two papers

Why CAFE standards (fuel efficiency) suck. (3 pages, double spaced, written in about 2 hours)

In the United States, private automobiles form the backbone of our transportation systems, providing quick convenient transportation to various destinations, consuming vast quantities of processed petroleum, mostly from other countries, while producing large amounts of problematic air pollution. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) legislation mandates increases in fuel efficiency for new automobiles, in an attempt to reduce these harmful problems. Unfortunately, the indirectness of the approach hinders its effectiveness and produces a number of unintended side effects, which introduce harms of their own, making this a poor choice as a method of reducing dependence on foreign oil and the ecological and health damage from its consumption.

Any barrier to free exchange is politically difficult to implement, even when the exchange carries with it a great deal of negative externality. Thus, the direct approach, to limit fuel production or to tax it more heavily, has been avoided as motorists, fuel producers, and dependent industries all resist such changes. Regulating fuel efficiency in new cars, on the other hand, is a less direct exercise of power, which affects people only as they purchase new cars, and has a smaller impact on the relevant political constituencies than the gas tax does.

The CAFE standards produce a variety of secondary effects in addition to its directly legislated effects, which make it doubtful that it is worth the costs it imposes. Prior CAFE regulations resulted in smaller lighter vehicles which were less safe for their drivers in the event of an accident, it seems likely that new efforts for fuel efficiency would result in similar choices being made, further increasing the safety risks. The proposed changes would result in a reduced range of options for automobile manufacturers to producers, and consumers to purchase. It would also force manufacturers to focus research efforts on increasing fuel efficiency, rather than other potentially valuable areas, such as designing engines for alternative fuels or increasing safety and maneuverability.

Additionally, a number of effects of increasing fuel efficiency act to offset benefits gained by implementing more stringent standards. Increasing fuel efficiency reduces the costs of driving born by the driver and will likely increase the number of miles driven, cutting into the reduction in fuel consumption. Current pollution regulations set limits based on the number of miles driven, rather than the gallons of fuel consumed. Furthermore, the delay introduced into this process by introducing these standards for new cars only means a very gradual increase in average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles.

Weighing the effectiveness of the proposal and the costs it would entail, it seems to be a poor investment of time, attention, and energy, further a superior alternative exists. This indirect approach to the goal of reducing oil consumption and dependence produces a range of side effects, and compensates for itself in other ways that make it unlikely to work. Raising the gas tax, while politically difficult, would be much more effective in reaching the desired goals. The gas tax could also be targeted geographically to the areas where air pollution is likely to do the most harm. Local governments in areas with high population densities ought to implement their own fuel taxes, and an entry fee for vehicles entering from areas that do not have the environmentally oriented gas taxes. Additionally, reducing dependence on private automobiles by working to improve public transportation and increase the density of development has great potential to reduce both oil dependence and the negative externalities of fuel use.

---

Talk about the participation process involved in selecting a superintendent for minneapolis schools, particularly as regards last year’s fiasco, from the perspective of a trusted community leader of color. (4 pages, single spaced, written in about 3-4 hours)

Thank you for asking for my opinions on the matter of the school board’s selection of a Superintendent and how this may be done more effectively in the future. Speaking as the president of the FBNCG*, my neighbors and I were alarmed by the action the board took in selecting David Jennings to replace Carol Johnson as Superintendent. We feel that this selection was made without enough consideration of all the potential repercussions for our children. We also want processes put in place to effectively solicit and value our input for the future.

We felt that Carol Johnson made an excellent superintendent and were quite content with her performance. In the decades preceding her appointment, she had earned the trust and loyalty of the community. In office, she showed us the depth of her devotion to the cause of improving our schools and worked to move us in a direction of greater achievement and greater equality. It will always be difficult to select the successor of a great leader.

Choosing David Jennings caused a great deal of anxiety for a number of reasons. He does not match the constituency of the district: He is a wealthy, Republican, white man in a school district that serves a large number of poor student, that is consistently more Democratic, and has more black students than any other racial group. This raises the concern of many concerned about the equitable treatment of their children in schools. His lack of certification, a doctoral degree, and prior direct educational experience brought in other concerns related to his performance. Further, appointing an individual without experience in district relations with the community exacerbates the uncertainty of exactly what sort of leadership he is likely to provide. The evidence that other community representatives brought forward, and the reactions it provoked should be considered in this light.

The points from his voting record in the legislature directed our concern exactly to those points on which we were most uncertain. Opposition to a holiday celebrating a leader in the struggle for racial equality and supporting the continuation of investments in a racist regime suggest a lack of sensitivity to concerns of racial equality and fair treatment. Without strong evidence or convincing testimony from a trusted leader who had worked closely with him, such as Carol Johnson, to counter these claims we had valid reasons for concern. Without official channels which would have allowed us to express our fears, unofficial channels brought the message to the public.

