What Americans Want: Responsibility and Accountability

This past Sunday the Los Angeles Times had an excellent editorial by Frank Luntz. Luntz is a pollster and political consultant who specializes in language in politics. From December 2008 through April 2009 he interviewed 6,400 Americans, ran focus groups and listened to Americans. His most basic conclusion is that Americans are angry, he uses Howard Beale as the personification of our nation. You remember Beale, the news anchor who slowly loses it, finally screaming in his rumpled trench coat "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!"

It became a rallying cry for some and a punch line for others. Iconic enough that today it still resonates over thirty years later. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

This could be the clarion call for the summer 2009 as Americans took to townhalls and Tea Parties expressing their dismay and anger over a government, or governments, that were not listening to them. Luntz finds that much of the anger was less about particular issues than it was about two factors. He states, "Digging still deeper, my research suggests that we can dial back American anger if we begin to fix complaints: the lack of accountability and the lack of respect in our dealings with each other."

To the second point, it is very hard to have respectful dealings with someone who is accusing you, assigning an agenda to you, or saying your are manipulated by others--basically saying you are not personally responsible for your own thoughts, words and actions.

To the first point, accountability in our system of governance is very much lacking. Sure we have elections every two years for Members of the House and six years for Senators, locally public officials are on four or six year election cycles. But even elections are not processes of accountability. Citizens rant and rave and shake their fingers, and elected representatives just don't listen and don't need to because the majority of their citizens will march into the voting booth and re-elect an incumbent almost every time. In California our system is so gerrymandered that our Assembly and Senate have crafted budget after budget for a decade that has doubled the size of government and led to our state's finances crashing this year taking with it billions of dollars from local school districts. In 2010 do you think there will be any accountability at the ballot box? Everyone not termed out will be re-elected, most by a landslide. And guess what will happen next year to our budget? And the year after?

Thankfully not every state is gerrymandered along party lines with safe seats. Some, not a lot but some, members of the House and Senate will face some stiff opposition in 2010. These are the politicians who are more likely to be listening to their constituents and voters. For the rest the only listening they are doing is to the cash register singing out who is making what donations to their campaign war chests. Want proof? Go to OpenSecrets.org and look up any member of Congress and see who their donors are. Look up the chairs of committees and see who is pouring money into the coffers of those in charge. Look up President Obama and see the donations from Wall Street then look at his appointments to cabinet and czar positions. Everyone has conflicts of interest and there is no accountability.

In Luntz' editorial he had some very positive nuggets. First, 88% of us "believe in the adage 'live free or die.'" We believe in our freedom and cherish it for ourselves and our children. Even more encouraging for me is that his research has shown that when given a list of "social and cultural challenges facing America, the highest priority is 'restoring personal responsibility." This flies in the face of government in California where Sacramento is busy every year legislatin away personal responsibility.

Americans are tired of being told victims are every where when many of the victims are in circumstances of their own doing. Americans are tired of being told they must have a "social repsonsibility" that over rides our own personal repsonsibility. Americans want that fat kid to eat better and exercise more instead of having to pay a higher tax for a Diet Pepsi and not be able to buy food they enjoy to eat--in moderation and in balance.

There has been much handwringing and finger pointing and labelling about the townhall meetings and Tea Parties this summer. I see and hear pundits and leaders accusing the crowds of being bussed in by interest groups. I see and hear "experts" saying the crowds represent just a small portion of America "whipped into a frenzy" by extremists. I see and hear ordinary Americans asking their politicians to read a bill before they vote on it, to answer specific questions regarding spending and future deficits. I see and hear working men and women wondering why they are being dismissed and ignored.

I am only forty-seven. The protest marches for Civil Rights and against Vietnam were over before I finished fifth or sixth grade. During my conscious observation of America, our culture, our politics, our nation as a people, I have never seen such rancor and discontent expressed by such a wide swath of Americans to their government. And I think it is great. I think it is great the Americans are waking up to their personal responsibility as citizens to express their feelings, their desires and their thoughts to their elected representatives. I think it is great that Americans are letting their elected representatives know that elections are where accountability is had and they are willing to decide based upon whether their representatives listen to them, the voters, or the lobbyists waiting to hold a fundraiser for them back in Washington.

