In Defense of the Rule of Law – Restoring “… Liberty and Justice for All”

This letter is pertinent to every American citizen as well as those currently holding public office and those seeking to become politicians. Politics has always been an American passion; we talk politics at work with co-workers, across the fence with neighbors, around the kitchen table with family and trusted friends, and almost everywhere else without exception…including public restrooms. Yes, Americans even discuss politics in public restrooms. Conversations overheard and notes written on walls provide plenty of evidence. This is apt; much of the political theater currently thrust into America’s attention is fit only for flushing.

President Lincoln is quoted thus: “Let every American, every lover of Liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their abuse by others. As the Patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear [down] the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the [Constitutional] laws [of America]… become the political religion of the nation.”

President Lincoln continued on to proclaim, “When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made, I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, “Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois” (January 27, 1838), p. 112.

Americans inherently seem to know right from wrong. Living in a Republic is messy and loud. Yet, from the clamoring on two extreme points, fairness, justice, and mercy continue to stand in the common argument for the regulation of society to ultimately benefit all. Since Americans inherently know right from wrong and are generally just and merciful, the most contemptible actions a politician can make is to forget, upon election, he/she must serve all his/her constituents, not only the political party he/she personally adheres to and represents. This contemptible action, witnessed in many past and current political scandals, simultaneously displayed the actions taken at every level of government from the dogcatcher and school board locally to the president’s office federally. For example, President Obama’s decision to hire Arne Duncan as United States Secretary of Education, the multiplicity of “Czar” appointments, the VA scandal across America, the IRS debacle and the continuing saga this represents, and much more, on both sides of the political aisle, all find their roots in the failure to adhere to the rule of law. Supporting a personal political party’s leanings over the rule of law causes all of America to suffer grievously.

Districts elect their politicians, and an elected politician has only one job, which is to represent the citizens, all citizens of this great Republic, at the level of office elected. This means that the higher in political office, the broader the constituent base, and the higher the public’s trust, and hence the more closely the politician must walk in honoring, obeying, and upholding the laws of the land. If the politician’s first waking breath is not commitment to equality under the law and obedience to America’s Constitutional Law, as described by President Lincoln above, he/she is a charlatan, a hoax, a fraudster, and needs removal from holding a position of public trust. More to the point, failure to honor the elected responsibility to constituents is, by law, criminal negligence and warrants a court of action convened in the form of a public hearing held forthwith to determine status of guilt and accountability under the law for failure to uphold the public trust.

Rugged individuals founded America for people who love Liberty. To love Liberty means fair play and equality under the law as the basic and fundamental building block of society. If an individual personally is unable to tolerate individual liberty, that individual remains free to leave America’s shores and find a more suitable place to live among the other nations on Earth.

Too many people in America have failed to embrace personal liberty for their neighbors; thus, compromising personal liberty for themselves and fundamentally jeopardizing liberty for every American. President Lincoln could not have been plainer on this point, and the extreme examples of the last 20+ years on the Federal, State, and Local government levels are obvious. America is in danger not from without, e.g. terrorism, war, etc., but from within, e.g. politicians, who fail to uphold equality under American Constitutional Law and honor the rule of America’s law. The axiom continues to verify itself, “The wise man in the storm does not pray for deliverance from the storms without, but the storms within.” Direct application of hope, faith, and trust dispels fear as a storm within. If a politician holds a position of public trust, people have placed upon him/her their hope and faith that he/she will honor the rule of law for the benefit of all peoples, not simply those who helped him/her become elected.

A particular point of contention generates with “Special Interest Groups.” Special interest groups do not the full population represent; hence, the reason and label of “Special Interests.” Special interest groups are not capable of representing all the population or they would be called “General Interest Groups,” and not every person in America can be represented by such narrow thinking on any issue, let alone the big issues, e.g. abortion rights, religion, immigration, education, etc. Because “Special Interest Groups” do not represent the full population, limiting special interests, disclosing fully special interest funding sources, and issuing complete disclosure of the reason that particular special interest is pushing a specific legislative agenda are key factors. During the Obamacare debates, in full spectacle of the world, America learned a valuable lesson on the need for full disclosure on special interests. Special interest groups intensely supported, as political favors for the benefit of one political group over all others, software that never lived up to the hype and wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. This decision represented a deleterious action full of contempt for the rule of law rather than equal opportunity under the law for all persons. Anytime public money is used to issue a political favor, public trust is breached, the rule of law flouted, and the need for removal from office necessitated; then such persons are held accountable, along with those politically rewarded, in a court of law, and the public’s money is recovered.

