From the PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE OP-ED:

“Arizona’s new immigration law has polarized Arizona and much of the country. The recently introduced Pennsylvania House Bill 2479, which also would provide for police to check a person’s legal status when stopped for another reason, could produce a similar result here.

“In other countries, citizens are required to have their papers available for police to review. In Italian cities, people are routinely stopped and asked to prove their legal status. I lived there for four years and was never approached. Others were regularly stopped, asked questions and embarrassed in public. Perhaps American officers have better judgment, but I saw that light-skinned speakers of English didn’t attract the attention of the carabinieri like dark-skinned speakers of North African languages did.

“Consider the possible effects of a law requiring police in Pennsylvania to check the legal status of anyone of whom they have “reasonable suspicion.” Consider my son’s baseball team, which is well-coached by a Latino and a Jewish American and whose players belong to families of various ethnic backgrounds. We come together weekly to enjoy the national pastime…”

Click here to read the full article.

Scott Vine is a reference librarian who lives in Lancaster

From NEWSMAX / AP:

The U.S. has often overestimated the ability of Afghan military and police units to fight on their own, according to an independent report released Monday that calls into question the strategy to win the war and bring troops home…

In one stark example, a police district in the northern Afghan province of Baghlan was given the top rating by NATO officials in August 2008. The “CM1″ designation meant the police were independently capable of conducting operations. But when investigators asked to visit the district in February, they were told the district wasn’t secure and was overrun with insurgents…

One official told investigators that the police force had “withered away to the point that it barely functions.”

Click here to read the full article.

I finished Tony Judt’s “Ill Fares The Land.” It was an excellent read and I agree with his premise that we need to develop a new language that builds on the success of social democracy programs (in the U.S. those would be New Deal and Great Society programs) combined with putting forward a new vision for an economy that works for more than the top 0 .5%.  Indeed, social democracy is probably the closest to my political ideology when it comes to economics.  When we were developing Prosperity Agenda that is exactly what we wanted to build on and expand.

I really liked his broad review of the trends of history:  How lassez-faire economic philosophy lost out in the middle of the last century and social democratic programs were put in place that created a more equitable distribution of wealth, a growing middle class and a consistently growing economy.

Then the last thirty years, from the Reagan Revolution and through to President Obama (with President Clinton creating the neo-liberal version of Reaganism), has been undoing the most successful programs of the last Century. (Obama is poised to do some real damage to Social Security and Medicare — that is the next big battle coming.)  Judt is correct when he writes “To abandon the labors of a century is to betray those who came before us as well as the generations yet to come.” I see the work I’m doing on the economy as exactly that kind of big picture approach — trying (with many others) to re-ignite the sense of community that is essential to keeping the fibers of community woven together rather than unraveling as they are now.

We are at a critical crossroads in history when many tens of millions see the corruption and unfairness of the current economy but do not know what to do about it and do not see an alternative economy. There is a real opportunity for change because of the ongoing economic crisis.  It is a great time for activists to create the parade which a wise politician will get in front of. …

Judt asks and answers the critical question: “Why, for the past three decades, has it been so easy for those in power . . .?” “Because there has been no coherent alternative to offer.” His answer is partly correct.  I know that alternatives have been offered, they are just not heard because concentrated corporate ownership of the media shuts out those views and we do not have the resources to breakthrough that barrier…

I like Judt’s point that “To convince others that something is right or wrong we need a language of ends, not means.  We don’t have to believe that our objectives are poised to succeed.  But we do need to be able to believe in them.” No doubt the ends we describe are not poised for immediate success but they do present an “end” that, as Judt says can “re-open a different sort of conversation.”

So, what is the starting point?  My view has been that we need to build a movement, i.e., get to a tipping point where enough Americans see the problem,  understand there are solutions and are willing to push for the solutions.  We’ve been doing that by taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves, e.g. the bailouts, the stimulus, the health care bill, financial reform, energy bill.  These are the biggest economic reforms that have been discussed and when they are in the news people are ready to hear more about them and to take action on them.  So, we look for targets of opportunity when people are paying attention to an issue and put them into a context of broader reforms.

