Constitutional Amendment

Sent to Boston Globe
December 28, 2006

The members of the legislature are now under great pressure to vote on the Constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage: that marriage is between one man and one woman (Vote on gay marriage is due but can't be forced, SJC says. Boston Globe, December 28, 2006, p: A1).
They should do so, but they should vote in accord with the principle that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of minorities, not to restrict them. Democracy easily turns into demagoguery and it is demagoguery to insist that our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors should not have the right to marry.
They should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them  to, or even that their constituents told them to.
The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment.

Sharing the Sacrifice

December 24th. 2006
Published in the New York Times, December 27th. 2006.

Any serious reconsideration of our strategy in Iraq must go far beyond Iraq. There must be a change In America itself.
Up to now,  the burden of the war has been born by those fighting and their families. To be credible, the President must also demand sacrifice from the rest of us. At the very least, a war tax should be imposed so that we pay for the war rather than passing the cost on to our children.
Anything less would show the President to be uninterested in prosecuting the war and singly intersested in trying to protect his ego.

New York Times version [Please scroll Down]

The Arizona Ballot

December 11th. 2006
Published in the New York Times Magazine, December 24th. 2006

The idea introduced to Arizona is one of the sillier ideas of the year. It is likely that adding an extrinsic reward (the hope of a lottery prize) to the vote will reduce the voters concentration on the election issues. It may get the voter to the poll -- and in Arizona there is a disincentive to vote as juries are drawn from the election rolls rather than from residency rolls -- but the voter's only goal will be to vote rather than to vote sensibly.
PS
If you are interested there is an unpublished op-ed here http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/arizona.html.08.07.2006.html
and a discussion of the issue by Professors of Organizational Behavior here:
http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/arizona.query.08.08.2006.html
New York Times Magazine version [ Please scroll down]

Iraq Troop Levels

December 20th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Your report (Bush seeks to expand strained military, Boston Globe, December 20, 2006: page A2) suggests that President Bush is planning on deploying up to 35,000 more troops to Iraq. This is the very worst of the four alternatives he could have chosen; withdrawal; maintain the status quo, small troop increase; massive troop increase.
I would favor the withdrawal option; but if we are to increase troop levels then only a massive increase will have any chance of success.
Before the war began General Eric Shinseki estimated that we would need several hundred thousand troops for the occupation of Iraq. We should note that he was talking about an Iraq in the immediate aftermath of defeat by American troops. That is he was talking about a subdued Iraq. Three years later, Iraq is at war with itself, so it stands to reason that a large infusion of troops will be required to subdue the insurgency and return the streets of Baghdad to peace and to retake Anbar province. If the General was talking abut 200,000 occupying troops in 2002/3, the required number now must be at least 300,000 troops for the pacification of Iraq.
If that number is impossible to provide, then we should withdraw. Sending in a relatively small additional contingent would make little difference to our pacification efforts and just put more troops at risk. That is totally unacceptable.

The Decider Vacillates

December 13th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

So the great decider, cannot decide what to do in Iraq. George Bush's aphorism "I'm the decider" was a paraphrase of Harry Truman's "The buck stops here." As Bush shilly-shallies, young men and women are dying in Iraq. If he cannot decide in a timely fashion, the President should take to heart another of Truman's sayings "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." He should step down and let his Vice-President take the decisions -- if he is not doing so already.

Perhaps Cheney with his impeccable marksmanship could go Iraq and lead some patrols in person, to compensate for the more important priorities he had during the Vietnam era. There is a precedent. The neo-cons' darling, Winston Churchill, after being ousted from the Cabinet commanded a regiment in the trenches during World War I.

Patrick Stumbles

December 7th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Forget about the inaugural extravaganza, there are more serious mistakes being made by the new Patrick administration. Just hours after being selected, Leslie Kirwan, the new head of the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, started making suggestions about the new administration's budgetary ideas: allowing cities to raise fees and meal taxes.

She did this before she could have possibly explored whether or not there were real savings from waste in the budget. She did this before the Patrick/Murray working group on Budget and Finance had completed its task.

So was Ms. Kirwan speaking on her own account? Are the working groups meaningless? Are they just there to provide window dressing but with no real purpose?

Deval Patrick owes us some answers.

Full disclosure: I was a volunteer for Deval Patrick during the gubernatorial campaign.

Marriage Amendment

To the Editor:
I agree with Adrian Walker (It's time to move on, Boston Globe, Novemebr 6th, 2006: B1) that it is time to move on and to allow gay and lesbian citizens of the Commonwealth to retain their constitutional rights.

However I disagree with his statement that we should accomplish this through "any means necessary." Ends rarely justify means.

He is wrong to state that there is no law to compel the members of the Constitutional Convention to vote on the Marriage Amendment. The Constitution specifies that a ballot initiative which gains sufficient signatures, which the Marriage Amendment did, has to receive a vote from the Constitutional Convention. It also specifies that if the Convention adjourns without voting on the issue, then the Governor must call the Convention back into session until the issue is voted on.

So there is no escape for our legislators: they must vote on the issue. I trust that, despite the pressures they are  under, they will vote against a Constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of any citizen of the Commonwealth.

Your columnist Mark Leibovich notes a variety of answers to the critical Jeopardy question for the November 7th crowd: Why did you vote for the Iraq war?( New York Times, October 21st, 2006: Section 4, pages1 and 4)

He fails to appreciate the truly accurate answer of Joseph Biden: the legislators did not vote for war; they voted to give the President the option of going to war.

You see at that time, it was a vote designed to give the President leverage in calling Iraq to account before the United Nations. It exemplified realpolitik at its best.

It is hard to remember the sequence of events from 2001 to the beginning of the war on March 20th 2003. Up until November 2002 (that is until the President had the support of the Senate and House of Representatives through the vote) the Iraqis refused to allow UN inspectors to undertake inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction on Iraqi territory. By the end of November, inspections under the direction of Hans Blix were under way. The vote to grant the President war powers had achieved its purpose, the Iraq regime was being called to account for its actions.

We have forgotten too that Hans Blix called on the US and Britain to give his inspectors the "hard intelligence" that they claimed to possess so that his inspectors could go to check out that information on the ground. The failure of the US and Britain to do so should have roused our suspicions that all was not well with the intelligence -- its invalidity has been amply demonstrated in the past years.
Where we went wrong -- the Senate, and the House, and the country, and all of us -- was the failure to recognize the importance of the inspector's reports in mid February 2003 that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq, so that we were in no immanent danger from Iraq. That should have led to a re-evaluation of the war power resolution and its potential repeal based on the changed situation. We failed to do so and we are reaping the tragic consequences today.

But you, who have attacked President Bush for his failure to understand the nuance in the situation, should have made sure your columnist recognized the nuance implicit in the vote for the war option and should be educating your readers about the realpolitik aspects of that vote, not sneering at those who are trying to explain their actions with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Rumsfeld's army

To the Editor

Donald Rumsfeld was not quite accurate when he said: Hey you go to war with the army you've got (T. L. Friedman, Insulting our troops and our intelligence, New York Times, November 3, 2006: A27).

What he should have said was: you go to war with the army I gave you.

According to Cobra II and Fiasco, Rumsfeld abandoned the Army's carefully Time Phased Force and Deployment Lists for both Afghanistan and Iraq. These lists are developed so that the right kinds of troops are deployed to the battlefield at the right time. By abandoning these plans, the civilian managers in Defence Department substituted their own judgement for those of the troop commanders. As a result, not only did we not have enough troops, we did not have the right kinds of troops on the ground. We are paying the price for that today.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to take Mr Friedman's advice and vote to throw the rascals out. I do not become an American citizen until November 8th. 2006.

Catholics and Marriage

Dear Editor:

I agree on constitutional grounds that the Catholic proponents of the marriage amendment have the right to an up or down vote in the issue in the Constitutional Convention next week (Bishops push for a vote on marriage, Boston Globe, October 31, 2006; B1, B5). However, I hope the amendment is voted down.

Why would the Church try to destroy the families of our gay friends and neighbors?

In any case, why would anyone listen to the Catholic Church on any family value issue? This is the Church that protected pedophile predator priests for many years. This is the Church whose Cardinal called down the Wrath of God on the media for publishing allegations of the pedophilia that was on going in the Church -- talk about taking the word of the Lord in vain!

No, on family issues, the Catholic Church deserves to stay in the purgatory of irrelevancy for the next two dozen years.

Needed Electoral Reform

Your comment on the incongruity of the same person running the election as administrator and running in the election as candidate (And the Winner Is ... Me, New York Times, October 17th. 2006. A 22) touches only the tip of the iceberg of needed reform.

Most other jurisdictions in democratic societies separate the administration of elections from partisan influence. The Chief Elections Officer, who runs the elections, assigns staff and voting machines to precincts, and counts the vote is a Civil Servant subject to the discipline of Civil Service regulations and not beholden to any particular party. This is not the situation in most of the States in the US where the person responsible for running the election is usually a functionary of the political party in power. This has to be changed.

Second, we must move toward a system of campaign financing that depends on public funding rather than private donation. This last will be difficult to achieve because of the Supreme Court rulings that financial donations to politicians and Political Action Committees are protected by First Amendment free speech provisions. To undo this a long run strategy of a Constitutional amendment will be necessary. One step in the right direction can be achieved by a change in a totally different arena: licensing radio and television stations. Most money in election campaigns goes to a media blitz. If TV and Radio outlets were required, as they are in the UK and Canada, to provide access to political candidates then the necessity for candidates to advertise would diminish. Congress should take the necessary legislative action so that new rules can be in place for the next round of license renewals.

Third, as we have seen in Texas and elsewhere, Electoral Districts are often drawn by the legislature. Districts designed by legislators are meant to do two things: first and most important, to protect and enhance the opportunities for more seats for the majority party; and second to protect incumbents of any political stripe. Often the two major parties will horse-trade boundary lines to protect each other's incumbents. In most jurisdictions outside the USA and in some exemplary US States, redistricting is handed over to an Independent Redistricting Commission. These usually have bipartisan representation on the commission but are independent of the legislature.

These three changes will help restore democracy in the United State.

Healey's Needles

Cheri Nolan, a former federal deputy assistant attorney-general is quoted as saying that Kerry Healey is "interested in substance abuse issues. mental health issues, people who need treatment." (Criminologist group takes on Healey. Boston Globe, October 19th., 2006: B6).

In terms of substance abuse treatment, her June support of Governor Romney's veto of over-the-counter needle sales legislation substitute ideology for facts.(Boston Globe, July 1, 2006, p. B4).
If ever there was a field in which evidence based decisions are needed it is in the fight against substance abuse. For Kerry Healey not to have considered the evidence from studies showing no increase in drug use after the passage of needle sale legislation in other jurisdictions is appalling.

She is an educated woman with a social science Ph.D. so she is trained in the ability to "review the 'methodology'" of the studies. For her to have neglected to do so is an abdication of her responsibility to serve the Commonwealth by making the best possible decisions based on factual evidence.
She must be held to account for this failure.

Martin Evans is Professor Emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto where he taught research methodology for many years. He also volunteers for the Deval Patrick Campaign.

Iraq. Who Pays

Bob Herbert (New York Times, Op-Ed, October 12, 2006) is one of many who has called for shared sacrifice in the war against terror. He points out that only one group is sacrificing – members of the armed forces, their families, and, in the case of national guard members, their employers.

In the current Iraq war, America is sacrificing  three things: the lives of its young men and women, its money, and its honor.

Right now, the young are paying or potentially paying the cost of all three. The youth are those dying and maimed in Iraq. With deficit financing of the war, the young will have to pay for it in the next twenty years. Only the privates, specialists, and sergeants of Abu Ghraib have had their honor tarnished while Donald Rumsfeld continues as Secretary of Defense and John Yoo teaches at Berkeley Law.

This cannot to be allowed to continue.

As in all wars the young men and woman will have to continue to do the fighting.

We, the public, must take up the challenge of paying for the war now. It would be unconscionable to leave the financial payments to today's youth. We must devise a pay-as-you-go scheme. Inevitably this will mean raising taxes which will be anathema to the anti-tax Republican conservatives – but it is their war and our war and we and they must pay for it.

Finally, it is the administration that must pay the cost in dishonor. I think we are stuck with the President, a weak but charming fellow, who was at the mercy of his entourage. Vice-President Cheney who promulgated so many of the half truths that brought us to this war and who continues to press for CIA torture despite overwhelming evidence that torture is ineffective in eliciting accurate and timely information should do the honorable thing and resign. Resignation is also required of Secretary Rumsfeld who administered a Pentagon where with a wink and a nod torture of prisoners was countenanced, who planned an invasion with insufficient troops to stabilize a post-war Iraq, and who continues to mismanage the logistics of the war and its strategic goals. Secretary Rice who was unable to get the holidaying President to take notice of the 9/11 intelligence should also step aside.

This is what America needs, this is what our troops deserve: a shared sacrifice where the non-combatants pick up the financial cost and where the administration oligarchs pass out into the wilderness to help America restore its "sacred honor."

Green Card and Recent Legislation

Call me paranoid if you like but I am getting a little bit scared. I am a Green Card Holder and am, I hope, in the last stages of getting my U.S. citizenship. I also frequently write letters to the newspapers, mostly unpublished, decrying the actions of the current administration.
Today the President signed into law a bill that removes Habeaus Corpus safeguards from Green Card Holders if they are deemed to "give material aid" to terrorists.
If I write that terrorist suspects should receive the benefits of Habeaus Corpus, is that giving material aid?
If I write that the US reliance on the State Secrets defense in the Arar and el-Masri  cases is misguided, is that giving material aid?
If I write that retrospective legislation indemnifying US agents against war crimes is odious (Boston Globe, August 13th. 2006), is that giving material aid?
If I write that this administration has shown a contempt for international law, for the Geneva Convention, and for the Vienna Protocol on consular relations, is that giving material aid?
I hope not. But I am no longer sure and that is why I am just a little bit scared.

September 19th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe Magazine

The kids are wrong.
The state reptile should be the gerrymander!

Case of Mr. Arar

September 19th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

As a transplanted Canadian I am proud of the forthright way in which the Canadian Government dealt with the case of Mr. Arar (Canadians fault U.S. for its role in torture case, New York Times, September 19th. 2006; pp: A1, A6.). His arrest In New York and rendition to Syria was subject to a full scale judicial inquiry which reported today that Mr Arar had no connection to al-Qaeda and that Canadian and American officials were negligent in their duties.

I wish I could be as proud of my adoptive country. The United States refused to co-operate in the Canadian inquiry despite the fact that the arresting officers were American and it was CIA officials who undertook the rendition to Syria where Mr Arar was tortured. In addition the United States government hid behind the dubious, in my view, doctrine of the States Secret defense in disallowing a lawsuit by Mr Arar against the United States government.

Mr Arar has received justice and due process from Canada. In the U.S. he has been denied due process and justice. Until he, and people like him including the detainees at Guantanamo, receive due process, the terrorists are winning.

September 16th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

I was horrified to read about the appalling misuse of high school student contact information by military recruiters outlined in David Goodman's piece (Reading, writing, and recruitment, Boston Globe, September 15th. 20006, A13) . Apparently a small number of recruiters have been using recruitment interviews to rape, seduce, or sexually harass the students who have expressed interest in a military career.

Horrified not only because this has happened but also because this is the first mention of the issue in the Boston Globe despite the fact that Associated Press released the story in late August. This appalling behavior by some military recruiters should have been front page news.

It seems to me that two procedural changes should be made. First, students should only meet with recruiters in the presence of a parent. Second, the law should be changed so that instead of parents and students opting out of having the information released they should have to opt-in to allow the military to receive the information.

And, of course, the Department of Defense should be vigilant in eradicating these abuses from the military recruiting offices of America.

And perhaps legislators should be a little more careful about adding unnecessary clauses to legislation. The requirement to send information to the military was part of the "No child left behind" legislation.

Home Grown Terrorits

September 14th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

I suppose we should be reassured that at least some of the terrorist cells uncovered by the FBI are not very bright.
One of those described by John Miller (Law enforcement, American Style, September, 14, 2006. A27) was a group of "three men who had conspired to travel to Iraq and attack American forces there."
I'd have thought the indigenous attackers in Iraq did not need much help from American sympathizers!