Yes America is angry. Good. Maybe out of this anger we will begin to hold ourselves and our neighbors more accoutable for personal decisions and actions. Maybe out of this anger we will begin to hold our public officials more accountable, and sooner, for their actions and behavior. Maybe out of this anger we will see a paradigm shift from voting for who ever has the most glossy postcards in our mailbox and has the most integrity on their record. Maybe out of this anger we will begin to vote for the name on the left side of the ballot and not the letter inside the parenthesis to the right of the name.

We are given the power and ability to make choices. With that power and ability comes the responsibility of the consequences for the choices we make. As a society and culture we must stop the cycle where the government minimizes consequences for bad decisions and allows Americans to abdicate their responsibility and avoid accountability. We need to start this cycle by ensuring our elected and public officials know that they are our leaders, as such they must show us that they are personally responsible and accountable for their actions, and inactions.

Please read Frank Luntz' editorial. Be responsible. Be accountable.

Link to Frank Luntz' editorial

Link to Open Secrets site showing political donations to Federally elected officials and by donors.

How To Crush Budgets: The Median Income Spiral

Last Wednesday I posted Dear City Council: Fix It, which the Long Beach Post was kind enough to re-print. Predictably a few public employees were quick to comment, some pulling out the old canard that current union employees get what they deserve because 100 years ago unions started working to improve work conditions, etc, etc. Others immediately go to my missive was partisan-Republican-anti-union to try to dismiss the message. Well the message was clear, without pension reform the future of the city is bleak financially as the number of ex-employees we support grows with no contribution from them. As well the political climate appears to be right for such reform, if the members of the Long Beach City Council (or insert any public agency/government here) has the courage to tackle the issue.

Today I want to address the front end of public employee contracts, most specifically the police officers contracts with guaranteed pay increases based on what other cities pay their cops. In a formula that has been adopted not just by Long Beach but by other municipalities, the contract between the City of Long Beach and the Long Beach Police Officers Association, pay increases are based not on the needs of Long Beach, the job of the LBPD or any other factor that would normally go into contract negotiations. The salary aspect of members of the LBPOA is based upon what other cities pay their police officers. The median salary of nine other cities in California is the salary of Long Beach Police. There is an exception in the coming year with the budget troubles of the city and the LBPOA has agreed to forego a 9% increase in pay for a 2% increase in pay--well forego is not the right word, they have agreed to 11% pay increases over the next five years and go off the median salary chart. Good, the median salary formula should be thrown out for all public contracts as it is a never ending spiral that prevents local governments from controlling their salary and employment expenses.

For those who were not paying attention during math class, the median of a group of numbers is the number that is right in the middle: if you have a set of three numbers arranged highest to lowest, the middle number is the median. Example: 3, 8, 12 the median number is 8. If you have nine numbers in a set the median is the 5th number. Example nine other cities pay a position the following salaries: $43,000; $45,000; 45,500; $46,250; $50,125; $51,250; $51,800; $52,050 and $53,000. The median salary is $50,125 which if this were a public contract would be the new salary.

As you can see as soon as one city gives raises to the median level plus $1 then the median level shifts up for everyone. If Santa Ana gives a 5% raise the median level increases, if Oakland then gives a 5% raise to its workers and it jumps above the median level then we see another increase. Mathmatically this should smooth out over time, but as we have seen in Long Beach and other cities that use this formula, the raises do not smooth out. Depending on contract negotiations in other cities we can see raises of 5% to 15% in a given year. For the police contracts those swings have been between $5 to $15 million depending on what happens in other cities.

The unions of course are all in favor of median-salary-based contracts as they know there is guaranteed escalation. Statewide it is encouraged for all locals to enter median based contracts, and many city governments have these budget busters on their books. Fortunately in Long Beach the City and the LBPOA negotiated out of the median salary increase for the coming five years, had they not our city would have lost police officers to bring the police budget into the available city budget.

The median contract mentality is not just for the hourly and union employees, it also exists for management. We hear, "well Vernon/Maywood/Chula Vista/etc is paying their _______ (fill in management role) so much so we have to pay the same to keep our people." To which I say, "No. We don't." Let them go to work in Vernon/Maywood/Chula Vista. At some point the city needs to quit competing with other cities that are paying hirer salaries to lure top management from bigger cities and let the employees make their choices: get paid more to work for another city or stay in Long Beach where you have seniority, work in a vibrant city and have family and friends. This is the same choice that is made by private sector managers and companies all the time. Even in this economic climate some companies are looking to hire top talent and are willing to pay for it. Individuals need to weigh their current scenarios against hirer pay in an unknown scenario.