Judt points to two starting points — both of which make a lot of sense to me:

1. “The first task is to remind ourselves of the achievements of the 20th century, along with the likely consequences of a heedless rush to dismantle them.”  We need to show that government does important, indeed critical work that cannot be done by individuals for themselves.  We have been making this point all along as opportunities have presented themselves. For example, when the stimulus was being debated we pointed to the incredible effectiveness of the New Deal which resulted in the fastest growth of employment in American history.  When health care was the issue we pointed to the incredible success of Medicare — it equalized health care once people turned 65 (there is excellent research showing the unequal impact of treating various illness when people are under 65 and the better treatment people get across class and ethnic lines for those same illnesses once they are Medicare eligible) and the great success the U.S. has in treating cancer (the only healthcare positive the U.S. leads the world in) in large part because of Medicare treating the elderly when cancer is most common.  And, when financial reform was being discussed we again focused on the successful reforms that were put in place during the Depression and the devastating impact of removing those reforms in the 80s and 90s. ..

2. “Unequal access to resources of every sort — from rights to water — is the starting point of any truly progressive critique of the world.”  “Those who do well in unequal societies would be happier if the gap separating them from the majority of their fellow citizens were significantly reduced.” There is no question that focusing on the wealth divide is the critical first point of reform.  This is consistent with Barry Lynn’s argument’s in “Cornered” regarding concentrated capital creating monopolies.  We focused on this when each of the legislative issues came up as well, e.g. health insurance’s near monopolistic control of markets, the bailout funds leading to record Wall Street bonuses as well as the problem of too big to fail banks (the term “banks” now includes the Wall Street firms like Goldman), the energy proposals leading to corporate welfare for carbon and nuclear industries where the taxpayers take the risk and the profits go to the top .5% who own those industries. Again, a louder mouthpiece would make a big difference.

I really like Judt’s other points about the unequal wealth which I quote at the beginning of the above paragraph — that those with wealth are uncomfortable with the inequality.  That is something very important to keep in mind in our messaging as we want to win over the wealthy to see that a more equal economy will improve their lives as well.

While there is probably truth in Judt’s statement “If social democracy has a future, it will be as a social democracy of fear,” I’m disappointed by it.  I hate to push progress based on fear.  Sadly, I think he might be right.  As more people fear losing their homes, jobs, bankruptcy that fear needs to be responded to with the potential for change that shows them another world is possible where they can have economic security.  Fear needs to be turned into positive action.

The theme of Judt’s book seems to be: “If we do not talk differently, we shall not think differently.” That supports your contention that education is the key.  Getting out the word to people about the unfair impact of the current economy and that there are alternatives to it.  And, it supports my view that new language is needed.  I still like democratization of the economy as a phrase that covers all of our issues. Perhaps the message is that democratization of the economy leads to economic security. While education is certainly necessary, I continue to doubt that it is sufficient, but that is an issue that will become clearer as we move forward.

From NEWSMAX / AP:

World leaders must work together to make sure the global recovery stays on track, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Saturday….

Asked if the global economy could slip back into another “double dip” recession, Geithner said the answer to that question hinges on decisions made by world leaders. “It is within the capacity of the people who are going to be in those rooms together in the next few days to avoid that outcome,” he said…

One of the mistakes made in the 1930s was that countries pulled back their recovery efforts too soon, prolonging the Great Depression, he said…

Click here to read the full article.

From the FINANCIAL TIMES:

States around the US are cutting costs wherever possible as they prepare budgets for the fiscal year that starts this week for most of them. Their combined deficit is projected to reach $112bn by June 2011.

Local government activities, such as funding police, school buildings, fire departments, parks and social programmes, are in the line of fire.

“We are where the rubber meets the road,” said Sam Olivito of the California Contract Cities Association, which represents cities that outsource public services. “Local government is the fabric of our nation – it’s what keeps everything working properly.”…

Click here to read the full article.

