A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Durango Herald, Nov. 7, on sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain:
Mired in accusations of sexual harassment, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain last week told reporters, “(D)on’t even bother me asking me all of these other questions that you all are curious about. Don’t even bother.”
Cain had been speaking—campaigning—to a group of health-care professionals and, reasonably, wanted to talk about health-care policy, or at least not about the persistent allegations. Candidates have every right to refuse to comment or to say, “I won’t be answering questions about sexual harassment at this event.” They have every right to try to guide conversation to topics they want to discuss. Reporters ask, candidates spin; that is the relationship they have. Candidates do not have the power to control the questions asked of them.
Voters will form their own opinions, as they did about President Clinton and many other politicians accused, with varying degrees of proof, of sexual misconduct. Some will conclude that the allegations are false.
Others will decide this is not their business. Some will be sufficiently disturbed to reconsider their support of Cain. And some will decide that even if the candidate has sexually harassed coworkers in the past, he is the best candidate available right now.
All those voters should be able to make their decisions based on factual information, and they deserve to hear the candidate address hard questions to the best of his ability. Every time new information becomes available, they incorporate that into their opinions, and a candidate has no right to dismiss questions as unimportant. Voters are the ones who get to decide what is important and what is not.
Right now, voters care most about economic survival. That is an interest shared with victims of sexual harassment, people who must choose between tolerating offensive—and illegal—interactions or losing their jobs, knowing they may not be able to find other work.
That kind of dilemma, the fear of losing a job that might represent the only support for the worker and her family, is what makes workplace harassment especially egregious. What might be no more than irritating or boorish behavior—or, depending on its nature, perhaps even welcome attention—in a purely social setting becomes frightening and illegal when the disparate power of the relationship between boss and employee is in play. And for that reason, while Cain or his supporters may consider these charges to be no big deal, it is unlikely any woman who has experienced sexual harassment in the workplace would agree.
Cain could address the issue in several ways. He could work with the National Restaurant Association to modify the confidentiality requirements of any settlements that exist. He could state, unequivocally and for the record, that sexual behavior does not belong in the workplace and that he supports the legal protections currently in place for workers.
He could probably even say, “Yeah, I was a jerk, and I did some things I’m not proud of. I know better now. I’m sorry.” That might go a long way toward allaying legitimate concerns that he has little interest in the rights of employees to be safe from harassment at work.
What he cannot be allowed to do is suggest that Americans, be they reporters or anonymous voters, have no right to question his record. He can answer, fully or in part, or he can refuse to say any more than he already has, but it is voters, not candidates, who have the right to dictate the terms of their engagement.
Editorial: article/20111108/OPINION01/711089965/-1/opinion01
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Nov. 4, on banks abandoning debit card fees:
With Bank of America and other large banks abandoning monthly debit card fees in the face of consumer outrage and protest, the debate continues over transparency in banking fees and fallout from the Dodd-Frank Act and the Durbin Amendment.
Whichever side you fall on, one thing is clear: Consumers spoke (loudly) and the banks listened. Isn’t that the way the free market is supposed to work?
Well, yes and no. The debit card fees were a response to a loss of revenues from a limit on credit card “swipe fees” imposed by the Durbin Amendment—essentially a response to government regulation. Those “hidden” fees are being replaced by more transparent fees. And it’s that transparency that led to the debit card fee uproar.
No doubt that the financial industry needs to be regulated (just Google “financial meltdown”) and transparency is a good practice, but some government regulation creates unintended consequences. What the government takes away (banks’ profits from swipe fees), banks will find a way to recoup elsewhere.
The consensus is that banks will impose other fees, now that debit card fees are off the table. No surprise there. All banking consumers can do is accept them or shop around for the bank that best fits their needs.
Editorial: 19267627
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, Nov. 8, on state’s personnel pay system needing an upgrade:
Like his predecessors in the governor’s office, John Hickenlooper has quickly discovered that the state personnel system is an impediment to efficiency, job recruitment and high performance.
