To unsubscribe please send an email requesting removal at ModernPatriot@hotmail.com .

Invite your friends to receive the best political cyber-newsletter in Oklahoma. Tell them to subscribe by sending a subscription request to Cadman12@swbell.net or go to www.ModernPatriot.net and click on the email icon.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
M odern P atriot C hronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 5, Issue 13
November 23, 2006
By Craig Dawkins

Ballot Access for 3rd Parties in Oklahoma
Sexual Orientation a Low Priority to Voters
Wasteful County Government - Part 1

Copyright@2006, All Rights Reserved
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
POLLS! POLLS! POLLS! POLLS!

Is it time for Oklahoma Republicans to pass ballot access for all political parties in Oklahoma?
Yes - Competition is always positive.
No - It's a terrible idea.

Go to www.ModernPatriot.net and vote today!!!
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Ballot Access for 3rd Parties in Oklahoma

Competition improves the lives of everyone. Or so that's what people say. When we go to the store, we have thousands of competing goods from which to choose. Competition makes sports a fantastic collage of suspense and intrigue. Competition in the Olympic Games causes us to witness amazing feats of human courage and endurance. But when it comes to political parties, Oklahoma's two major parties don't view competition to be much of a good idea.

They even wage legal battles (all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court) against the Oklahoma Libertarian Party for having the audacity to suggest that they welcome the votes of registered Republicans and Democrats in selecting Libertarian Party political candidates. It seems that elected Republicans and Democrats are of one voice on this subject as numerous attempts of "democratize" the election laws of Oklahoma have gone nowhere.

It seems that Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats believe in Democracy so long as your choices are limited to R's and D's. So for the record, Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats are pro-democracy so long as there's no real opportunity for other political parties to compete for Oklahomans' votes. Now that Republicans control the State House and share equal power in the State Senate, I think it's time for Republicans to show they aren't afraid of the political competition.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Sexual Orientation a Low Priority to Voters

In as much as social conservatives railed against the homosexual agenda in the last election, it appears that voters just don't share the same level of concern when it comes to private sexual behavior. That's fine by me.

When 63% of Oklahoma County voters re-elected incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner Jim Roth to a second term as County Commissioner, they affirmed his performance in office without regard to his sexual orientation. In case you've been living in a cave for some time now, Roth is openly gay and has spent a great deal of political capital in aggressively fighting those who raise sexual orientation in political battles involving libraries, county employment rules, and equal rights. It is my belief that Roth views his struggle against those who condemn homosexuality in the same light as the civil rights struggles of the 60's against racial bigotry.

Roth's watch party included prominent attendees Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel, Oklahoma County Treasurer Butch Freeman, and Rep. Al McCaffrey, Oklahoma's first elected, openly gay legislator. Write it down, sexual orientation that only involves private conduct is off the table as a winning political issue. And frankly, it should be. Elections should not be about issues that involve private and constitutionally protected sexual behavior. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

When it comes to Roth, there are plenty of real issues to discuss. There are plenty of bad policies offered by Roth to attack. But attacking sexual lifestyles is off point. That's the lesson of 2006. Come up with a substantive reason to displace an incumbent politician regardless of their sexual orientation and you can do so. Sexual orientation in and of itself is NOT a substantive or winning issue.

Boycott campaigns that have been launched by "pro-family" organizations against Disney World and now Wal-Mart for their support of gay and lesbian causes are well within their purview. But these boycotts are very ill advised in terms of their substantive and political effectiveness. I observe that the Wal-Mart boycott was called off due to some menial language offered by Wal-Mart's public relations office.

Like it or not, gays and lesbians are a part of our society and they will not stop their fight for equal rights in our society. I think a majority of our society favors government policies that treat gays and lesbians with dignity and deference. I certainly feel that way. I also believe that the remaining relevant issues related to this issue are about language and preferences.

When people voted to define traditional marriage in Oklahoma as a union between one man and one woman, I feel some may have misinterpreted the intention of the voters. I believe most people voted for the traditional marriage language overwhelmingly because they don't want to lose the traditional meaning of marriage. I believe there is a significant majority that would favor giving some kind of legal union to gays seeking to solemnize relationships.

While I admire those in the religious community who are willing to confront what they view as sinful behavior, often I see their efforts as disproportionately focused on sexual orientation rather than on the plethora of spiritual shortcomings found in our society. I think it's fair to say that we've all fallen short of the glory of God. I've always believed that God sees us as either perfect or imperfect. I certainly fall in the second category.

The Republican Party needs to get off the "gay agenda" issue in my opinion and start pushing the idea of limited government once again. Pushing a religious agenda is not the job of government. It's the job of the church. I suggest that the church heed the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:3 - "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Wasteful County Government - Part 1

Working part-time at Oklahoma County allows for an unbelievable target rich environment in observing government waste. One fine example of orchestrated government waste at Oklahoma County involves a wage study financed by the taxpayers of Oklahoma County.

The wage study was conducted by MGT of America, who received $90,000 to exclusively study the wages of Oklahoma County employees. Note that MGT studied only wages, NOT total compensation. I'll get to the significance or this point later.