Gender Bias in Story Placement

September 13th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Today's Globe has two important stories relegated to the light-weight Living Arts Section. I wonder whether this is because they are both headlined by women?

On your front page of Section C is a story about the upcoming international conference on youth employment to be held in Kenya. This was organized by Poonam Ahulwalia. An issue this important surely deserves placement in the Front section or the Business Section.

On the back page of Section C is a story about the opening of a school in Boston for children who are recovering from alcohol or drug addiction. This story headlined Lietenant Governor Kerry Healey.
Surely the problems of youth
addiction and their potential solutions deserve placement in the Front Section of the newspaper.

You have done a disservice to each of these important initiatives by including them witht the section that deals with gossip about film stars, pop music and movie reviews.

Bonuses

September 7th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Toronto Globe & Mail

The information cited by Virgina Galt (Bonuses no longer just for executives, Glonbe and Mail, Sept 6, 2006; Page: C7) is quite perverse. She states that top management bonuses average 20% of salary, those for middle managers are about 15%, those for professionals are about 10% and those for trades people are about 7% and for clerical workers they are a meagre 5% of salary.

First, a bonus of under 10% is not very meaningful. So the bonuses for trades people and clerical workers will not have much motivational impact.

Second, differentials in compensation should be established with base salaries. After that, everyone should get the same percentage of salary as bonus -- either 100%, or 59% or 12%. After all, each has contributed in his or her own way to the success of the firm. Each should share proportionately in the fruits of that success.

Deficit Reduction

August 18th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

I fear that the Congressional Budget Office may be too firmly attached to the rear-view mirror (Brighter '06 Deficit outlook, but Long Term Looks Grim, New York Times, August, 18, 2006. Page A12).

Much of the projected surplus rests on the Capital Gains Tax. If other investors are like me, we are in trouble beginning with the third quarter receipts (due September 15th. at the IRS). During the first two quarters, I had healthy capital gains in my managed portfolio and sent a healthy contribution to Washington to pay my estimated tax liability. In the third quarter I had substantial losses, so will be sending little or nothing to the IRS.

My guess is that over the year, my capital losses will balance my capital gains, so the IRS may owe me a substantial refund and the '06 deficit will not be as healthy as currently anticipated.

Avoid Retroactive Legislation

August 13th. 2006
Published in the Boston Globe

The Bush Administration still does not understand that Americans want a return to the rule of law.

Legislation, of any kind, that is retroactive is particularly odious (White House proposes retroactive war crimes protection. Boston Globe, August 10, 2006, page A8). How can one arrange one's behavior unless one has a clear understanding of the law. Of course, it is worse when new crimes are created retrospectively; but even creating retrospective protection is unwise -- its is just like re-dating stock option grants to ensure a larger payoff.

Especially at this time of heightened terrorist activity, we must maintain our commitment to the rule of law. Without that, we have lost our fundamental values.


Boston Globe version is here

Joe Lieberman

August 9th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

If, in 2000, Joe Lieberman had loved his party more than he loved himself and the trappings of power, he would not have insisted on running for the Senate as well as the Vice-Presidency. This self-serving behavior risked the appointment of a Republican to replace him.

If Joe Lieberman loved his party more than he loves himself and the trappings of power, he would not insist as running as an independent in the November general election.

This selfish behavior has surely relieved any of his Democratic friends in the Senate or the House from the obligation of providing him with support in November.

His actions contribute to the disaffection we feel for politicians of all stripes. It is a pity when he could have demonstrated his commitment to the party by acquiescing in its decision and fighting hard for Lamont's victory. That is what Democrats expect.

British Petroleum

August 9th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times (Business Section)

Other lessons from Prudhoe Bay.

Over the past two years, the six executive Directors of BP received over $16 million dollars in Bonuses. These bonuses were paid on the basis of performance standards set by the Board's Remuneration committee. One way that high profit figures can be reached is by skimping on invisible but essential expensive tasks like maintenance (training and R&D are often early casualties too).

The failures of the pipelines in Alaska are clear evidence that BP undertook insufficient inspection and maintenance. At the very least, the Directors should hand back their bonuses and the Remuneration Committee should review the contingent, performance based pay of all officers of the Corporation and make appropriate adjustments.

Arizona Ballot OB Comments

Responses to the Query about the Arizona Ballot and Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.08.08.2006

Here was my query:
Since my retirement I have become interested in the American political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on politically.
Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.
The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to understand the issues at stake in the election.
This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation, voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.
So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
OR
will intrinsic motivation be undermined?
OR
what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on my LTE/Op-ED website URL: http://martingevans.blogspot.com/2006/08/responses-to-query-about-arizona-ballot.htm
Thank you for your interest!
The responses are presented in order of appearance at my desk.
Here is the Index

• Bad Idea .........................................................................................3, 5, 17
• Conditions for Effective Use of Extrinsic Reward .......................................2
• Disincentives to Vote ................................................................................1
• Effect on existing Voters
• Increase Intrinsic Motivation
• No change in Intrinsic Motivation ..................................................10
• Reduce Intrinsic Motivation ............................................................6
• Effect on new Voters
• Increase Intrinsic Motivation ...........................................................9
• No change in Intrinsic Motivation...................................................18
• Reduce Intrinsic Motivation .........................................3, 6, 7, 10, 13
• Expectancy Theory Perspectives .......................................................14, 16
• Incentive is too Weak to Have an Effect ....................................................1
• Individual Differences .........................................................................13 15
• Questions about Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Theory ................2, 13 19
• Self Perception Theory ..............................................................................9
• References ......................................................................2, 8, 18, 20 21 22
• Unintended Consequences ........................................................................4
• Use as a Class Project .............................................................................12
• Voters all have Extrinsic Motives ..............................................................14

1. I have no insight to add in terms of motivation theory. However, as an Arizona resident who has closely followed this debate, I wanted to point out the jury pool issue. Arizona relies entirely on registered voters for its jury pools and numerous polls and anecdotal evidence suggests that many Arizonans refuse to register in order to avoid jury duty.
Such residents could not be considered "civic-minded." As well, one has to wonder if a small chance at a prize (perhaps of equivalent value to a few dollars of lottery tickets) would even be an effective extrinsic motivator for residents who have already demonstrated they are swayed by the existing incentive to not vote.
Back to Index
2. Interesting. I read something the other day about the "blurriness" of the intrinsic/ extrinsic motivation distinction, but of course I can't put my finger on it.
Reiss (2005) opines that: "The undermining effect of extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation remains unproven." That paper is here: http://nisonger.osu.edu/bhan_a28_01.1-14.pdf