Ah, but what to do? Key rules are embedded in the state constitution and voters have proved notoriously reluctant to alter them. The last time Coloradans were offered a chance to revise the personnel system, in 2004, they rejected the idea by a crushing 60 percent.
Hopeless? Not unless you think a majority of voters are immune to evidence and good arguments—which is surely not the case. So we’re pleased to hear the Hickenlooper administration is interested in spearheading another effort to bring personnel rules into the 21st century.
It won’t be easy this time, either. Indeed, officials will have to pick their targets carefully so as to minimize the potential backlash from state workers. But the potential payoff, in our view, justifies the effort.
Colorado is one of a relatively few states in which personnel-system details are dictated by the constitution—and yet much has changed since 1918 when these Progressive Era reforms were enacted.
For one thing, the state had only about 1,000 employees back then. Now it has 30,000 covered by the personnel rules (and thousands of others, such as university faculty and state court employees, who are exempt). What must have seemed logical, straightforward and very modern at the time has long since become outdated, inflexible and unwieldy.
Take the Rule of Three, which requires that “any position under the personnel system” be filled from among “one of the three persons ranking highest on the eligible list … as determined from competitive tests of competence.” But relevant competitive tests simply aren’t available for some positions. Meanwhile, supervisors determined to find the best fit for a job generally prefer to interview more than three candidates—and sometimes many more.
If they work for the state, unfortunately, they’ll have to repost the job—a lengthy process—just to consider an additional three applicants.
Among other things, the state constitution also limits the hiring of temporary employees to six months—the unintended consequence of which is that contracts requiring more than six months must be outsourced.
Ominously, several of the administration’s issues with the personnel system were addressed by the failed 2004 measure, so success this time clearly will be an uphill struggle.
However, one of the administration’s targets isn’t in the state constitution. It’s the statute and rules creating layoff “bumping rights” that allow senior employees to move into positions occupied by newer hires. Maybe that’s a good place to start the reform crusade.
Sooner or later, though, the administration must ask voters for help in modernizing the personnel system—and then work harder than ever to make them see what’s at stake.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Nov. 6, on state’s disclosure rules for fracking:
The science of hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—has changed in the three years since Colorado adopted the toughest-in-the-nation rules on oil and gas drilling, including fracking.
So has the industry’s attitude about disclosing information about the components that make up the fracking fluids. Industry has become more willing to disclose fracking information as states across the country have adopted or are considering new rules on fracking transparency.
That’s why a draft of new regulations for fracking transparency, released this week by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, have been developed largely in cooperation with the energy industry, not in opposition to it, said David Neslin, executive director for the commission.
The new rules should go a long way toward alleviating public concerns about the sort of chemicals being used in fracking, the process that is helping to recover ever-more oil and gas from different rock formations.
When combined with a voluntary program initiated this month by the industry group, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, to monitor well water before and after drilling each well, the rules should provide better information about the details and impacts of fracking.
The draft rules build on voluntary disclosure efforts that many drilling companies have already embraced through the website, . The site was created by a coalition of state regulatory agencies and governors from several energy-rich states. There, companies post information about the fracking compounds used at each of their well sites. Members of the public can search for information about fracking by a given well number, a location or a company name.
Colorado’s draft rules propose to use that same website, but disclosure of information would be mandatory, and more information would be available than is currently listed on the site.
Neslin said the draft rules would require not just drilling companies, but their suppliers to disclose fracking materials. All chemicals would have to be disclosed, not just ones listed as hazardous by the federal government he said. There would be an exemption for materials that are considered proprietary information, or trade secrets. But companies would still have to make that information available to the state and to health care professionals, if requested.
Additionally, Colorado officials hope to work with other states involved in to make it so people can also search by chemical and by the time period in which a well was drilled.
The draft rules appear to be a sound approach to significantly increasing transparency regarding fracking in Colorado, something that Gov. John Hickenlooper has said is one of his goals.
We hope the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission adopts the new rules next month, and implements them in February, as is planned. They demonstrate that Colorado remains a leader in monitoring, and working with the oil and gas industry.
Editorial:
