contact orders are violated. The array of crimes covered range from the very detailed list in Rhode Island to the broader categories in Massachusetts and Vermont. Whereas Connecticut's law is clearly related to protection of the family, Vermont's law makes no mention of family relationships in its categorization of those protected.
These laws and the guidelines to handle domestic situations are now inclusive of workplaces or any other place in which one or two people with a relationship cause the other harm. Massachusetts just updated their guidelines in 2009. Fleeing the scene as Ms. Bishop did would add to the likelihood of arrest. And if a gun is involved, that can trigger gun license revocation. Certainly, in 2010 Amy Bishop would have been arrested. Whether she would have been tried for some sort of domestic violence will be forever unresolved.
In 1986 domestic violence was still a new idea. How could domestic violence be an idea? But that is what it was, an idea, only then finding its way into specific laws in the states. Amy Bishop was 21 and her brother 18. They were both living at home with their father and mother and going to area universities. If the term domestic violence were used, it wouldn't apply to sister against brother. That would still be a family dispute.
The press has reported that Ms. Bishop had a fight with her father that day. We don't know whether this is true or not, but certainly it's not unusual for parents and adult children to have disagreements , yell at each other, and even make threats that don't make a lot of sense. And there was also a gun in the home. That's not unusual either. Many people have guns. Amy was cleaning the gun, a somewhat odd thing for a college student to be doing, but perhaps she was a hunter. She pulled the trigger and shot her brother. She ran to get away from the scene.
We know that at least her mother supported her and charges were dropped. As a parent now of an only child that might be natural as well. There is nothing you can do to bring back a child so certainly protect your other child.
We also know now that Ms. Bishop had a temper and perhaps the police knew it then.
All this adds up to domestic violence: anger in the home, guns, and sometimes family members taking the side of the perpetrator rather than the victim.
So why wasn't Amy Bishop arrested and charged? Domestic violence as an enforced crime has a relatively short history. Karl Weick, the author of Sensemaking (1995), has pointed out that our understanding of words and problems evolves over time. As we speak to each other, we begin to develop common meanings. In the 21st century domestic violence connotes physical violence in the home and even in the workplace. Domestic abuse connotes psychological, physical abuse, a fear for one's safety. Battered wife implies physical force used by a husband against a wife that may lead to emotional problems. Child abuse connotes physical aggression by a stronger adult against a defenseless child. The words elder abuse brings forth the idea of adult children taking advantage both physically, financially, and emotionally their elder parents. As we begin to define the words, we begin to form an opinion of what domestic violence. Our opinions help define the need for laws, and laws help develop our opinions of what is harmful and wrong. Thus, Weick would say that domestic violence is socially enacted. Family violence comes closest to the words to describe what occurred in the Bishop home, but we still don't have words for violence between adult children or between an adult parent and adult child. Still violence between adult children (but not between juveniles) now comes under state domestic violence laws.
The situation in the Bishop home occurred just as awareness of domestic violence between husbands and wives was beginning to be recognized. For the most part, common law, rather than statutes, governed whether an assault, homicide, or battery would result in an arrest. And practice was to only arrest if an officer witnessed an incident that could be classified as a felony. Well-publicized events and reports in the 1980s began to change police practices. In particular, a suit won by a woman against the Torrington, Connecticut Police Department for failure to protect her from violence from her husband (Thurman v. City of Torrington,1984) was publicized in the law enforcement community. Connecticut's own domestic violence act went into effect shortly thereafter in 1985.
A 1984 report by the US Attorney General's office called for domestic violence to be "criminalized." A well publicized report on the police in Minneapolis to assess the value of arrest policies as a deterrent to domestic violence also had an impact on the law enforcement community. The resulting publicity, including a news story in the New York Times," virtually changed overnight" enforcement practices from one in which a majority of cases were screened out as non-law enforcement incidents or family trouble calls to one in which arrests were made.
These events and their interpretation led states to pass domestic violence/abuse violence legislation for a variety of reasons: fear of liability; political demands of the women's movement or local citizens, and, a belief in the value of mandatory arrest. Today the very terms used to define the crime –domestic violence, family violence, domestic abuse–, the relationships covered by law, and the role of arrests differ from state to state, and the types of crimes specifically covered. Just looking at New England shows the variety in statutes. Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut mandate arrest with probable cause in cases of domestic violence (along with New York, New Jersey, Missouri, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska). In states such as New Hampshire officers have "presumptive arrest powers" and often Attorneys General, Commissioners of Public Safety or individual police departments have a protocol for arrest. In between are such states such as Massachusetts that leave domestic violence arrests to the officer's discretion with arrest "preferred." The decision to arrest is based upon whether the officer believes there is probable cause that a crime has occurred. The Massachusetts law calls for a warrantless arrest when court orders such as temporary or permanent restraining or no contact orders are violated. The array of crimes covered range from the very detailed list in Rhode Island to the broader categories in Massachusetts and Vermont. Whereas Connecticut's law is clearly related to protection of the family, Vermont's law makes no mention of family relationships in its categorization of those protected.
These laws and the guidelines to handle domestic situations are now inclusive of workplaces or any other place in which one or two people with a relationship cause the other harm. Massachusetts just updated their guidelines in 2009. Fleeing the scene as Ms. Bishop did would add to the likelihood of arrest. And if a gun is involved, that can trigger gun license revocation. Certainly, in 2010 Amy Bishop would have been arrested. Whether she would have been tried for some sort of domestic violence will be forever unresolved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)