Maybe the Arizona voters could only claim the lottery prize contingent on a test of issues knowledge?
Back to Index
3. This is a farce. People will go vote just to get a chance on the lottery without one thought about politics. What are they thinking?
Back to Index
4. Unintended consequences: This could encourage people to figure out ways to vote more than once!
Back to Index
5. This idea is gross, stupid, absurd, brainless, foolish, puerile, irresponsible, incompetent, moronic, asinine, ridiculous, silly, and insane.
Back to Index
6. To me it will be a sad day if people will have to be "bribed" to vote. Stimulating voting in this manner raises several ethical questions to me. Will such a vote mean anything? Will the person even know or care who he or she is voting for? Can such a vote count the same as someone who was intrinsically motivated to vote, voting to make a difference? I believe even a low voting turnout is much better than a "synthetic" high turnout. In terms of motivation theory, I expect that such a step can be a demotivator to vote to those people that would have been intrinsically motivated to vote. In other words, it can lead to people that takes voting sincerely not to vote anymore.
Back to Index
7. To modify slightly anon's perspective [#3], I think that not all "people" as he refers to them, will vote only to get a free chance at the lottery, but I believe that many if not most new voters at the margin will vote precisely for that reason. I also feel that they will fail to recognize or acknowledge any responsibility to understand issues and candidates sufficiently to develop and vote well formed convictions. I agree completely with anon's [3] ending question.
Back to Index
8. The following might be relevant to your issue:
Kerr, Steven. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. [Book; Edited Book] Vecchio, Robert P (Ed). (1997). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations. (pp. 246-256). xiii, 577 pp. Notre Dame, IN, US: University of Notre Dame Press. Editor's Note. The original source is: Kerr, Steven. On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, Dec 1975, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p769-783.
Back to Index
9. On the other hand, from a self-perception theory standpoint, perhaps the very action of going to the polls, even if for the wrong reasons, might spur people to think about the issues more than they would have otherwise. After all, the extrinsic motivator doesn´t tell them who to vote for, and if the issue were framed such that the money were interpreted as a "valuing" rather than "controlling" stimulus, it might increase intrinsic interest in the election.
I too think it is sad to bribe people into the public sphere. Personally, I would rather promote democracy through public discussion projects rather than voting, as lack of informed public discourse seems to me the root of the problem. But, then again, I think Martin´s question is a good one, not to be dismissed so lightly,
Back to Index
10. A skeptic with regard to incentive in organizations I remain a skeptic about this proposal. Think about who this will attract. Those who want a million will come to vote in an uninformed manner. They will come to pull a lever just like a slot machine and will not take the time to think about what it is they are voting about. They are likely to be overly influenced by commercials for candidates. I don't think that is the type of voter this country needs. I am less concerned about incentives driving out intrinsic motivation of those who are already voting. They will continue to vote for the same reason. I also don't think, as I suggest above, that incentive driven behavior will become intrinsically driven behavior. To my knowledge there is not evidence for that. It is much more likely that voting behavior will be become functionally autonomous in the Allport sense.
Back to Index
11. Now, what you [#5] are saying is that you disagree with this?
Back to Index
12. Thanks so very much for your e-mail and info. It is rare that I come across a current issue that is so clear and that I can use as a very direct application of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. It will make for a very good homework exercise for the OB students. How they frame their arguments for a very current application issue makes for a great assignment and the AZ voting one is a nice one for discussion on motivation and if the lottery isn't the answer, then a more interesting discussion can revolve around alternatives.
Back to Index
13. From a research perspective I believe that the undermining of intrinsic motivation by extrinsic rewards has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. I don't believe that in this case there would be any effect on those who are already voting of adding the proposed lottery, with the possible exception of those who morally object to the concept of gambling (you may find that there are actually many folks in Arizona that have that opinion).
I would more question the underlying logic of the whole idea. It seems to me that the voting rate is a reflection of the amount of engagement by a population in political thought and involvement. What you want in a population is highly engaged citizens who are knowledgeable about issues and care about the process. The voting rate is one measure of that engagement.
Increasing the voting rate by way of a lottery may increase voting, but it will not likely result in better informed and engaged citizens. In my mind getting people who are not voting to vote by this method (assuming that it would work) would be detrimental to the political process.
Voting is the way that people let their opinions be known to their representatives. Those who don't vote are also letting their opinion be know. That opinion is "I don't care enough about the issue to get off the couch and vote". By involving these people in the voting process without engaging them in the process of understanding and caring about the issues would not promote democracy in my opinion. This suggestion is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.
Back to Index
14. I do not believe that this debate is so black and white. Does anyone truly vote based on some democratic-altruism? I think not. Although we would say we vote based on our convictions we also vote to support candidates that will give us what we want. While that is a theoretical model with more mediators than vote -> win, it is a similar model with voting on issues. Vote->get candidate I like->get policy that I like or supports my lifestyle, beliefs, or my profession. So, from an expectancy theory standpoint they are simply lowering the expectancy but raising the valence of the voting outcome. So, maybe there will be a new type of self-serving voter, but they will not be alone in their self-serving motives. We all have that motive to some degree. Just some thoughts. Which, wrong or right, might be more productive that 50 ways to say its stupid.
Back to Index
15. Fascinating instigator of discussion!
I would be particularly curious, if you pursue research in this area, of how immigrants/naturalized citizens feel/act vs. those born here.
Certainly a thought-provoking proposition!
Back to Index
16. The problem for many, I think, is instrumentality - they don't vote because they don't think it matters (e.g. "my one vote won't make a difference") - it does not lead to any positively valent outcome in their minds, and it takes time & hassles (negative valence). Others don't know the candidates well enough or they don't believe there's a big difference between them. These folks have no motivation & some would argue probably should not vote. So, offering extrinsic rewards might affect those who play the lottery thinking their odds are better than they are, but for most, I suspect it will have little impact, and for others, it may get people voting who should probably stay home (my cynical view)....
Back to Index
17. In my view the Arizona voting prize is a very bad idea. The privilege of voting is all that is needed. Anything else undermines it.
Back to Index
18. The below article will be relevant and very interesting to the question at hand: Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000. Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, 791–811. (you can download the article here: http://www.gsb.uchicago.edu/fac/uri.gneezy/vita/qjepayenough.pdf). Here is the abstract: Economists usually assume that monetary incentives improve performance,and psychologists claim that the opposite may happen. We present and discuss a set of experiments designed to test these contrasting claims. We found that the effect of monetary compensation on performance was notmonotonic. In the treatments in which money was offered, a larger amount yielded a higher performance. However, offering money did not always produce an improvement: subjects who were offered monetary incentives performed more poorly than those who were offered no compensation. Several possible interpretations of the results are discussed.
Using the above, I would predict that there would not be any practically-important difference expected from the lottery idea unless the probability of receiving a payoff, and the payoff that will be received are both high. The only sure and quick way to make people vote is to make it the law to vote (as is the case in some European countries).
The problem in the U.S., from my external perspective (and having lived several years), is that there is a lot of voter apathy, which in many ways serves the institutions of power in good stead. Unless the root causes of apathy are identified and addressed voter turnout will always remain paltry.
Back to Index
19. Very interesting thread! Some follow-up questions for the group.
1. How has "extrinsic motivation" and "intrinsic motivation" typically been operationalized in such studies that simultaneously examine intrinsic and extrinisic motivation? Is "pay" or "economic beneift" the primary extrinsic motivator in such studies? Are there other ways that extrinsic motivation has been operationalized?
2. Is anyone aware of any reviews or meta-analysis on the relationship of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators and performance?
Back to Index
20. This debate has its origins in cognitive evaluation theory, for which numerous conflicting studies on the undermining effects of an extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation have been conducted, largely in education, health and sports settings. For a nice review of this theory and its limitations for studying behavior in organizations, its subsequent expansion into self-determination theory (SDT) and the implications of SDT for many theories of organizational behavior see Gagne & Deci (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Back to Index

21. Bateman & Crant have a working paper that has a good review of the research and the controversy about whether extrsinsic rewards really do undermine intrinsic motivation. You can read their paper here http://www.commerce.virginia.edu/faculty_research/Research/Papers/IMOBHDP24.pdf
Back to Index

22. Basically, the work of Deci and colleagues is probably the most relevant to your both questions below (they argue and show that extrinsic reward undermine intrinsically-motivated behavior). The following should be interesting: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., & Koestner, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125, 627-668.
However, extrinsic rewards are quite strongly related to performance:
Jenkins, G. Douglas; Mitra, Atul; Gupta, Nina; Shaw, Jason D. (1998). Are Financial Incentives Related to Performance? A Meta-Analytic Review of Empirical Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 777-787.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology, 56, 155-195.
Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F. (2006). The impact of financial and nonfinancial incentives on business-unit outcomes over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 156-165,
Hackman and Oldham have done a lot of work in the area too, with the Job Characterics Model. Their instrument, the JDS, is supposed to measure intrinsic motivation. However, meta-analytic results show correlations (with performance) that are not as strong as most would think/expect (see Fried & Ferris, 1987). Their results indicated no relationship between job characteristics and performance. Specifically, the meta-analytic correlations (90% credibility values) between the five job characteristics and rated (objective) performance that Fried and Ferris reported ranged from .00 (task significance and autonomy) to .13 (task identity). The analogous correlations between the three critical psychological states and performance were .03 (knowledge of results) and .00 (experienced meaningfulness and responsibility). For a review and critique see:
De Treville, S., & Antonakis, J. (2006). Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configural, and levels-of-analysis issues. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 99-123.
Back to Index

August 7th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Arizona's Voting Lottery

Martin G. Evans
Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

        The Arizona voting lottery is an interesting idea (Jeff Jacoby. A million bad reasons to vote, Boston Globe, August 2nd. 2006). Some have lauded it as a vehicle for increasing people's interest in the democratic process and election issues, others have decried it as foolish because it will bring people to the polls who have no knowledge of or interest in the issues being decided.
       