The use of public funds in issuing political favors includes employment. Since public employees necessarily receive their wages from public money, politicians breach the public trust should they hire, as a reward for political favors and the public deserves their money back. Kevin Jennings is a specific example; President Obama, through Arne Duncan while in the office of Secretary of Education, hired Jennings as a “Safe Schools Czar.” Duncan knew Jennings would remain a prominent and outspoken member of the LGBTQ agenda through Jennings’ history with GLSEN, as well as a previous executive director for the group and an admirer of Harry Hays of NAMBLA. It seems particularly ironic that to achieve greater public support, under the leadership of Jennings the group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) changed its name (1997) from the Gay & Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network (GLISTN). His hire represents a significant breach of public trust as a pusher of the LGBTQ agenda. His role in government put him squarely into a position to coerce America’s Public Schools into becoming breeding grounds for the homosexual agenda instead of bastions for learning. Americans felt abhorred that someone who peddles in pedophilia was now in charge of making schools safer. For the record, anytime a legally recognized adult promotes sex with children under the age of legal majority is committing, or aiding in, the crime of pedophilia. By promoting books on adult/children sex, creating book lists and learning platforms promoting this deviant behavior, Jennings has aided and abetted, at the very least, pedophilia in America’s schools. While claiming success due to President Obama’s assistance, the LGBTQ Agenda became “anti-bullying” at a conference hosted by the White House with President Obama being the keynote speaker.

An investment of public money through employment for the political reward of a constituent is what landed Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in prison. What put him in prison is and continues to be called, “Pay-to-Play.” Investing in a politician that leads to a reward, e.g. employment, with the ability to “play” with the laws of the land remains despicable and worthy of criminal charges with a public trial for all persons in the chain of decision-making; yes, this includes President Obama.

Rest assured politicians can hire whom they choose, but they must do so ever cognizant of the moral fiber and ethical standards of those hired, and the public trust invested through both the voting booth and tax dollars. Kevin Jennings never showed the slightest inclination to support the rule of law or equality under the law for all people. In fact, many of his friends and associates continue to believe that if a person does not think in a similar manner to themselves, that person needs to be destroyed politically, personally, and professionally, this is also referred to as being “Bork[ed].” Represented and exemplified through the actions of such supporters in the removal of Inspector Generals in the Federal Government at large, the changes specifically within the Department of Education, and the cover-ups in the IRS and VA scandals were all designed to hide truth from the American public. This is dangerous ground for America and represents terrorism at the most fundamental level, the terrorism of thought leading to action while holding a position of public trust paid for by public funds. By using the threat of government action to intimidate, coerce, and force societal change, many in government, like Jennings, are committing terrorist acts.

As the elections of 2016 draw near, this missive belongs to the politicians currently holding office as well as those hoping to hold public office: please uphold the rule of law. Please come out in full and unequivocal support of the rule of law and the liberty of all as the only hope for saving America, even if this means people suffer from the consequences of their poor individual decisions. Embrace the rule of America’s Constitutional law. Taxpayers, as represented by their collective elected officials colloquially known as government, cannot and should never be forced to pay for bad personal decisions with public money. Government is not a charitable organization. Hence, government cannot and should not be investing public money in abortion clinics, drug rehab clinics, and other consequences for poor personal decisions. Charitable and religious organizations are sufficient to this task and public money needs investing elsewhere, e.g. providing for the common defense, ensuring free trade among the states, reducing the debt, or lowering taxes, etc.

Stand for the absolute rule of law and America wins. Failure to stand for the rule of law and America loses, utterly and completely. With the failure to stand for the rule of law, politicians elected and trusted by their constituents, who transform themselves into being inadequate to the task to perform according to law. Their names are thence cast upon the dung heaps of history as charlatans and unpitied betrayers of the struggle to keep America the “…shining city on a hill,” full of “…liberty and justice for all.”

 

© 2015 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Collective Leadership Practices – Understanding The Leadership Dillemma

Please note:  The following was posted at UoPX as an assignment.  While written for an academic audience, this is information many business leaders need right now.  Future business leaders need to understand the core principles to shift out of this academic view of leadership and into a functional and practical role.