 Watchdog, what you wrote was: “Concerning a move in 2011 to the Brunswick Annex, a non-musician Board member told NewsLanc: ‘This project is far beyond the reach of current Board of PAM, technically & financially.’ ” I understood what you were referring to; I don’t think you presented the board member’s quote out of context.

WATCHDOG:  The original version mistakenly attributed the comment to the overall performance of the board, for which I again apologize.

The board member’s opinion is worrisome, however. I read the terms of the offer Hamid Zahedi (partner in the Brunswick Hotel) made to PAM, as well as your commentary on the offer. If your reporting is correct, this is what the board member is calling “beyond the reach” of PAM’s current board: $25,000 in renovations, a $10,000 security deposit, and rent that starts at $2,000 per month and tops out at $5,000 per month. The 100 block of N. Queen St. is a great downtown Lancaster location, and although 24,000 SF is much less space than they had in their old building, it should be enough to meet their needs.

WATCHDOG:  Subsequent study indicates $75,000 needs to be expended for a new roof and to weatherproof the joint at the base of the exterior walls.  Given time constraints, it would be desirable for PAM to spend a year located elsewhere while others seek to acquire and renovate the Brunswick Annex.  This requires negotiations with the owners for an option to purchase, consultation with faculty, design, pricing and ultimately fund raising.   The goal would be for the Academy to own the Annex debt free.

Other than donated space, I can’t imagine them finding a better deal. If they don’t think they can find a way to take advantage of an offer like this, they must have already given up.

WATCHDOG:  My interest is as much as to help downtown Lancaster as PAM.  The Academy can be a vibrant center and, over time, grow into a campus, utilizing portions of the adjoining Brunswick Hotel.  I cannot think of any development more positive for downtown Lancaster.

Saving PAM and renovating and expanding the Lancaster Public Library (Duke Street) should be the City’s’  top goals for downtown Lancaster. 

(Forty-third in a series)

by Christiaan Hart-Nibbrig

“In conclusion, my review of the five reports discussed above indicates that they are meant to be market or marketing studies, and neither are represented as feasibility studies nor include sufficient information or analysis to be considered feasibility studies.” – Mark A. Kenney, MAI, real estate consultant, December 22, 2005 on the five studies misrepresented by project sponsors as “feasibility studies.”

From the time the hotel and convention center project was introduced, the sponsors of the project consistently referred to the “feasibility” studies that they said supported building it. Beginning with the Ernst & Young “Market Study” of 1999, two studies by PricewaterhouseCoopers, one in 2000 and a 2002 “Update Draft,” a 2003 HVS “Market Study, ” and finally the C.H. Johnson “Memorandum Draft,” the sponsors publicly referred to them as “feasibility” studies by name.

In lobbying for the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan in February of 2005, Nevin D. Cooley, President of Penn Square Partners and the High Real Estate Group, wrote to Patrice Dixson, Lancaster School Board president, and four times referred to the “HVS Feasibility Study.”

In a signed, official application for a $15 million state grant for the project, then-chairman and executive director of the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority (LCCCA), James Pickard, referenced the Pricewaterhouse study, which, he wrote, reflected the “economic feasibility” of the project.

The problem with these characterizations was that none of these studies were, in fact, “feasibility” studies, but rather market studies, and the difference between the two types of reports is considered substantial.

The absence of a true feasibility study on the project was uncovered by NewsLanc publisher, Robert E. Field. One day in early December, 2005, Field noticed a stack of reports on his desk. They were all of the reports for the project. “I still have no idea how I acquired those reports,” says Field today.

Field took the documents home and read them all closely. He was stunned.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Field, who had decades of experience as a real estate developer of hotels and apartment buildings. “These weren’t feasibility studies. I had several feasibility studies done for hotels we built. The convention center studies contained none of the analysis one would find in a feasibility study.”

Field returned to his office and confirmed his impressions by reviewing the feasibility studies he commissioned, and comparing them to the convention center reports.

