[NLA] Interest politics vs strong democracy

[George E. Demetrion]

On Thu, 16 May 2002 16:10:24 EDT JCretella at aol.com writes:
>Super waiver means a governor can apply to the department for a waiver 
>to use 
>AE funds for something else!!! just 20 words...JC
>_______________________________________________

Yes, not to fear, though, the USDoE has the best interest of adult basic
education in mind.  I'm sure some back room deals are being made to
preserve them.  This will allow the good folks at the Crawford Coffee
Shop to still look at Ted Kennedy as not such a bad fellow.

No need for public accountability among our esteemed public officials. 
No need for Senator Kennedy's office to provide a public accounting for
the reasons it is not responding to the publicly articulated concerns of
the field. The administration and the committee chair staff can talk
among themselves and decide for us.  It is our task to surmise the
reasons and not to question too much.  It is our responsibility to go
along to get along.  That's  the American way.  Look at all the funding
Senator Kennedy has received for the deal he made in the no child left
behind legislation.  Perhaps we'll be so lucky.

In all seriousness Jay (and the above is serious), I appreciate your
clear and comprehensive explanation of interest politics as played out in
our nation's capital that you provided in your response to me.   I
realize that playing in that theater reflects in part the responsibility
called upon by our field--but only in part.  Unstinted critical
commentary where it may be warranted is also an essential part of the
field's collective calling, especially for a field that claims literacy
and not merely reading as its very reason for existence.  And whatever
else, this calls for public discussion and disclosure of the processes
that go into the formation as well as the content of public policy.  If
there is widespread concern within the field about the collective
appropriateness of the current nominees to the NIFL slate and if it is up
to the HEW Committee to act both on the nominees and the concerns of the
field, then Senator Kennedy has an ethical and political obligation to
the democratic process itself to assure that such concerns are publicly
aired at the Committee and that he along with committee members vote
their conscience on this matter.

Of course, the field has to be heard and that's a problem in itself. 
Clearly, more letters could have been written, etc.  But I'm curious, of
the undoubtedly hundreds (maybe thousands?) of letters, faxes, phone
calls to the chair and other committee members, how many substantive
responses were received on the merits of the argument that the field was
making?  I know that I did not hear from my senator, an oversight, I am
sure.  I wonder how many others of those who did make contact actually
received responses?  Perhaps we can have a posting and an actual analysis
of the substantive merits for the rejection of the field's concerns. 
Perhaps we can then have a counter-rebuttal from Senator Kennedy's
office.  This kind of accounting to the public is required of democracy
itself.  Will Senator Kennedy heed the call?

I would like to continue this but need to run a literacy program.

George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com


________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org