The reason the study was conducted and funded by the Oklahoma County Budget Board late in 2004 was due to the distrust between the elected officials at Oklahoma County regarding the issue of employee compensation. This distrust led to a colossal tax payer funded comedy of errors.

First, let's get to the scope of the study - wages. A person's total compensation includes mainly two components, wages and benefits. While wages are the focus of most people, it is only a part of the picture. So let's discuss the full time employee benefits that were in place at Oklahoma County during the MGT study submitted in 2005.

Every full time employee at Oklahoma County freely receives retirement benefits every pay period equal to 12% of their gross pay. In short, this means that each full time employee receives a retirement contribution without any contribution on their part. For example, assume a person earning $90,000 (roughly the pay of each elected official) annually. At no cost to the employee, $10,800 is contributed to the employee's retirement fund. How does this plan stack up to your employer sponsored retirement account?

While the study was being conducted, every full time employee at Oklahoma County could buy health insurance for an entire family (you pick the family size) for roughly $250 per month. How, dare I ask, does this compare with your health insurance plan?

Now before you read on, you need to reach over your left shoulder with your right hand and give yourself a pat on the back for being so generous. I mean, it is the tax payers who fund this retirement plan. And since Oklahoma County has a self insured health plan, your tax dollars are the assurance that it will remain solvent.

Now it's one thing for me to make the determination that Oklahoma County employees have a great benefits package. But that might seem a bit biased to some. So don't take my word for it. Let's look at what MGT said about it. In a conference call with MGT, which was scheduled to allay my concerns about the veracity of the wage study, MGT observed that the benefits at Oklahoma County were "lucrative." Let me add, unstudied and lucrative.

MGT offered that they could perform a total compensation study rather than a wage study, but that they would require more money to redo another wage study in conjunction with a benefits survey in presenting a different picture of how county employees are compensated.

I say that benefits were unstudied because it was the purpose of the wage study to intentionally omit them in determining the wage levels at Oklahoma County. In other words, the study was, in my humble opinion, biased in favor of giving higher than required wage increases to county workers while giving political cover to the elected officials who agreed to fund the MGT study at the tune of $90,000.

I made the observation and actually presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, that it would be very possible to reduce the retirement contribution from 12% to 6% and simply transfer the remaining "6% money" to every county employee. The only people who would have been negatively impacted would have been the elected officials. They would have simply seen a reduction to their retirement account from 12% to 6%, while every other county employee would have simply seen their pay increase by 6% and their retirement contribution reduced by 6%.

The reason for my recommendation of reducing benefits by 6% was due to the fact that Oklahoma County employees are compensated very heavily with benefits rather than wages. Even after the reduction in retirement benefits, county employees would have been heavily compensated in terms of benefits. But as you can imagine, the elected officials who heard my presentation weren't at all impressed with my solution to the wage problem.

By the way the State of Oklahoma performed a similar study that showed that State Employees were significantly underpaid until adding benefits into the total compensation study. The State's solution was to reduce the recommended wage increase. But Oklahoma County just opted to accept the study as is with all the pay increases. So here the story twists and turns once again.

With all the time, effort, and debate given to the wage study, you'd expect every elected official to embrace the study and simply stick to the wage recommendations right? Well once again, you need to reach over your left shoulder with your right hand and pat yourself on the back. Because none of the elected officials at Oklahoma County, who voted to fund the $90,000 wage study, have adopted the recommendations of the study. Generally speaking, the elected officials have generally exceeded the pay recommendations of the MGT study.

Yes that even includes Oklahoma County Commissioner Jim Roth, who recently acknowledged that Oklahoma County has deviated significantly from the MGT recommendations. You won't read this story in The Oklahoman or hear it on KTOK because it's not the kind of story they wish to publicize against their political darlings. Sometimes the bias of these two media outlets is shocking.

So here's the bottom line. You paid for a $90,000 study whose scope wasn't adequate to determine how much, if at all, Oklahoma County employees are underpaid. After receiving the study, none of the people who voted to fund the study adopted the findings but gave whatever pay increases they wanted to give. And here's a very humorous story about the study.

After I presented my 6% solution to the wage problem, Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel took exception to the language in a Brent Rinehart press release referring to the MGT study as flawed and the benefits enjoyed by Oklahoma County employees as "lucrative."

Whetsel spoke with glowing admiration regarding the findings of the MGT study. However, with defiance and incredulity Whetsel challenged the use of the word "lucrative" in relation to Oklahoma County benefits. He asked where this idea came from while citing his own facts that were intended to undermine the credibility of anyone citing Oklahoma County benefits as "lucrative."

With much glee, I stepped forward and informed the confused Sheriff that it wasn't Rinehart whom suggested the benefits at Oklahoma County were "lucrative." It was MGT. Having had the rug completely pulled out from underneath his feet, Whetsel defiantly proclaimed, "They said generous not lucrative."

Yeah….I know… I laughed too. Don't blame me. You folks voted for him.