On December 15, 2005, Field spoke via telephone with Lancaster Newspapers chairman, Jack Buckwalter, and made him aware of his findings and urging him to undertake an actual feasibility study.

Buckwalter’s dismissal of Field’s concerns prompted Field to contact Mark A. Kenney, MAI, a certified real estate appraiser and consultant. Field asked Kenney to review all the convention center reports and make a professional determination certifying what kind of reports they were.

Kenney concluded that all of the reports were not feasibility studies, but the more narrowly focused and less comprehensive marketing studies.

Kenney’s report is dated December 22, 2005:

“In conclusion, my review of the five reports discussed above indicates that they are meant to be market or marketing studies, and neither are represented as feasibility studies nor include sufficient information or analysis to be considered feasibility studies.”

In a recent interview with NewsLanc, Kenney spoke about the two types of studies. “The difference between a market or marketing study and a feasibility study may not be known to the general public and used interchangeably,” Kenney said. “But people in the real estate business surely know the difference between the terms. You use a feasibility study to examine all the financials – taxes, investment, income, expenses, insurance, financing costs, everything – to determine if the project should be built. A market study doesn’t include all of that, and focuses, as the name suggests, on the marketing aspect of the proposed project.”

Field was by then a veteran political activist, who had served as Sen. Arlen Specter’s finance chairman in his first (and successful) Senatorial bid in 1980, and who was by 2005 an established leader in the national and international drug policy and harm reduction reform movements.

Field wrote to out-going mayor Charlie Smithgall, Mayor-elect Rick Gray, LCCCA Chairman Ted Darcus, Rep. Mike Sturla, Sen. Armstrong, the president of the school board, president of city council urging each to support a full feasibility study be performed on the project.

Even Carrie Steinman Nunan, an heir to the Steinman empire, received a letter from Field urging a full feasibility study.

In a December 29, 2005 letter to New Era editor, Ernie Schreiber, Field wrote: “Something very positive you could immediately do is to write an editorial calling for the County, City, and Authority to jointly commission a genuine feasibility study….”

Field went before the county commissioners, as well as the LCCCA board.

“It is sorry commentary on the local monopoly print media that a private citizen should have to … expose the false characterizations of pivotal studies pertaining to the Convention Center and Hotel project,” he said to both boards in prepared remarks.

The issue of having an actual feasibility study done on the project got an unexpected boost on January 11, 2006. Exactly one week after he publicly denounced opponents of the project and spoke in favor of it, newly elected Lancaster City Mayor Rick Gray crashed the county commissioners meeting.

Standing in the back of the room, still wearing his overcoat, the burly, bow-tied Gray told the commissioners, who supported Field’s call for a feasibility study, that if they wanted a feasibility study done they should have Pricewaterhouse update its earlier studies, and the commissioners should pay for the cost of it.

The commissioners did not immediately embrace the Mayor’s proposal. Instead, they thanked the mayor for his proposal and said they would consider it. Gray then turned and left the meeting without ever sitting down.

Within 90 minutes of Gray’s offer, Field received that news from this writer, who was covering the commissioners’ meeting. Field immediately spun around in his chair in his office and wrote a joint letter to Shellenberger and Gray (copying all three Lancaster newspapers) saying he would subsidize the cost of the feasibility study in the amount of $50,000.

“I applaud Mayor Gray’s suggestion that the Commissioners order and pay for a feasibility study and his commitment that, if the project is not feasible, to end his support for the $137 million downtown revitalization initiative. ….

“Should funding be an obstacle, I am prepared to contribute $50,000 toward the cost of a comprehensive feasibility study of the convention center and hotel, …”

Mayor Gray seemed to back away from his position almost immediately. When Commissioner Shellenberger announced on January 14 that another firm should perform the study because of a statement made by one of the Pricewaterhouse consultants distancing the firm from its earlier studies, Gray blasted Shellenberger calling the move “wasteful” and “unnecessary.”

The county commissioners capitulated to Mayor Gray’s insistence that Pricewaterhouse conduct the study. At its January 18, 2006 public meeting, the commissioners voted to authorize special counsel, Howard Kelin, to contact Pricewaterhouse about conducting a full feasibility study for the now $137 million project. One week later, Kelin wrote a letter to the firm about re-engaging it for the new study.

But Gray still objected. In addition to Pricewaterhouse doing the study, and imposing a hard 60-deadline from January, 11, 2006, Gray, in a letter to Shellenberger dated January 20, insisted Pricewaterhouse “evaluate the changed project on the same basis as the earlier project was evaluated.” The last caveat would ensure that a market, not a feasibility, study would be performed.

The debate as to whether Pricewaterhouse should write a full feasibility study on the hotel and convention project was killed when the firm declined to participate in the study on January 28. There was no public explanation given for turning down the work.

On February 9, 2006 – four full weeks after Mayor Gray’s proposal and Field’s $50,000 subsidy offer – the Lancaster County Commissioners still had not commissioned a full feasibility study.

The commissioners Shellenberger and Henderson were receiving other pressures regarding who would conduct the study. The Uptown Economic Development Corporation (UEDC) is an organization comprised primarily of local black business and community leaders. In a letter to Shellenberger dated January 19, 2006, Rev. Roland Forbes, chairman of the UEDC, wrote:

“Recent revelations surrounding the absence of an actual feasibility study have only added to our anxiety. We applaud the efforts of Mayor Gray and you are making to address this glaring due diligence omission. However, total reliance on Price Waterhouse Coopers to review its earlier reports will not instill the project with the public confidence it needs. What is required immediately is an independent peer assessment.”

Forbes continued to recommend that an Orlando-based firm, ZHA, perform the feasibility study because, he wrote, “ZHA … has no vested interest in this deal.”

At the commissioners’ weekly meeting on February 9, at which several members of the city’s Uptown Economic Development Corporation (UEDC) spoke in favor of a full feasibility study, the commissioners voted to send out Requests for Proposals for a full feasibility study.

“Some of us conclude that there has been a rush to judgment,” said UEDC member, Rev. Earl Harris, to the commissioners, invoking the Johnny Cochran phrase, and perhaps sending a coded message with respect to selecting a firm.

What happened next was a strenuous debate between Shellenberger and Henderson, who spoke separately with Field, on who should be selected to perform the study.

The commissioners were, in mid-February 2006, politically damaged by extensive Conestoga View and now grand jury coverage in Lancaster newspapers.  They were now torn between the UEDC recommendation of ZHA, and Field’s opinion that the international hospitality consultancy of Pannell, Kerr, Forster (PKF) should be selected.

“It was vital that a top firm conduct the study,” says Field today. “It had to be a firm whose credentials and reputation could not be questioned. PKF was one of the few who could meet the highest standard.”

The commissioners were eventually persuaded to choose PKF. On February 16, 2006, Commissioners Shellenberger and Henderson voted to hire PKF to perform the feasibility study (Shaub dissented). The cost: $115,000.

Field immediately raised his pledge to $65,000.  “This is something that needs to be done, and which will ultimately bring this community together,” he told the Intelligencer Journal.

In choosing PKF, the county was selecting one of the industry’s top firms in hotel consultancy, with a track record with some of the largest hotels and convention centers in the United States and the world.

PKF consultants sought  the cooperation of the principals. And in late February, 2006, any assistance from the sponsors was not to be assumed.  In fact, efforts were underway to discredit the company by accusing it of bias.

###

Chapter Forty-four: The Fog of War, Part I

A  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article entitled “Report finds drop in hospital infections” states “A state Department of Health report released Thursday shows that Pennsylvania’s hospitals reported their patients contracted 25,914 infections in 2009, an estimated 12.5 percent fewer than a year earlier.

“Though the report seems to show we’re making progress, 25,914 is still a very large number and shows we still have our work cut out for us in bringing that number down,” Stephen Ostroff, the state’s acting physician general, said Thursday. “And there’s clearly some hospitals that have more work to do.”

Since the Post-Gazette believes the information is worthy of reporting for Allegheny County, NewsLanc believes it is also should be shared with Lancaster County.

The report “2009 Technical Report; Health Care Associated Infections (HCA) in Pennsylvania Hospitals” warns:

“Crude rates for each facility are included for reference only. These crude rates are not risk adjusted and therefore are NOT valid for facility-to-facility comparisons. These numbers and rates will be used in future reports to illustrate infection trends within each facility.”

“Risk Adjustment of Facility SIRs: Crude SIRs may be misleading, because they do not account for, or include, factors that may alter HAI risk in a facility. The likelihood that an HAI will occur depends on many factors. Certainly the quality of infection control within a hospital is critical. But even when hospitals have excellent infection control, the risks will differ because the type and intensity of care varies from hospital to hospital. But more importantly, factors that are specific to the patient play a large role in the likelihood of an HAI. These include things like the age of the patient and their underlying health status. People with chronic underlying health problems or who have severely compromised immune systems due to medication or underlying disease are at higher risk for acquiring an infection when compared to someone who is much healthier even when all other factors are equal. Some hospitals see less healthy or complicated patients than others; some will perform certain procedures on extremely ill patients while others will not. Their HAI rates and SIRs may simply be a reflection of these differences rather than indicate one hospital is doing better or worse than another. If such factors are not taken into consideration when producing SIR results for each hospital, there is the potential a hospitals will look better or worse than another not because there is a greater risk for an HAI but because their patient populations or intensity of care are simply different.”

Unfortunately, we do not have all the information we need to account for patient-specific differences from hospital to hospital.”

That being said, the following are extracted from the report because of local interest and also to provide comparisons with hospitals from nearby counties and with those in Philadelphia.  (Apparently, not all hospitals are listed.)

“Crude Infection Rate” per thousand:

Lancaster General Hospital     2.89

Lancaster Regional   0.89

Heart of Lancaster Regional    1.04

York Hospital    2.85

Reading Hospital  2.16

Crozer Chester  Medical Center     1.45

Geisinger Medical Center       4.04

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital       4.12

Temple University    3.01

Hahnemann University Hospital   2.27

We encourage our readers to use the above links to  both read the Post-Gazette article and to examine the actual report with listings for hospitals throughout the state.

After years of not making a significant factual mistake, the editor bungled twice in a 24-hours period.

As previously reported, the Watchdog confused Lancaster General Comprehensive Care Medicine with LGH’s Suboxone program.

Even worse,  in PAM’S funding shortage result of lack of vision, business acumen and attention,  I inadvertently took the following line out of proper contest.   “This project is far beyond the reach of current Board of PAM, technically & financially.”

The comment was meant to describe the  the acquisition and renovation  of the Brunswick Annex as a future school location, not PAM itself.     My mistake is inexcusable and I apologize to PAM’s trustees for the error and to our readers.

We stand by what was said in the balance of both articles.

The Watchdog is headed off for a week of vacation and hopefully rest.  Obviously he needs it. 

One leader who has both a business and education background should be sufficient. PAM is so small. It surely doesn’t need two leaders. There are plenty of folks graduating from arts management programs who could handle the job. But I think it is far more important for the next leader to have some education experience. PAM is a school first and foremost. Its leaders need to understand private school markets and how to recruit students in a crowded market.

You are right to suggest that donations could be used to help cover holes in the budget. But to keep the institution acutely attuned to its market, it should try to construct a budget based primarily on tuition revenues. Supplement those revenues with donations for program start-ups (PAM never fronted a full student orchestra because it lacked a decent brass program), special projects and scholarships. But keep the school keenly aware of its market by grounding its budget in tuition revenues.

Alas, it might be too late for any of this. Why did PAM not make provisions for its move? Why was it caught unawares by the move when any disinterested observer could see that MU, with a prep program of its own, was unlikely to share space with a competing program?