That the school board did not anticipate potential controversy before the announcement of David jennings’s appointment or address the public outcry until after David Jennings’s resignation also reflects poorly on the board. Some from our community took this to mean that you did not take our concerns seriously. We do believe that you intend to do what is in the best interests of the students, but we wish to be sure that we have the same ideas as to what their best interests are.

It is quite reasonable to point out that the media has a vested interest in inflating controversy, thereby making it difficult to judge the extent of the dissenting opinion. This is a major reason for public participation: It allows everyone to know whether a complaint is the voice of a loud, disappointed minority, seeking attention beyond what it deserves or represents the groundswell sentiment of a broad swath of society with limited resources to present their concerns.

Speaking for myself, my family, my neighbors, and the rest of my community, we are deeply concerned about the welfare of our children, but it is difficult for us to make our voice heard. Many of us work long hours, at low pay to care for our children. Many of us are single parents. Many of us are poor. Many of us do not own a car and travel by bus. Additionally, many of us have been discouraged from participating and speaking up, and feel we are not heeded when we do. This makes it harder for us to participate, because we are short on time, transportationally limited, and feel that our efforts are ignored or denigrated. Further, there seems to be a reluctance, aversion, or ignorance as to the appropriate community centers through which to reach a broader range of the black community. These barriers must be overcome in order to bring us to the table.

Unfortunately, the second superintendent process selection did meet these standards. The biggest problem was that the sole purpose of the participation was to establish standards for selection of a superintendent. Additionally, the face to face meetings were held on weekday evenings in area schools. Having all the participation events in the same time slot excludes the people working at that time. Holding the meetings at different times, perhaps one on a Saturday afternoon, and another during the school day, would have allowed for fuller participation. The means selected to contact the black community may also have been inadequate. Churches and the black radio station, KMOJ were not used to publicize the venues. Finally, we received no feedback on how our input helped shape the criteria used to select a candidate, so our participation may consequently feel even less meaningful.

Later steps in the process, including selection of semifinalist candidates and interviews to select the finalists were also conducted without public input. In the brief period for public input between the announcement of the finalists and the decision, there was little opportunity for genuine community involvement. Ultimately, the candidate selected seems like she has superior credentials, and is more politically and socially congruous, and this may be the reason that the second selection process was significantly smoother than the first.

I have faith that we can overcome the barriers, and have fuller participation as a result. In order to do this, we need the opportunities to come to us. As a district, we have to keep moving, and cannot afford to get bogged down delaying important decisions. Therefore, the board should set the range of the debate by providing options for consideration, examination, and feedback. At the same time it is important to give people sufficient advance notice so that they may adjust plans and schedules to accommodate the new event. This structures the debate and helps people on a time budget to effectively participate. All such processes should involve several venues for participation in multiple locations to cut down on travel problems. Call in, mail in, and other such options for participation are helpful and should be broadly advertised. Approaching institutions, such as businesses, churches, and neighborhood organizations, and communicating through them will allow the board to reach a much larger audience. And finally, feedback is an important final step to assure us that our input is being put to good use, and that it is worth our time to continue to provide it.

Providing proposals controls the range of the debate. Providing drafts for public feedback and comment provides a natural language and shared system for the exploration of options and values. As the process progresses, it provides a source of information that can be referred back to for guidance and inspiration. It also makes it easier to allow communication and development of ideas and alternatives when there are specific ideas to be examined and amended. It also compensates for the amount of lead time needed. Public participation needs enough advance warning to allow the would-be participants to prepare.

Using multiple venues at varying times for in person participation helps to increase the size of the participating group. This helps individuals to work around barriers of limited transportation and heavily constrained time so that they more easily give their input to the process. Additionally, using other options, such as call-in, write-in and email feedback allows people to participate, albeit to a more limited extent, at their own convenience, and allows a large number of people who might not otherwise participate to let their opinions be known.

Additionally, working through centers of target communities is an important strategy for gaining full inclusion. Churches, neighborhood groups, and subculture radio stations are important venues for the sharing and spreading of information. Working through these institutions and other cultural centers allows a larger portion of the public to be reached at less expense.

A process taking these barriers into account can improve outcomes in unexpected ways. If a process allows all the stakeholders to become genuinely involved to the degree and at the time they want to be, it can dramatically improve cooperation and increase the social investment in solutions and outcomes. Ultimately, buy-in is an important dimension of public decision making, on the par with technical correctness. Effective participation produces that buy-in and should be cultivated by reaching out to people on their own level.

*=Fictitious Black Neighborhood Community Group