Friday, December 22, 2006


If this report is accurate, we haven't seen anything yet. Just look at the depth of debt over the last four years to pay for a useless war.


That muffled explosion you heard today came from the Worcester County School Board. Seems some administrators were a trifle irritated after the county teachers association published the results of a recent in-house poll dealing with job satisfaction. After it was done and the numbers were crunched, the results were.... well, someone with a more polite and politically astute vocabulary wight say "the outcome was interesting, maybe even bears closer examination." But, as my lovely wife knows, I'm not that polite and I don't give a rat's ass for political correctness. So, I'll say YIKES.
On the good side, teachers at Snow Hill High School reported the highest level of satisfaction. Seventy-five percent of those responding to the poll reported they have a high level of job satisfaction. But lest anyone think that the remaining 25 percent are just malcontentts, rabble-rousers and square pegs, an elementary school in the north end of the county came in at the bottom of the list with just 42 percent of teachers there reporting satisfaction. Even worse, there were more schools tied for the bottom three rankiings than there were at the top five.
That means that the problems teaches are having finding job satisfaction do not related to individual schools and administrators but are instead, systemic in nature. In effect, the problem is not individuals, but with policies.
Reportedly, school Superintendant Jon Andes got a heads-up, some time ago, that this report was coming out and, being the smart man that he is, sought to counter that implication with his own mandatory poll. Those results have not yet been published.
Look for a spirited discussions process as teachers and adminstrators negotiate next year's contract in the coming months.

Thursday, December 21, 2006


Delaware Rep. John Adkins got extra-special treatment two months ago when Ocean City cops stopped him for drunken driving, but let him call a friend to take him home. No charges, no trip to the jailhouse, and certainly no embarrassing questions from nosey-assed reporters..... until now.
But while Adkins may suffer some embarassment, it is the police officer who has some 'splainin' to do. Actually, according to yesterday's reports, there were two police officers at the scene- one a rookie, identified in the police report as Natalie Smolko and the other, her training officer, Douglas Smith. Seems Smith took it upon himself to promise Adkins he would not be arrested, even before any sobriety tests were issued. And after the breathalyzer tests were done, well, he blew a .14. That almost twice the benchmark of .08 for drunken driving in Maryland. And his wife blew even higher; .16.
So, we all know that a street cop has a lot of discretion in dealing with petty stuff. But can he let someone go on a drunken driving charge.... I mean, where they are clearly over the limit? And if so, how often do they do it, and why? Aren't drunk drivers one of the major causes of death on the nation's highways? Shouldn't there be some penalty that uniformly enforced? Well, of course there is. but it's only for the little people, the people without power.... not Republican lawmakers from another state. And so what, if that lawmaker was arrested later that same night and charged with domestic violence (don't you just love Family Values) on his equally drunken wife? That didn't happen on Officer Smith's beat. And speaking of being let off, maybe that's what needs to happen to officer Smith.... about 30 days off the job, without pay should be the minimum penalty. He was, after all, sworn to uphold the laws of the state and the city. The fact that he didn't do so, marks him as someone too afraid to do the job he swore to do. Maybe he needs some time to think about whether he's cut out for this line of work.

Monday, December 18, 2006


The Daily Crime today published an editorial calling for the Town of Ocean City to honor its word to the FAA to expand it's airport. This, despite the residential and commercial growth in the surrounding area that has taken place in the intervening years since that agreement was signed.
But conditions have changed, and so must the terms of the original agreement.... So in the immortal words of Ron Ziegler; "that statement is no longer operative."
Listen, we all know what the agreement was but, we also know that the city, under the leadership of virtually every mayor and council since Fish Powell has adamantly denied there were plans to expand the airport for jet traffic. And those denials came in response to community opposition to doing so. But we also know that those plans were already on the drawing board, because we saw them with our own four eyes.
Ocean City has no need for a larger airport; it already has one less than 20 miles to the west. If the FAA wants its money back, then the city needs to float a bond to pay them, not to build something nobody wants.