One way to prevent, or reduce, employees jumping to other cities for higher pay would be to put some restrictions on their pensions. As I mentioned last week the first adjustment should be greater contributions from the employees, those in unions and those in upper management who are not. Second, the employer (read: taxpayer) contributions to the pensions should be vested over time as they are in the private sector, and not vested across PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) but vested by contributor. If someone leaves the City of Long Beach after five years they only get 20% of the employer contribution to carry with them, if someone comes in from another city they are not fully vested right away but must begin the vesting schedule from year one like any new higher. The ability to transfer pension rates and vestings across employers through PERS is highly detrimental to the budgets of cities and municipalities. It encourages job jumping and hinders the ability of those governments to retain workers they have trained and vested their resources in unless they pay higher and higher salaries.

It is time for the City of Long Beach to scrap the compensation models of the past that have led the city to the current budget crisis. Instead of relying on upper management who have Masters and higher education degrees in Public Administration and Public Finance, the city needs to rely on some private sector ideas and formulas to create compensation models for public employees that more accurately mirror those that most tax payers fall under. Compensation needs to be performance based, need based and fiscally based upon a long term budget plan. Pensions and benefits need to be shared between the employer and the employee, and further employees should be paying the full weight of their dependents' coverage.

To use a phrase that was repeated in Sacramento repeated in the last year, this City Council can either "kick the can down the road" or it can take a stand now and tell city management to begin restructuring contracts and compensation formulas. As new hires come into the city the new formulas need to be put into place. Without any restructuring our budget deficits will continue to grow as the deficits grow in Washington and Sacramento and they reach down to take more and more from the counties and cities.

I ask again, does our City Council have the courage and wherewithall to tackle this critical issue?

.

Just Some Questions

Below are questions I have asked myself throughout the past week. Instead of writing what my answers to them would be I am interested in any answers you may have, or additional questions you have asked yourself.

For the week starting Monday September 21, 2009 here are some questions I have had:

Are you superstitious?

Crab or lobster?

In his inauguration speech President Obama said the government would be transparent, do you think he has fulfilled this commitment?

Do you think public employees should make contributions to their pensions and benefits?

Democrats voted down an amendment put forth by Republicans to post the Senate version of a health reform bill on the internet, how would you have voted on such an amendment?

Who is your biggest fan?

Mac or PC?

What is your definition of bi-partisan?

From Leslie: Is entitlement polar? Do those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale and the top have attitudes of entitlement like Oprah expecting Hermes to stay open past closing just for her?

The President of the United States with supporting and collaborating evidence from European allies calls out rogue dictator of a Middle Eastern country for pursuing nuclear weapons, sound familiar?

Are you happy?

Did you see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the United Nations? Thoughts?

Cookies or Pie?

So those are the questions, what are your answers? Click on the comments button below and let us know what you think.

Dear City Council: Fix It

Like many cities across the country, and particularly in the State of California, the City of Long Beach management and elected officials have recently worked through the budget for the coming year to cover a multi-million dollar gap between revenue and expenses. Putting a lot of faith in future negotiations with the various labor groups that represent most city workers, approximately $20 million was cut from projected expenses to balance the budget. Now if they can just figure out how to reduce another $20 million for the 2010-2011 budget and yet another $20 million for the 2012-2013 budget.

One assumes that we can continue these budget deficit projections ad infinitum given that one of the major expenditures has not been addressed: pension and benefit reform for City employees. With each budget and each contract negotiation this issue has been passed over and left for some other City Council. It appears the time is right for this City Council to address this issue, if only those sitting in the seats have the political courage to stand strong and address the issue.

Restructuring public employee pensions and benefits requires stamina, patience and commitment to an outcome. Politically the public employee unions are highly sought allies when candidates are running races because of their ability to pour resources, not just cash but bodies to man phone banks and knock on doors, into those whom they support. In Long Beach a tremendous number of city employees live in the City and are voters adding a bonus for candidates not just of financial support but of actual votes. It is rather incestuous the relationship between our local elected officials and those who work for them once elected, and without entering that relationship getting elected in Long Beach is extremely difficult.

