Be careful what you wish for. The teachers’ unions and school system bureaucrats have long blamed certain incidents of failure on the fact that they were held accountable for results but not given the authority to make decisions at the local or school level. They also credited any success by a charter school to the fact that these schools had autonomy and fewer restrictions. Their argument was the equivalent of, “If we could do what they do, we would be successful, too.”
Well, Gov. Bobby Jindal and the Legislature made that possible this session with the Red Tape Reduction and Local Empowerment Act. But before the ink from the governor’s pen could even dry, the unions had filed suit to block the new law, which allows schools four-year waivers from certain laws and rules in order to improve education. These include rules governing such things as the size of classrooms, instructional time and curriculum. The results of such waivers would be measured and certain specified expectations would come with this freedom. If the changes are not successful, then there are no excuses and the state calls the shots at that point.
In their suit, the unions didn’t argue that this would or would not work for children. Their suit contends the waivers, granted by BESE, would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. In other words, they don’t have the votes on BESE to stop this and would rather fight it out in the Legislature. You see, the waivers let schools get around many of the rules the unions have fought for decades to institute through the Legislature, BESE and the local school boards. The unions like their monopoly.
The teachers’ unions continue to act more like the teamsters, protecting jobs and wages, than like professionals looking to improve and educate children. There lawsuit to stop this enabling legislation and the freedom that they have always said they needed should tell you all you need to know about their true agenda and reason for being. They’ve been exposed as frauds. Remember this.
What is ‘One’ really about?
“The greater Baton Rouge area is a growing, vibrant and diverse region with plenty of opportunities for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens and visitors to sample our unique culture. From great food, festivals, news and nightlife to social groups, churches, and professional resources, you’ll find it all…”
“Make no mistake about it, Baton Rouge is a beautiful city composed of a good, kind, generous and for the most part, accepting and tolerant population.”
If Mayor Kip Holden and the Metro Council read the two quotes above and then listened to local businessman and gay activist Joe Traigle, they would be confused. Traigle recently implied in a letter to the mayor that Baton Rouge is not a very nice city and will never succeed with economic development. The fact is, the first quote is from the website of the Capital City Alliance [a gay rights organization] and the second is from Joe Traigle himself. Confused?
I have known Traigle for years and credit him for his perseverance, though his tactics have been criticized—and rightfully so. After Traigle recently sent a letter blasting the mayor for not pushing the adoption of the One Baton Rouge resolution again, Holden responded in The Advocate, taking issue with Traigle’s “bullying tactics and the reckless abandonment with which he’s trying to embarrass people.” Mayor Pro Tem Mike Walker was also upset with Traigle’s letter, telling The Advocate, “His letter may have been well-intentioned but it was ill advised. You would attract more votes on the council with honey than with vinegar.”
Well, maybe not. Despite the rebuke of Traigle’s public attack on the mayor, Walker, the mayor’s go-to guy on the council and someone who strongly opposed the One Baton Rouge resolution when it was first discussed in 2007, has now signed on as co-author of the resolution, which will come up for a vote at the Metro Council meeting on July 28. Interesting. The Mayor has not said much publicly.
In his letter to the mayor and chamber board members, Traigle said he did have one expectation, asking that people “read this letter objectively and not be afraid to discuss it.” I read it, but I found, as I have in the past in dealing with Traigle, that his memory—or what he shares of it—is selective and not always accurate.
For instance, in one of the three examples he uses to show “how some of the leadership in Baton Rouge acts toward gay taxpaying citizens,” he talks about the Rotary Club canceling his speech on “Equality and Tolerance.” But here’s the rest of the story.
Traigle notes he was a member of the Rotary and its board and had spoken there four times before. Nevertheless, he implies he was canceled because of discrimination because he was gay. After talking to an officer of the Rotary at the time, I learned the board unanimously approved Traigle to speak on issues they knew might be controversial. But then Traigle began calling Rotarians who headed businesses in town. According to my source, Traigle called one CEO of a major local company and asked if they would be adopting an employment policy with specific language that Traigle was suggesting. The CEO informed him that the company already had policies, that it was bound by federal law on discrimination issues—that it even had diversity training. Traigle insisted on knowing if they would be adopting his specific policy—because he was speaking at the Rotary, where he would be inviting the press, and was going to announce those major companies that had or had not adopted the policy. Whoa! [That’s the kind of strong-arming Jesse Jackson uses on corporations to raise money for his Rainbow Coalition.]
This CEO [and Rotarian] was upset and let the club know how Traigle was using his upcoming speaking platform at the Rotary to advance his agenda. I was told that is why he was canceled—and can you blame the board? So instead of using the opportunity to share his views with 400 business people at the Rotary, Traigle used tactics that tripped him up, and he missed out. And now he accuses and portrays others unfairly. So much for “One Rotary.”
I wonder what tactics he is using now on the mayor, Mike Walker and the Metro Council. “One Council?”
Not everyone in the gay community seems to have the same perception of Baton Rouge as Traigle. Kevin Serrin, chairman of the board of the Capital City Alliance, told The Advocate, “I don’t think Baton Rouge is as close-minded as a lot of people perceive it to be.”
So what is One Baton Rouge really about? One group’s view of how everyone should think? Political correctness? Fairness? And at the end of the day, will it change anything in Baton Rouge? I feel confident in saying, until hearts and minds truly change, there will be no One Baton Rouge. And is that true of any city?
I respect Traigle’s unwavering commitment to his cause—that is a rare quality—but I do not like his alleged tactics and false accusations. [I wonder if I will be the next target.] They foment the kind of hostility and divisiveness the One Baton Rouge resolution is intended to, well, resolve. And while I do not know the final outcome of the July 28 Metro Council meeting [though I anticipate a lot of acrimony], I know that a few words on an innocuous resolution passed by a split Metro Council isn’t going to suddenly create the community we seek.
