Prison Privatization - a setback

It’s very encouraging to see a setback for prison privatization.  The entire premise of having a law enforcement/judicial function handed off to private companies - not responsive to voters through oversight or the vote - seems dubious. 

While it is in place, anywhere it is in place or planned, citizens should be applying extensive due diligence.  Transparency of the process and ongoing management is essential.  It would be ironic indeed for those who favor private business as managers of prison facilities to avoid and reject due diligence efforts that would be common in a business enterprise.  A few questions at least:

1.  Who will be invited to bid - what are the criteria to be qualified as a provider?

2  Who makes up the group that recommends, decides? How will the purchase or lease  price be determined? For what term will the contract be?

3.  Will it be automatically renewed, or renegotiated? What performance parameters will be in the contract?

4.  Is there a provision to cancel if performance falls short?  Who makes the call?

5.  How will a state be sure that the contracted company follows criminal justice standards and other statutory provisions?  Will they be prevented from cherry picking less costly prison inmates?

6.  What is the process for performance review and how often will it occur?

7. What will be the consequences of administrative problems (for example, high turnover of guards)?

8. How will the state monitor changes in prisoner management - e.g., how will we be sure that longer cell confinement is not used to compensate for reduced staff?

9. What role will the Attorney General have in oversight of the deal and the ensuing  performance? What kind of judicial review will be applied to the administration of prisons, how often and by whom?

10. What legal obligations will the contractor undertake if sued for malfeasance in management of inmates during prison term? Will the State have to participate in and/or fund any legal expenses?

The demise of cursive handwriting

There is a lot of discussion about the fact that schools no longer teach cursive.  Many objections are raised, and most are valid.  I especially liked Joe Helm's piece in the Washington Post on July 26.

But nearly all the commentaries miss an important point: cursive handwriting represents an individual's unique form of expression.  Whatever the subject, however the voice or tone of the phrasing, the writing style and stroke is unique to every person.  It's why we recognize a signature as validating the individual identity - it visually marks a person as that one and only one person.

Let's keep cursive and not allow the keyboard to overwhelm and dehumanize the authentic expressive stroke of language.