Then there is the next level of politics: State office. In Long Beach to get elected to the California Assembly or Senate two things must happen: 1) you must receive support from the unions, public and private so you can 2) win the Democratic primary. If you achieve (1) you will achieve (2) and you will then win the general election. Happens every time as our city is appropriately gerrymandered and loyal to the Democratic Party to ignore any part of the general election with the exception of the (D) after a candidate's name.

To quickly recap: successful candidacies in Long Beach politics are heavily dependent on endorsements and support from unions.

Union leaders are not running out of their offices to meet officials for the purpose of restructuring the pensions and benefits of their members--after all they are elected as well. In fact getting them to sit down for the specific purpose of such a restructuring negotiation is extremely difficult. But that is exactly what needs to occur in Long Beach (or fill in the blank with your California city, county or just say California).

Politically Long Beach appears to have an excellent window of opportunity for significant restructuring of pensions and benefits to occur in all the city contracts. Looking at the upcoming elections, who is being termed out and prospects for future office, the timing is now for members of City Council to address this issue without a majority of the council having to fear political retribution from the unions hampering their political careers. Let's take a look at the Mayor and nine City Council Districts:

Mayor Bob Foster has already begun his fund raising for a re-election campaign, while anything can happen and he, like all mayors and politicians, has his detractors, any candidate will have an extremely hard time unseating him. During an interview session I was part of for the Long Beach Post last year, Mayor Foster indicated he wanted to tier the pension system for new employees and have them contribute more to their pensions and benefits. He is on board to take on the unions over this issue--so he said and I will take him on his word.

1st District Robert Garcia has a very bright and long political future ahead of him. His campaign to win the special election for his seat was almost flawless and he won handily. He is up for re-election in 2010 and it is difficult to see how any candidate will defeat him. Garcia's challenge is going to be what route does he want his political career to take? Stay in Long Beach and run for Mayor when Foster is term limited out? Go after a statewide office? Take on Laura Richardson for Congress? My outlook is he takes the City Council to Mayor race, using his next term on council to continue to build his support and influence through the city. Where does this put him on restructuring pensions and benefits? Garcia has as much influence or power in his short term in office as anyone on the Council, he can very well afford to spend some political capital and pursue aggressive reform. His district has some of the greatest needs for programs and assistance from the city for his constituents, freeing up funds from future budgets that would be going to such programs is in his and their best interest. I put Garcia in the "yes" column for reform.

2nd District Suja Lowenthal is at a bit of a crossroads and whatever her future political plans may be I have not heard. Will she run against her ex-mother in-law for Assembly? Will she run for her ex-father in-law's seat if he is elected Lieutenant Governor? Or will she serve out her term limits and return to private life working at Cal State Long Beach. It is doubtful she can take on and beat Bonnie Lowenthal who has years of relationships with the organizations and groups needed to win. Also in doubt is her ability to capture Alan Lowenthal's supporters, who would be needed to win any primary for State Senate. Her divorce from Judge Dan Lowenthal has created a rift between her and the tight Lowenthal clan, which frees Suja Lowenthal to aggressively pursue contract reforms with public employees. Will she? Like Garcia, her district is in as much or more need of the funding that would be freed up with such reform, I am uncertain however if she would be willing to enter the fray. I put Lowenthal on the fence.

3rd District Gary DeLong publicly stood up to the Long Beach Police Officers Association during last week's City Council meeting casting the lone vote against a contract revision with the LBPD officers. His reason was that pension and benefit reforms were not addressed, because of this he did not support the contract since in his opinion the negotiations did not go far enough. Facing re-election in 2010 and then being termed out, and it being doubtful he will seek another office, DeLong is on record to fight for aggressive reform of employees' benefits and pensions.

4th District Patrick O'Donnell is a member of a union, his brother who passed away several years ago was a member of the LBPOA, his orientation is pro-worker. This would lead one to conclude he would be against any restructuring of the contracts and putting more of the pension and benefit costs on the employees. Politically however O'Donnell has not much to lose by working on such reform. He is termed out after this cycle, unless he runs a write in campaign he will not be needing political support from the unions. While there were rumors before he may run for statewide office, looking at the seats available and when they become available the timing may not be right for O'Donnell. While he can see the benefits of reform, his DNA may be such that any support might be luke-warm and pursuit of aggressive reform may be out of the question. I put O'Donnell on the fence waiting to see what comes to council before strongly committing, if he ever strongly commits, to any reform plans.