        When it comes to explaining voting patterns, there are two factors to be considered: opportunity to vote and motivation to vote. If implemented, this million dollar voting proposal has some interesting and counter intuitive effects. Jacoby is scornful of "good government" organizations like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause who have proposed a variety of measures to make voting easier; the so-called turnout worshipers. He argues that removing barriers to voting by allowing provisional ballots, universal absentee ballots, and Oregon's mail-in ballot open the door to the uninformed voter. He is wrong. He is confusing motivation with opportunity. All of these measures reduce the barriers to voting thereby increasing the opportunity to vote. For many, especially the poor, getting to the poll is not the easy event, implied by Jacoby, that it is to those of us with flexible working hours and easily accessible workplaces. Consider the difficulties that these people would have reaching the polling place:
        • the person with a long and difficult commute between home (close to the polling station) and work
        • the low paid worker working two jobs in order to pay for rent, food, and medical care for the family
        • the single mother juggling work and two children, each with different school schedules
For each of these, getting to the polling place in a timely fashion may be nearly impossible. For Jacoby, it is trivial.
        In addition, insufficient equipment, overworked and under-trained poll workers, long lines, and deliberate voter suppression by political party organizations ( providing inaccurate information like "If you can't vote on Tuesday, come on Thursday") all raise barriers to voter participation. Their presence makes it difficult for even the most motivated voter to actually consummate his or her vote. By adding a monetary goal, the million dollar lottery may cause people to try a little harder to overcome the barriers to voting.
        The impact on the motivation to vote itself  is more complex. Motives to do something come in two flavors: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Do I work because the work is challenging and enjoyable (intrinsic motivation) or do I work because I am paid (extrinsic motivation)? In the context of voting, the intrinsic motives arise out of the issues in the election, the attractiveness of the candidates, and the desire to perform the duties of citizenship – I can't wait to become an American citizen so that I can vote. Into this mix, the Arizona lottery initiative introduces an extrinsic reward: the opportunity to win a million dollars.
        The proponents of the Arizona Lottery Proposal believe that if they encourage people to vote through the lottery, the people will also increase their interest in the people and the candidates and therefore become better informed. While this is plausible on the surface, I do not think this will happen. The research on motivation has shown that adding extrinsic rewards to an activity that is intrinsically motivating will undermine or reduce the intrinsic motivation. In the voting context, while the addition of an extrinsic reward increases the total motivation of the individual to vote, it paradoxically reduces the intrinsic motivation, that is it undermines the individual's interest in the issues, the candidates, and desire to be a good citizen. In some sense, the control of the individual's voting behavior has been removed from him or herself to the extrinsic reward. This is not good. The proponents of the scheme argue that attracting people to vote will result in their developing an interest in the issues. Unfortunately this will not occur. Interest is likely to decrease.
        So we have a dilemma. Adding the extrinsic reward may make people more likely to vote. However, it will probably not increase their interest in politics. Jacoby is right that it is a bad idea; the advocates of good government are also right that it is a bad idea. To increase people's interest in the issues, we have to make more fundamental changes to the election procedures: appoint independent non-partisan election officers, make elections more competitive, use independent redistricting commissions, and, most important, take private money out of the election process. The benefit of increasing persistence to vote can also be acquired in other ways – especially the suppression of voter suppression tactics.

Liar or Bully

July 21st. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Adrian Walker (At home, in control, Boston Globe, July 21st. Page: B1) in discussing the Governor's new found credibility as manager of the Big Dig recovery quotes Mitt Romney as saying "I've had no involvement."

Mitt Romney is either a liar or a bully.

If he is telling the truth, then he has been trying to remove Matt Amarello from the Highway Board for the past couple of years without any information that could justify removal. In my book, that is bullying.

If he did have the information to justify removing Amarello then he and his advisors have been deeply involved in the Big Dig and the Massachusetts Turnpike and he did nothing until a fatality occurred. That does not add to his credibility; in fact he's been caught in a barefaced lie.

Either way, we need an independent investigation.

Big Dig and Flexible Hours

July 19th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Flexible Working Hours:
A solution to the forthcoming commuter chaos
One date looms over the engineers involved in reconstruction of the Big Dig tunnels: September 5th. 2006. It´s the day after Labor Day when traffic in Boston returns to its normal volume after the August doldrums. If the tunnels are not back in service by that time, then gridlock on the Boston streets is virtually assured. Unless … .
Unless city officials and employers sit down and develop a time shifting strategy: Flextime.  Most people do not have a choice in their hours of work. Hours are usually inflexible and are set by the employer.
The most recent survey, undertaken by Boston College, of Flexible Working Hours (Flextime) in the United States suggests that about 30% of employers allow at least some employees to work flexible hours. The type of flexible hour system varies from complete flexibility with the hours chosen by the employee, through complete freedom with the choice jointly made by the employee and her/his supervisor, to a set of core hours when the employee has to be at work (say between 10.30am and 3.30 pm­with time for lunch) together with a flexible band when the employee can be at work (say 6.00am to 10.30 am and 3.30 pm to 11.00pm). Which of these will be suitable will depend on the characteristics of the firm and the job.
If Flexible hours were widely adopted in Boston in the coming month,  I suspect that we could cut the peak commuter times by about 15% and spread that traffic into the shoulder periods.
We have six weeks for the firms and the city and the State to make the plans to put a city-wide Flexible working hours scheme. It will require intense cooperation between firms and government agencies.
The problem must be addressed through a solution requiring a systemic change involving Boston firms and the public services provided by the MBTA and the police. The solution is the widespread adoption of flexible working hours. In addition to firms increasing their flexibility in working hours, infrastructure changes will have to occur simultaneously with the changes in working hours. The MBTA will have to change its train and bus schedules: rush hour schedules will have to be extended for an hour or two each side of the morning and evening peak hours. The police department will have to put more police on the street during these extended commuting hours. Only if commuting is made easier in these off peak hours will there be a major shift in individual commuting behavior.
Can Boston´s firms, police and politicians muster the energy required to make such cooperation work?
Martin Evans has been a student of organizations for over 35 years. He undertook one of the first evaluations of the impact of Flexible Working Hours in 1973.

Jacoby on the Big Dig.

July 19th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

How strange.

In Jacoby's fulmination against government projects (O'Neill's crumbling legacy, Boston Globe, July 17th. 2006. page: A9), the only evidence of corruption that he cites is the, as yet unproven, charges against managers of a private sector concrete provider. Yes, that is a private sector potential delinquent, not a public sector one.

Jacoby argues that the problems of the big dig were due to the lack of government oversight. I would remind him that oversight and inspections are only a second line of defense. The first line of defense is having the work done properly in the first place. The people doing that work were the private sector contractors hired by the government to do the work -- and the oversight was also carried out by private sector firms.

It is not government that is at fault. It is the culture of greed and "me first" that pervades top management in the private sector these days.

It is a pity that Jacoby cannot see that.

Management ignorance and the Big Dig

July 18th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Managerial lessons from the Big Dig


We learned today that, back in 1999, workers on the Big Dig project expressed concerns to their managers that the bolts holding the roof panels might not be up to the task.

There are a number of managerial lessons to be learned from this episode.

Lower level employees have a wealth of tacit knowledge; knowledge that is not codified and written in engineering manuals but that is based upon experience with the tools and materials in their interaction with other materials on the work site. Both codified and tacit knowledge are valuable. In combination, the two types of knowledge provide a formidable underpinning to enable the manager to make correct managerial decisions.

Inexplicably, this information seems to have been discounted in the decision to continue to use the epoxy based bolts. Even more surprising, given that managers had this information, we are informed that the decision was also made to stop testing the epoxy to make sure that it was being mixed correctly. If this is true, this is cost cutting at its worst. Surely spot checks on the viability of the epoxy bond should have continued throughout the construction phase.

This may also illustrate the effect of uncertainty absorption. As information is passed through several levels of the hierarchy it is changed. Some information is dropped or smoothed, other information is sharpened. It is likely that as information passed up the line to ratify these decisions that the employees concerns were given less emphasis than the codified engineering knowledge.

In 1999, employment in Massachusetts was quite high (an unemployment rate of about 3.3%). When Labor Markets are tight, employers are usually forced to treat workers well and allow them some empowerment in order to retain high quality employees. Workers respond, as in the Big Dig case, with constructive criticism. They respond to commitment by the firm with commitment to the firm.

The good times continued until the recession of 2001 when the unemployment rate almost doubled from 2.8% to 4.7% in a single year. During that year, over 70,000 Massachusetts residents lost their jobs – a dramatic illustration of the unwillingness of managers to show any commitment to their employees when they no longer needed to do so in the new Labor Market conditions. There are after all alternatives to layoffs. For example for a company to share the pain by having all members of the organization take a 10% cut in both hours of work and pay rather than firing 10% of the workforce would be a vivid statement that the top management was truly committed to their work force.

If managers show a high level of commitment, then employees will reciprocate in kind. If the 1999 problems had occurred in 2002 or 2003 in firms that experienced big layoffs, it is unlikely that constructive comments would have been made – rather the attitude would be, “It´s management´s problem, let them solve it!’

It is a truism to say that organizations are systems. All the parts are important. Managers and executives may be more important, but lower level workers are also needed to do their part – and their part is more than just following order unthinkingly as those workers in 1999 showed at the Big Dig. What a pity their views were discounted.

Romney: Engineer?

July 17th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Mitt Romney really should stick to what he knows and not mouth off on things about which he is uninformed.

He was quoted today, speaking of the Ted Williams Tunnel, as saying "The panels are much narrower .. They are not 4-inch thik slabs of concrete. There are many more fasteners holding them up, the beefiness of the fasteners is much more substantial, and there is no indication of movement."
Romney has no credibility saying that.

The person saying that, if it is to be convincing, is a trained structural engineer -- or did Romney play at being a structural engineer when he did "a job for a day" during his election campaign four years ago.

Another version:

July 18th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

This gets sillier and sillier.

When Mitt Romney was running for Governor he held a weekly 'work day' when he played at being a fisherman and being a hamburger cook at a Red Sox Game.

In the past year, he hasn't had many 'work days' at the Governor's job, as he's been out on the stump quite a lot.

Now with his takeover of the Big Dig, Mitt Romney is playing at being an engineer. Your picture (Big Dig Ceiling Must be Modified, Governor Says, New York Times, July 17th. page:A17) shows him with his sketches of the tunnel ceiling supports.

I wish he would step back and let the experts get on with their job. His ill informed interventions could be dangerous. But, as when he ran for governor, he needs the photo-ops.

Model for Israeli Restraint

July 16th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

A number of world leaders have called for Israel to engage in restraint and a proportionate response to recent terrorist attacks.

What would such a proportionate response look like?  It should be based on two major principles. First the Rabin principle that Israel should negotiate as if there was no terrorism and deal with terrorism as if there were no negotiations going on; that is terrorist attacks should not be allowed to derail negotiations. The second principle, flowing from that, is that Israel should make a scrupulous distinction between terrorists and the governments of the countries that harbor them. In the long run, negotiations will have to take place between governments so demonizing those governments will only make negotiations more difficult.

From these principles, we can derive a three step process of dealing with terrorist attacks like those from Gaza three weeks ago and those from Lebanon this week.

I will apply these to the specific example of the Hezbollah attacks. First Israel should go to the Lebanese Government and demand that it fulfill its responsibilities under UN Resolution Number 1559 to disarm the Hezbollah militias and have the regular Lebanese army take control over the Lebanon-Israel border. Israel should have given one week for Lebanon to do this.

In the likely failure of this first step, Israel should go to the Security Council and the Arab League and request that both bodies authorize the dispatch of a Peace Keeping Force to Lebanon to control the border betwee4n Israel and Lebanon.and disarm the Hezbollah. Israel should have given a three day timetable for the passage of one or other of these resolutions and some evidence that deployment was commencing.

Only if these two steps failed, would Israel have the right to take matters into its own hands and try to deal with Hezbollah unilaterally.

The problem is that such a long drawn out process would require almost unbearable restraint from Israel. Restraint in international affairs is a commodity is short supply these days.

The adoption of similar steps in future attacks of this kind would reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic outcome occurring.

Big Dig Investigation

July 14th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

The Big Dig Investigation

Those politicians calling for an independent review of the Big Dig catastrophe are absolutely correct. It is a mistake to allow those responsible for creating the situation to have a major role in investigating the problems.

One of the more pervasive phenomena in human decision-making is “escalating commitment to a losing course of action.’ This occurs when early investments in terms of money, resources, energy, and time have been committed to a project. At a later stage, the expected pay-offs from the investment have not materialized and the person or organization has to decide whether or not to “cut their losses’ or to make an additional investment. Almost inevitably the person or organization “throws good money after bad.’

This occurs for a couple of reasons. People are very good at identifying external causes for the initial failure and do not expect those causes to recur so they can justify an additional investment in the project. Secondly, success in the project becomes inextricably tied up with their desire to prove themselves competent so the desired outcome has shifted from a successful project to that of a successful project PLUS a successful organization or individual. Te initial objective is swamped by the personal objective.

I said earlier that it is “almost’ inevitable for good money to be thrown after bad. The exception occurs when a different person makes the second decision whether or not to make an additional investment. Successful Banks demonstrate this when they turn non-performing loans to a “work-out’ unit rather than have the original loan officer attempt to resurrect the deal with the client – that way you get escalation!

If the engineers and officials of the Turnpike Authority are to be responsible for the inspection process, we run the danger that – despite their undoubted professionalism – they will be concerned about justifying their prior decisions and work at developing rationalizations rather than reasons for the problems with the tunnel.

It is essential for new eyes, with no emotional commitment to the past decisions,  to investigate the problems.

Withdraw the Hayes Nomination

July 12th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

The President should withdraw the nomination of William Haynes for a judicial appointment.

If appointed he will prove to be the Judge Jeffries of American jurisprudence.

He is really too stupid to serve on the bench. Unlike his military lawyer colleagues, he did not grasp that for the US to adhere to the Geneva conventions in all dealings with prisoners and detainees is not simply to protect those prisoners. American adherence to the rules also protects, or should, Americans who fall into enemy hands.

To the extent that we fail to live up to the tenets of international law, our opponents are encouraged to do likewise.

This pattern of activity by the administration, beginning in the early months of its accession to power clearly shows a contempt for international law, a contempt for the Geneva Convention (encouraged by Mr Haynes) and an arrogance that is stupefying in its stupidity. All of these decisions will come back to haunt the United States as other groups and other nations start to play by the US rules. We will come to regret the day we turned our back on the world.

The administration has taken one step in the right direction by declaring itself bound by the Geneva Conventions, let it take another by withdrawing the nomination of Mr Haynes.

Romney, the Big Dig, and Matt Amorello

July 12th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

What a pathetic, petty person our Governor is proving to be.

At a time when the Turnpike Authority and its leaders should be putting every ounce of their energy in to finding out what led to the tragedy of Tuesday evening, and how the situation can be rectified, and what other hidden problems are waiting to happen, they are being distracted by the Governor's attempt to unseat the Chairman of the Turnpike Authority, Matt Amorello.

Instead of rolling up his sleeves and promising all the State help he could provide to deal with the Engineering and Construction issues, Mitt Romney is putting his energy into reviving his feud with Matt Amorello. What a leader!

The day may come when Matt Amorello should step down but now is not that time. The best chance for an independent inquiry to find out the truth is if it has knowledgeable insiders to deal with. If Amorello steps down before the inquiry is over, his replacement will not have the information the inquiry members need to do their job.

Hospital Deaths

July 5th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

Today's editorial on Hospital Caused Death (NYT, July 5, 2006, p: A18 omitted another important step that Hospitals could take to improve patient health: washing hands between patients.

Hospital born/borne infections may not cause death but they do greatly prolong hospital stays. It is unbelievable that almost two hundred years after Semelweiss discovered how germs were transmitted in hospitals, many doctors and nurses do not wash their hands between patients. As a result it has been estimated that about 1.8 million patients contact hospital induced infections each year (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

In the fast based hospital of today with the emphasis on throughput, there must be time given for doctors and nurses to wash their hands, even if gloved, between patients.

Healey, Drugs, and Needles

July 1st. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Shame on Kerry Healey!

Her support of the Governor's veto of over-the-counter needle sales legislation is, by her own admission, not based on facts (Boston Globe, July 1, 2006, p. B4).

If ever there was a field in which evidence based decisions are needed it is in the fight against substance abuse. For Kerry Healey not to have considered the evidence from studies showing no increase in drug use after the passage of needle sale legislation in other jurisdictions is appalling.
She is an educated woman with a social science Ph.D. so she is trained in the ability to "review the 'methodology'" of the studies. For her to have neglected to do so is an abdication of her responsibility to serve the Commonwealth by making the best possible decisions based on factual evidence.

She must be held to account for this failure.

Martin Evans is Professor Emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto where he taught research methodology for many years. He also volunteers for the Deval Patrick Campaign.

After Vermont and Texas

June 30th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Washington Post

Changes needed in the Political Culture of America

Martin G. Evans
Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

It is a sad day when the Supreme Court demonstrates such intellectual incoherence in the service of partisan advantage. The Court deferred to the Texas legislature in allowing most of its redistricting plan but second-guessed the Vermont lawmakers in striking down the spending limits devised by that State as appropriate to the Election costs in that State.

These two cases demonstrate conclusively that Elections, their financing, and the drawing of electoral district boundaries are too important to be left to the vagaries of Legislators and Judges.

It is time for some common sense to be injected into the debate.

First, voting suppression seems to be rampant in the United States. Most other jurisdictions in Democratic societies separate the administration of Elections from partisan influence. The Chief Elections Officer, who runs the elections, assigns staff and voting machines to precincts, and counts the vote is a Civil Servant subject to the discipline of Civil Service regulations and not beholden to any particular party. This is not the situation in most of the States in the US where the person responsible for running the election is usually a functionary of the political party in power. This has to be changed.

Second, we must move toward a system of campaign financing that depends on public funding rather than private donation. This last will be difficult to achieve because of the Supreme Court rulings that financial donations to politicians and Political Action Committees are protected by First Amendment free speech provisions. To undo this a long run strategy of a Constitutional amendment will be necessary. One step in the right direction can be achieved by a change in a totally different arena: licensing radio and television stations. Most money in election campaigns goes to a media blitz. If TV and Radio outlets were required, as they are in the UK and Canada, to provide access to political candidates then the necessity for candidates to advertise would diminish. Congress should take the necessary legislative action so that new rules can be in place for the next round of license renewals.

Third, as we have seen in Texas and elsewhere, Electoral Districts are often drawn by the legislature. Districts designed by legislators are meant to do two things: first and most important, to protect and enhance the opportunities for more seats for the majority party; and second to protect incumbents of any political stripe. Often the two major parties will horse-trade boundary lines to protect each other's incumbents. In most jurisdictions outside the USA and in some exemplary US States, redistricting is handed over to an Independent Redistricting Commission. These usually have bipartisan representation on the commission but are independent of the legislature.

Changes in these three areas will protect American democracy in the 21st Century.

Due Process

June 29th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

To the Editor:

As a supporter of same-sex marriage, I find it difficult to be on the same side on the question of due process as the opponents of same-sex marriage. They are however correct in asking for an up or down vote.

Opponents of same-sex marriage followed the Constitution (pending the outcome of the case against the Constitutionality of the Ballot Question). They are entitled to their day in the Constitutional Convention and to having the legislators vote on the issue. If they try to avoid the issue, then it is the right of the Governor to convene another Constitutional Convention and to continue doing so until a vote is taken.

I would, of course, urge the legislators to vote down the ban on same-sex marriage.
That said, it is appalling to see the Catholic hierarchy pontificating in support of their version of family values after the terrible damage it did to families by protecting the sexual predators in the clergy. It will take many years of faithful service before they regain the right to be listened to on these issues.

Masachusetts Constitutional COnvenetion

June 29th. 2006
Published in the Cambridge Chronicle

The Massachusetts Constitutional Convention
Martin G Evans
Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

Last May, the State Senate and House of Representatives was supposed to sit together as a Constitutional Convention.  Several contentious issues were to come before that session. In their wisdom the leadership of the Senate and House adjourned the Constitutional Convention until July 12th.
The most contentious issue (with several proposals) coming before the Constitutional Convention is the issue of how marriage should be defined. The members of the Constitutional Convention are deeply divided on the issue and there are strong lobby groups on either side of the question. Accordingly, the members of the General Court would like to avoid making the tough decision either for or against defining marriage in gender specific terms (one man and one woman). This they can do by adjourning the Constitutional Convention without taking a vote on the issue.
This however would be unconstitutional. The Constitution specifies that if an initiative petition gets sufficient signatures (and the petition in favor of the gender specific definition of marriage did meet the bar handily) then the Constitutional Convention must vote the issue up or down. If the members of the General Court refuse to agree on a time and place to vote on the issue then, under the Constitution, the Governor has to call the Constitutional Convention into being and ensure that a vote is taken. [The relevant section of the Constitution, as amended, states: "and if the two houses fail to agree upon a time for holding any joint session hereby required, or fail to continue the same from time to time until final action has been taken upon all amendments pending, the governor shall call such joint session or continuance thereof."]
There is one other issue on the Table that has been brought there through the petition initiative: the proposal for universal health insurance. Now that the legislature has actually passed a new health-care plan, it should be relatively easily to enshrine such a provision in the Constitution.
There are about ten other issues of importance that are also on the agenda. These include constitutional amendments for:

• The establishment of a "rainy day" fund
• Creating an Independent Redistricting Commission
• Increasing the availability of Absentee Balloting

Many of these issues are non-contentious and need to be addressed in a timely fashion. The legislature, consisting as it does of the elected representatives of the people, has a responsibility to do the peoples' business. Undertaking amendments to the State Constitution is the very essence of the peoples' business. It is to be hoped that the rancor caused by the disputed issues does not mean that important but less controversial issues do not get considered.
A schedule, publicized by the Legislature is, in these days of open, responsible government, a contract between the legislators and the people that they represent. The Legislators of the Commonwealth have broken that contract by adjourning the Constitutional Convention without considering any of the important issues before it. If they try to do so again, the Governor should exercise his constitutional power and call the Constitutional Convention into session, and, if they adjourn again, he should continue to call it into session until the issues are dealt with - especially those coming before the Convention as a result of successful initiative petitions. It is unconscionable, as well as unconstitutional, that those are not being subjected to an up or down vote.
For the Record: I am in favor of gay marriage, universal health care, creation of the "rainy day" fund, redistricting reform, and increased availability of the absentee ballot.

Gun Legislation

June 19th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Thank you for your warning (Editorial: The Call of the Gun Lobby, June 19, 2006, P: A 17) of the impending anarchy that we can expect if the gun lobby gets this legislation past.

You do us a disservice by not mentioning which legislators are sponsoring this appalling piece of legislation. We need to know so that we can have the opportunity to vote the anarchists out.

No Witnesses at Gitmo

June 18th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

I almost wept when I read your story (Detainees not given access to witnesses, Boston Globe, June 8, P: A1) about the failure of the United States' Authorities to find witnesses who might have been able to exonerate some of the prisoners held at Guantanamo. How could those responsible not have tried with every fibre of their being to find those witnesses? Instead they took a lackadaisical approach that seems typical of the Bush administration.
As with Katrina, it is hard to know whether the neglect of the duty owed to the prisoners was deliberate and  malign or mere ineptitude. In either case, the American government, its agencies, and its contractors have to change their ways dramatically.
And thanks to your reporters for another magnificent, if depressing, scoop.

Marriage Amendment

June 5th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Today the U.S. Senate is to consider the Marriage Amendment. I sent the following message to the President (president@whitehouse.gov) who instigated this move:

"Hands off Massachusetts marriage."

I hope your readers will do the same.

June 4th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

Thank you for your article (Invoking Secrets Privilege Becomes a More Popular Legal Tactic by U.S., New York Times, June 3rd. 2004.) on the State Secrets Privilege.

I looked in vain for some solution to the competing demands of secrecy and justice. Surely a Special Court, akin to that set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, could be created that would deal with cases needing the disclosure of sensitive information.

I was also disappointed that you did not mention the fact that the Third Circuit Court of Appeal refused to reconsider the original state secret case of 1953 that some believe was based on inaccurate information being provided to the Courts by the US Air Force. It is important that this case be carefully re-examined to ensure that the privilege rests on sound grounds.

Iraq

It is not clear that Colonel Hammes is on the right track when he calls for increased funding to build the infrastructure to bind the three segments of Iraq together (New York Times, June 1st., 2006, A 25).

An alternative case can be made that Iraq is an artificial state like Yugoslavia created out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and that its construction reflected the priorities of the so-called Great Powers rather than the preferences of the indigenous inhabitants. Accordingly, splitting Iraq into new Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni dominated countries might be in the best interests of the Iraqis and the region.

The main stumbling blocks to the tripartite partition of Iraq are multi-ethnic neighborhoods, oil, and money. As Sunni-Shiite conflict increases, people are fleeing their multi-ethnic neighborhoods. If they can afford it they are moving abroad, if not they are moving to an area of Iraq where their co-religionists are dominant. Instead of trying to fight the insurgents let each faction have its own country and then deploy the US troops and the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish militias to facilitate large scale movement of people from their multi-ethnic neighborhoods to the parts of the country where they wish to live. Troops (and a large computer database) could ensure that Sunni families could "swap" the houses they owned in the Shiite part of the country  with houses that Shiites owned in the Sunni section. Once all those people who want to move have been moved, the U.S. can withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Oil unfortunately is only found in the Kurdish and Shiite parts of the country, so that sharing the oil revenues is a source of friction between the three sectors of Iraq. I suggest that we do not try to engage in finding a correct formula for sharing those revenues between the three hostile faction. Rather, I suggest that the Shiite country keep all its oil revenues, that the Kurds keep all their oil revenues, and that the US step in to ensure that the Sunni state is financially viable by agreeing to pay a subsidy of $22 billion per year (roughly equivalent to five-twelfth of Iraq's oil revenues at current prices; and much less than the $95 billion annual economic cost of the war) for a twenty year period. By providing this subsidy at this level, each of the three pieces of current Iraq will do rather better out of the oil revenues than they would if Iraq were kept together in an uneasy federal system.

This separation of Iraq into homogeneous religious and ethnic states will undermine the raison d'être of the insurgency. It will give the inhabitants of the three states the opportunity to develop indigenous democratic systems. It will give them the option, if they so desire, to build a federal state in the future. Most importantly it will enable the U.S. to extricate itself from Iraq and leave behind three states with a high potential for stability

June 1st. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times, Business Section

Re: Type, Fold Up Keyboard and Go, New York Times, June 1, 2006. C9.

I have never understood why someone hasn't developed a popular input device based on Morse code. The operator only needs a single key and skilled practitioners can easily communicate large amounts of information in a short time.

It seems to me that such a system would be ideal for those of us using miniature computers. It is not too difficult to learn, thousands did during World War II, but it does require intensive practice.

Maybe that is the one strike against it -- it doesn't provide instant gratification.

Condoleeza Rice at Boston College

Date: May 23 2006

Sent to but not published in the New York Times

In her address to students at Boston College yesterday, Dr. Rice wisely stated, "But at those times you're absolutely sure that you are right, go find someone who disagrees. Don't allow yourself the easy course of the constant 'Amen' to everything you say (New York Times, May 22. 2006, page A19).

What a pity she has never been able to persuade her boss, President Bush, to do that. Instead he has consistently surrounded himself with the mindguards of Group-Think.

Mistreatment of Detainees

May 18th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Why have we become a nation characterized by callous indifference? Over the last year the United States has dealt with a number of foreign individuals with an incomprehensible disregard for their well-being.
Today, the Boston Globe reported on the fate of 5 Chinese Uighurs (Globe, May 18th, page A8). These were people captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and interred at Guantanamo Bay for several years. They had all been cleared of terrorist connections by a military tribunal but were kept, as innocent people, at Guantanamo because the could not be returned to their native China which they were fleeing.
Why could the United States not have generously have resettled these people here in the United States? Instead they kept them at Guantanamo until two weeks ago when the courts were about to hear their appeal to be released; they were then shipped to Albania where they are living in a Refugee Center in that impoverished country. One would think that after disrupting their lives, the United States would be eager to make amends by resettling these people in safety in the United States. Now we hear that China is pressing Albania to turn these people over to the tender mercies of the Chinese Government.
But this is not the only case of irresponsible treatment by the United States. Consider the fate of  Mr Kahled el-Masri who was the victim of a mistaken identity.  He was seized by the CIA in Macedonia, held by the CIA for five months in a prison cell in Afghanistan to which he had been rendered, and when it was discovered that the CIA had the wrong man he was returned to Macedonia and dumped on the side of an abandoned road. Note that: dumped on the side of a road, not taken to a decent hotel, not fed and given clothes, and not given help in re-establishing his life. To add insult to injury, his lawsuit against the CIA was dismissed today on national security grounds. Who decided on this treatment. Is it just some insensitive lower level bureaucrat or did the decision emanate from the highest levels of the CIA? That is a question General Hayden should be asked.
Then there is Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian of Syrian descent. He too was unjustly arrested, when in transit between Tunis and Ottawa while returning via New York from a holiday with his wife and children. In his case, after interrogation at Kennedy airport, he was rendered to the Syrians were he was kept in appalling conditions for a year until it was decided that he had no links to al-Qaeda. He was then returned to Ottawa. Unlike the Canadian Government which is holding an inquiry as to the role Canadian Police and Consular officials may have played in his arrest, a United States court also dismissed his case against the United States Government on National Security grounds.
All these people deserve better. The Uighurs should be brought from Albania and settled in the United States - if we can host 11 million illegal immigrants, adding five refugees whose lives we have upset is the least we can do. Mr el-Masri and Mr. Arar deserve to have their day in court or, failing that, there should be an inquiry (with some evidence given in secret) as to the reasons for their appalling treatment.

Postponment of Constitutional Convention

May 11th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

To the Editor:
With stunning disregard for the convenience of some of their constituents, the Legislature announced the postponement of the Constitutional Convention (Boston Globe, B section, May 11th.) which should have begun at 1.00 pm on Wednesday.
They paid no attention to the fact that both the supporters and opponents of many of the measures on their agenda had been preparing for this day. Supporters and opponents had spent time and money in lobbying their contacts to put pressure on the members of the Senate and House to vote one way or the other. Many of them timed their efforts to peak just before the Constitutional Convention was to meet.
This effort is all for naught and the effort will have to be repeated in early July when the Constitutional Convention is supposed to meet again. (But given their past performance, this too is an uncertainty.)
A schedule, publicized by the Legislature is, in these days of open, responsible government, a contract between the legislators and the people that they represent. The Legislators of the Commonwealth have broken that contract. I hope they will not do so again.

May 9th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

The President receives a letter from the President of Iran -- the first high level contact initiated by Iran since 1979. How does the administration respond? Condoleeza Rice says that there is nothing concrete in the letter (Iranian Writes to Bush. New York Times, May 9th. 2006).

I expected better from Dr Rice who is, after all, a distinguished scholar of US-Soviet relations. At the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the Americans noticed that two kinds of messages were emanating from Moscow -- harsh and uncompromising letters and those with a more conciliatory tone. The analysts concluded that Hawks and Doves in the Kremlin were jockeying for and temporarily gaining positions of influence. The US responded with a subtle psychological response, reinforcing the conciliators with responses and extinguishing the influence of the hawks by ignoring their messages. The outcome was a success for world peace.

It maybe that a similar struggle is going on among the higher echelons of the Iranian government. But the US is responding with a knee jerk rejection of the overture -- there is nothing concrete here.

Nothing concrete! The very existence of the letter, however philosophical in tone, is a concrete indication that someone in Iran wants to talk. Let us seize this opportunity not reject it out of hand.
There is no hurry. The Iranian crisis has dragged on for a year or so. There is still work to be done at the United Nations to get our allies on board in the Security Council. A few more months of careful negotiation might result in a satisfactory outcome for all.