The following article will, quite frankly, not be popular.  Many in the “leadership author” business hold the principles of ‘Collective Leadership’ as a guiding star, when quite frankly the practice is anything but practical and everything but useful.  The entire Hickman (2010) article [Ch 18] quoting Allen et al., reads like the Communist Manifesto by Mark and Engels (2013). Including balderdash, academic nuance, and hyperbole wrapped in a shiny wrapper and presenting a chimerical and illusory outlook without any type of practical substance.  Yet, those espousing ‘collective leadership’ refuse to understand the core doctrine and recognize it was wrong.

Nowhere in the entire article are the principles of responsibility and accountability mentioned, discussed, or broached. Yet Robinson (1999) makes clear the principles of accountability and responsibility must be honored and, from a bottom-up perspective, the front-line employees need to know who is ultimately in charge, responsible, and will be held accountable. A committee shirks responsibility and accountability, thus collective leadership never works.  Consider ENRON, WorldComm, or Solyndra, all of these fantastic failures were caused by committees shirking responsibility, accountability, and this led to fraud, criminal actions, and a workforce in confusion. While facilitating learning and fostering growth are good, they cannot be honored fully without the principles of individual freedom and agency, both of these principles cannot be employed unless accountability and responsibility are honored. Preservation of nature and caring communities remain idealistic and utopian, both are not principles that provide bottom-line performance, the primary role of the senior management team.

Courage, integrity, and authenticity are all excellent attributes to possess, but alone they cannot and should not be a solution. The reason is simple; these are actions, principles, and ideals to be worked towards. But they can never work in a vacuum. Rao (2013) discusses ‘Soft Leadership’ and touches lightly upon people needing others like them to combine to live, elevate, challenge, and change. Kuczmarski (1996 & 2003) combine with Kuhn (1996) and Nibley (1987) to seal the thought patterns here by describing the risk inherent in standing for principles and why less risk taking is being engaged upon and the paradigm adopted by organizational managers to stifle competition and remove opportunities to change.

Taken in proportion, all of the items mentioned in Hickman (2010) article [Ch. 18], can be combined to bring a principled stand and improve an organization, but separate these items and they do not and cannot stand independently. Combined into a strategy that is adopted, supported, and lived by the entire organizational structure, including all members of the organization, the organization can change. Separate these items or combine them in such a manner that one is more relied upon, honored, or held more precious than the others, and disaster, chaos, and destruction are not powerful enough words to describe what the ultimate end product will become. A perfect example of the unfeasible nature of these items when separated can be discovered in the current problems being suffered in the US Department of Veteran Affairs, the US Department of the Treasury, specifically the Internal Revenue Service, and the US Department of Homeland Security. The management styles embraced by these organizations are remarkably similar and can almost be lifted verbatim from the pages of the Hickman (2010) article [Ch. 18]. The impossibly idealist attitudes do not work in reality and the result becomes organizations that fail to do their job, are easily manipulated into the designs of conspiring people, and in the process do more harm than good while costing more money than budgeted.

References

Hickman, G. (2010). Chapter 18: Leadership in the 21st Century. In Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Kuczmarski, T. (1996). What is innovation? The art of welcoming risk. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(5), 7-11.

Kuczmarski, T. (2003). What is innovation? And why aren’t companies doing more of it? What Is Innovation? And Why Aren’t Companies Doing More of It?” 20(6), 536-541.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Third ed., Vol. VIII). Chicago, ILL: The University of Chicago Press.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2013). The Communist Manifesto (eBook ed.). USA: Start Publishing.

Rao, M. S. (2013). Soft leadership: a new direction to leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(3), 143-149. doi: 10.1108/00197851311320559

Robinson, G. (1999). Leadership vs management. The British Journal of Administrative Management, 20-21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224620071?accountid=458

© 2014 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Independent Contractor vs. Employee – Or, The Structure Wars Continue via ‘The Right to Control’

Employee is a catchall term and includes the following three distinctions:  common-law employees, statutory employees, and non-statutory employees; hereafter referred collectively as employee.    The basics covered in this writing discuss the IRS view of ‘Right to Control’ between the three classes of employee and independent contractor (IC).

The ‘Right to Control’ was discussed previously and remains the central component upon which all employer/employee and employer/independent contractor relationships hinge.  The IRS makes this clear in Topic 762 – Independent Contractor vs. Employee.  The IRS breaks into three categories the essential components where the ‘Right to Control’ hinges, namely, Behavioral Control, Financial Control, and Type of Relationship.