5th District Gerrie Schipske is a liberal up for re-election in a pretty conservative district. She has strong ties to labor, see her employment by the teacher's union as one example, and has fought Mayor Foster on many issues. Schipske has had very good political instincts in picking her battles and issues that play well at home on the Eastside for her constituents and is not afraid to be confrontational downtown. Like O'Donnell her DNA puts her at odds of asking the workers to give up anything in a contract, much less dip into their own pockets to pay for pensions and benefits. However, she is up for re-election in a district where such reform would be popular. Put her on the fence as she sees which way the winds are blowing. Her future political career versus short term re-election.

6th District Dee Andrews has twice defeated a strong labor candidate to win elections to City Council. As with Garcia in the 1st and Lowenthal in the 2nd, Andrews' 6th District has significant needs of any city programs to assist its residents. With no re-election in 2012 Andrews is in a great position to take a lead on pension reforms and show his residents and the rest of the city that the priorities for the council should be citizens first and employees second. Will Andrews pick up the staff and lead on this? He can but we will see. I will rate Andrews as favorable to reform.

7th District Tonya Reyes Uranga is termed out in 2010, which would put her in a position to support strong reform efforts as he political future is blocked by incumbents and term limit math. However Uranga's husband is running for her seat against some very good competition in the 2010 election. Politically Uranga's move is to fight any pension or benefit reform to curry the good graces of the unions for her husband. This move goes entirely with her political career and ideology so count on stiff resistance from lame duck Uranga for any reforms.

8th District Rae Gabelich was re-elected in 2008 with no opposition on the ballot. She is out of office on term limits in 2012 and unless she mounts a write-in campaign her political career ends there, with the possible exception of education boards. When she was elected in 2004 she beat incumbent Rob Webb with the support of the police and fire unions, but has the payback ended? Gabelich is not a standout on the council, with the exception of any airport issue she is rarely heard from and is not one to make any radical proposals. Her position on the issue is hard to gauge and while she has no negatives to push for aggressive reforms other than perhaps her personal ideology, it is difficult to see her taking a strong position on the issue. Put her on the fence depending on what any reform package looks like.

9th District Val Lerch is out of office on term limits in 2010 and running a campaign for write in votes. His competition is Dan Pressburg and Brad Shore. Shore has been very active in his campaign and has picked up some important endorsements. Does Lerch need the city unions in order to be successful in his write in bid? Does it matter? If the unions come out early and endorse Shore then we can expect Lerch to be more aggressive in pursuit of pension reforms. Lerch may aggressively pursue this path without regard to such endorsements as he does have a strong grasp of the long term impact of the current pension and benefit packages on our city and future budgets. Should his opponent(s) publicly oppose any reform Lerch can paint them as in the pocket of the unions and working not for the benefit of the constituents but of the unions. I put Lerch down for pressing for reforms.

So that is my read on the current council and mayor. The votes and political power are there to stare down the unions and use the advantage of another deficit budget that could force layoffs next year, and the year after, and the year after...to negotiate considerable reforms in the city contributions to employee pension and benefit packages. A majority of votes are available where the individuals will experience very little long term fall out to impact their future political careers making this the perfect time for any significant restructuring of the contracts with the city unions. While it will not be easy and there will be plenty of nasty things said about members of council and staff, in the long run doing what is right rarely is easy. And the right thing to do for the future of our city is to re-negotiate the contracts the city pays all of its workers to reduce city contributions and increase employee contributions to pensions and benefits.

The timing is right but do our politicians have the strength and courage to do what is best for our future?

.

Speakers' Corner, Long Beach?

At times you feel you are in a Monty Python skit as the speaker with the Olive Oil Party sign made at home argues with the member of the small crowd about butter and its place in cooking. Or the small man in the bowler who just wants an argument, is simple contradiction an argument? No it is not. Yes it is. Is not. Is too.....

One of the highlights of my semester at the University of London in 1982 were the Sundays when some of the mates and I would jump on the tube and head down to Hyde's Park to listen to and engage the various speakers who set up on their little boxes, ladders or for one frequenter a set of U.S. History books (he was no fan of President Reagan). The only rules it seems are no profanity and no physical contact, other than that the British have quite a go on all manner of subjects. From religion to communism to olive oil to you pick the topic, ordinary and extra-ordinary men and women set up in what is known as Speakers' Corner and begin to speak, debate, cajole, heckle and engage passer's by. Many a barrister got his start by arguing on a Sunday afternoon in Hyde Park. Many an argument has gone down in flames because a more informed or loquacious heckler has brought a speaker to tears or exasperation as they jam their sign in a rubbish bin and skitter off to the Underground.

Speakers' Corner is a beautiful example of not only Free Speech, but also public dialogue and the ability of citizens, ordinary citizens, to discuss important issues. Sure there is some shouting from time to time depending on the subject and the presentation by the speaker--or emotions of a heckler in the crowd. Note that in London almost anyone who engages the speaker is referred to as a "heckler", many are very polite, astute and engage in a very healthy debate with the speakers; there are those however who are also louts and just shouting to shout.

Speakers' Corner is entirely open, anyone with a cause or an idea can simply start talking. If you are good enough, or your subject is intriguing enough a few people will stop to listen, then if you are able to hold them more of a small crowd will form. The very good speakers will have a crowd of fifteen or more, engaging them, answering their questions and heckles, having them laughing or shouting in agreement or disagreement with either himself or one of his hecklers. There is no formal format, no sign up list, no schedule. If you have something you wish to tell the people, or discuss with them, simply start talking.

Much has been made of the lack of "civility" in our public debates. Name calling, finger pointing, shouting, huge crowds chanting, make the news and make many upset--who is upset usually depends on whether they agree or disagree with those shouting, name calling, finger pointing.... Our pubic discourse on issues, important or not, has become more widespread than it was when I was in college in the early 1980's. Now we have endless news channels, a whole dial seemingly for the sole purpose of talk radio with Joe, a first time caller from Lompoc, and of course the world wide web where any Dennis with a keyboard can set up his own area to express opinions.

We have significant dialogue on issues, some of the dialogue makes many uncomfortable however because of what is expressed and how it is expressed. Accusations and name calling abounds on talk shows and blogs and in crowds. But almost all of it is anonymous. It is Joe from Lompoc or literally Anonymous, making the call or posting the comments on a website. Visit some of the major sites that daily deal with many different issues from different writers, Salon, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, Politico, and you will see hundreds of comments daily from those using pseudonyms making some of the most offense comments. Legal? Sure most of the time as long as they are not threatening someones life or inciting someone to violence. Adding to the debate? Not usually.

What if were were to have more debate? What if in Long Beach, or Reno, or Tulsa, or Boston, or where ever you are reading this blog, we had our own Speakers' Corner? What if instead of waiting for a local group to have an "evening of discussion" and hand picking the speakers on a topic we had a regular time and place where any of the issues affecting us could be debated and discussed, and argued? Would it raise the level of discourse and debate? Does having to come face to face, without a mob, to discuss an issue between two ordinary citizens, neither with a position of power over the other, bring the level and tone to more civil levels? Sure there will be emotion and some heated debate, but also there will be social intercourse between neighbors, members of the same community, foes who may become friends despite their disagreements.

Speakers' Corner has been going for over 150 years, it is part of the fabric and culture of London. Sure it has its fair share of kooks and firebrands, it is heavily populated, in my humble opinion, by fringe elements, and its fair share of regulars who are like the Energizer Bunny and are easy to ignore. But from week to week it has someone new, someone just there to talk and discuss an issue that day or for several weeks depending on the life of the issue. And regular, ordinary people discuss an issue. Because it is also a tourist attraction there are those who are there to be seen and to be part of the show, but inside and in some corners are those more serious and able to engage others. Sometimes the discussions amongst the crowd become better than what the speaker was saying, I've seen good speakers wander into the crowd and mediate such conversations. In the end the purpose of the place is public discourse, free speech and a civil environment in which to have it.

What do you say? Open public speaking, no rules except no profanity, no inciting to violence and no physical altercations. One hopes a universal rule of respect would prevail, but depending on the topic and the presentation one can hope but that does not mean it will always come to pass.

Is there a place in a modern American city with a myriad of ideas and opinions and a similar myriad of people from different backgrounds, ethnicity's, and religions to have open public discussions without formal direction or structure?

.