Behavioral Control relates to the questions, what, where, and how work is to be completed.  Employees have set schedules, tight restrictions about how to think, where to sit, etc., dictated by the employer.  Independent contractors (IC) answer the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions themselves, negotiate times and schedules, and possess the freedom to perform the work in a cost effective manner, judged by themselves and the pleasure of the contracting authority.

Financial Control relates to all things money.  The employee is forced to accept all terms of the employer without negotiation, from business expenses to taxes, whereas the employer and contractor negotiate all terms.  Where financial control is, risk shortly follows; where risk is, the threat of litigation follows.  Therefore, when the employer has financial control, risk follows the employer, not the employee.  When the contractor has financial control, risk is shared between the contractor and the employer.   Profit and loss, tools of the trade, and the freedom to offer services to other organizations are all part of the financial controls that are relinquished by the employee to the employer, or negotiated with the employer and the independent contractor.

Type of Relationship relates to all things in the interaction of the two independent parties, which includes written contracts dictating the interaction, risks, penalties, etc.  Extent of the relationship is a major point and colludes with permanency and benefits to form the marriage between two independent entities.  The employee forfeits control in this arena to the employer who automatically sets the terms, demands compliance, and exerts totalitarian control.  The contractor negotiates terms of interaction with the employer, thus the contractor has a constructive voice in the outcome of the contract.

Currently, Publication 15-A governs employee vs. contractor labels and is the authority to refer to when contemplating the differences among employees, all three classifications, and independent contractors.  Several examples are included in the publication and the legalese is sufficiently straightforward.  The publication can be accessed using the link for Topic 762 above.

Several cautions must be included here:

  • I am not a tax attorney; this is not counsel, simply a discussion of changing perspectives.
  • No single criterion defines the legal separation between an employee and an independent contractor.  The IRS is the decision maker and their publications help define the guidelines.
  • It is extremely important to adhere strictly to tax guidelines in determining the differences between contractors and employees.  The saying in Vegas is, “The house ALWAYS wins.”  This is true of the IRS; the rules continue to change in complexity, increasing volume, and application.

Contained below are the 20-points, commonly referred to as the IRS 20 Factor Test, for determining the differences between employees and independent contractors:

  1. Level of instruction
  2. Amount of training
  3. Degree of business integration
  4. Extent of personal services
  5. Control of assistants
  6. Continuity of relationships
  7. Flexibility of schedule
  8. Demands for work – Referring to the percentage of time demanded by a business organization.
  9. Need for on-site services
  10. Sequence of work
  11. Requirements of reports
  12. Method of payment
  13. Reimbursement of business expenses
  14. Tool and material provision
  15. Investment in facilities
  16. Profit & Loss – Risk should also be considered specifically here.
  17. Freedom to contract with other organizations
  18. Availability to the public
  19. Control over discharge
  20. Right of termination

A brief review of these items makes it clear the three main categories of control currently remain.  These 20 points label and describe as well as define, classify and spell out succinctly for tax purposes financial control, behavioral control, and type of relationship that separates and identifies the employee and the independent contractor.

Important to note, these same 20-points form the main topics of discussion when writing out the contract for services and provide the perfect starting point for changing the employee-contingent society in the business world today.  According to these points and the IRS publications, freeing the American worker is possible, obtainable, and provides the possibility to forever change America for the better through ending the label, “employee”.  When everyone is an independent contractor, opportunities abound as the ‘Right to Control’ rests where it should always have been, in the individual hands of free people.

Currently, as of this writing, fiscal cliff negotiations are ongoing. There is talk of increasing tax revenues from small businesses.  There is talk of raising taxes on all people.  There is talk of everything but drastic, immediate, necessary cuts to spending that is non-military and no one is discussing entitlement reforms with any type of seriousness.  This simple movement of employees to independent contractors immediately forces the spending valve closed that allows the government to spend freely by directly placing every citizen as a taxpayer at the higher small business rates.  Tax reform will be swift when everybody feels the pain of the taxman at the small business rate.  The entire intent of moving the ‘Right to Control’ from employers and business organizations into the hands of regular people is to produce more freedom, to allow knowledge to be valued, enhance the dignity of the individual, and to improve individual working conditions all without forced union participation or giving up rights and liberties to control individual destiny.  It cannot be stressed enough that freedom often requires sharing in and overcoming distressful circumstances to accomplish a greater good. Whether those circumstances are experienced in money, time, taxes, etc., everyone must make an investment in freedom.

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved