Here were some of the phrases state administrators and legislators are using to describe the error:

• “eye-catching”
• “unique”
• we maybe need a “fresh set of eyes”
• “bank error in your favor”
• “We drew the Community Chest card”
• “glitch”
• “It did seem…those payments were light”
• “Christmas came early”
• “We know what happened and we’re correcting it.”

Am I the only one who’s a little bit disturbed at this trivialization of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being hidden away for years, even if through omission or oversight?

Some of those phrases are from Governor Mitch Daniels, who you’ll remember was the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush before Daniels became Governor of Indiana.  One can’t help but wonder if similar “glitches” were incorporated into tracking the federal budget.

But allow me to suggest some alternate phrasing of public statements for use by the government officials who are talking to the press about this thing:

• We really screwed up on a major scale!  $320 million is a lot of money.
• This is so embarrassing!  We are really upset that this happened.
• There is no excuse for this kind of incompetence.
• Taxpayers trust us to closely track and monitor the collection and spending of their hard-earned tax dollars, and we won’t rest until we’re sure that each nickel is accounted for.
• Our financial software test coverage is clearly lacking critical functional and unit tests, and we will immediately revisit the software engineering methodology used to produce the code that led to this error.
• We know that this is not “free” or “gift” money that we can think of as some pleasantly surprising addition to our budget.  We might have made different decisions about budget cuts and spending over the last few years if we’d had proper track of these funds, and that’s a tragic mistake.

And the list goes on.  The bottom line is that making light of a $320 million error only helps reinforce the public perception of incompetence and imprudence that would have led to that kind of error in the first place.

If they’ve any hope of retaining (regaining?) the trust of taxpayers, state leaders need to speak more sympathetically about the seriousness of this issue, and the equally serious actions they’re going to take in response.

As I watched various department heads present their requested budgets for the upcoming year, I observed a few things:

• It’s been taken as a given that there will be no changes in compensation for any city staff.   I’m not sure if this happens because it’s made clear at the outset that requests for compensation increases will be rejected, or because the staff already know that to be true, but it’s got to be a challenging experience for city workers who know that cost of living is increasing and their own pay is staying level.  I know that when the citizens of a community are feeling limited in their own financial situation, it can be an easy target to claim that this person or that person in government is making too much money, and I’m sure in some cases, those claims might be true.  But I would also hope that as a community we can recognize the value of having our city run by professionals who are compensated fairly and equitably for their work.
• Quibbles with spending practices are all about context.  For some departments, a budget increase of  a few hundred dollars for spending on training or supplies raises the eyebrows of Council members – “why do you need that?” – but for others, there are line items in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars that are vaguely described and when questioned, the department heads can’t always immediately account for how that money will be spent.  Of course we should hope that for each line item, department heads and city officials guiding this process have broken down the actual need for each dollar, but it’s still strange to see some smaller dollar amounts be questioned when other larger amounts are taken for granted.
• The budget management process is surprisingly agile.  One might expect a city government’s budget to be fairly rigid in its ability to handle unexpected changes or evolving operational needs throughout the course of the year.  But it seems that with the good work of the Controller’s office,  the flexibility of city staff and the care of City Council, Richmond is able to accomodate those kinds of changes without too much strain.  It also makes me appreciate the procedural importance of having Council meet with a quorum on a regular basis, always ready to consider any budget transfers or changes that are pressing.

So far there seem to be three areas of some controversy in the proposed 2012 budget, and I’ll address my views on those here:

1) Reducing benefits for spouses of city employees who have coverage options elsewhere:

In the headlines, this is being referred to as a “spousal carve-out,” which is kind of a creepy phrase to use when referring to anything to do with medical anything.  The proposal on the table is to have the city stop paying for benefits for spouses and dependents of city employees who have the option to receive health insurance through their own employer.  City expenses for spousal insurance claims have ranged between $750K and $1.2 million in recent years, although it’s not immediately clear how much of that is for spouses who would be compelled to get insurance elsewhere under the proposal.

As many folks have noted, ending premium payments for spouses is something most organizations – business and government alike – have done a long time ago.  That doesn’t soften the emotional and financial blow that some affected families would feel as a result of this change – it’s essentially a reduction in compensation for the employee – but the City is also taking an approach that at least ensures no one need find themselves left without health insurance.

I also have to agree with those who note that this challenge is not unique to Richmond – because of the way the U.S. handles health care and insurance in general, every city and business is struggling with the dynamics of how to provide reasonable and humane access to health insurance while still maintaining costs.  In commenting on Richmond’s situation, blogger Doug Masson says:

Among other things, we need to disassociate health care from employment. It’s bad for employers and, I think, it’s bad for employees. It’s probably bad for the economy as well if, for example, employees that could better use their skills elsewhere or go out on their own as entrepreneurs are discouraged from doing so because they are chained to health care benefits their employers increasingly begrudge them.

I agree that in the long run, having one’s ability to pay for needed medical treatment tied to changing economic conditions and the whims of one’s employer is a Bad Idea.  As a small business owner myself, I’m painfully aware that decisions we make about whether an employee is part-time or full-time has a direct impact on whether or not they’re eligible for our otherwise generous health insurance benefits.  This is not an ideal coupling at all.

For Richmond, I think a change to the health insurance plan is inevitable, and we can only hope that the process is undertaken with sensitivity and care to those who will be affected by it.  As an employer, the city has a responsibility to the well-being of its employees, and at some level that includes the well-being of their families.  But given the financial constraints of the situation, I think most people would say that this is an understandable change to pursue, and one that may keep other more painful cuts from happening for now.

2) Expanding Fire Department operations to include EMS Service:

The details of this proposal are still being straightened out, but the gist of it is that the Richmond Fire Department is planning to perform additional EMS services (patient transport, responding to emergency medical situations, etc.), and that it needs to adjust its budget to accomodate the staffing, supply and equipment changes that go with that.  Council member are questioning whether the Department has fully fleshed out plans for how revenue generated by the additional services will cover the added expenses.

At some level, this seems to come down to the Council’s willingness to approve the taking of a measured risk on the part of City staff.  No one can guarantee that the additional EMS services will generate the needed revenue and be financial sustainable.  But if Department Chief Mike Crawley – who surely knows more about the rhythms and opportunities related to local fire department operations than anyone on Council – says that it’s an opportunity worth pursuing, I hope that Council takes that seriously.

Unfortunately, there’s at least a recent history of Council not fully engaging in dialog with City staff when it comes to disagreements about the budget, so this is an opportunity to do things differently.  Certainly the burden is on Chief Crawley to continue to make a compelling and well-reasoned case for taking on the new EMS services, but it’s Council’s responsibility to hear that out fully, and not make the proposal a target for attack just because it’s something different.

3) The Human Rights Commission budget wasn’t discussed or presented at all:

Despite having its own section in the printed draft budget being presented to Council, and despite the significant interest shown in the issue by the community last year when the Commission’s $74K budget was de-funded in a controversial 5-4 vote, there was no spot on the agenda of the proceedings for anyone from the Commission’s staff (now practically working as volunteers) to present or comment on their department’s operations, even if those operations are still being conducted with a budget of $0.

I’m not sure at what level or by whom that procedural decision was made, but it seems an unfortunate glossing over of an important piece of unfinished business from last year.  Whatever someone’s opinion of the value and function of the HRC, it’s still a city department that deserves to have a place in the budgeting process.

* * *

Those are some of my thoughts on what is surely an evolving situation with the 2012 City Budget.  I’m continuing to go through the draft budget myself and learn more about the details of city finances.  I welcome feedback and comments from others in the community about these issues, and I hope that my fellow candidates for Council will publicly share their views as well, so that we can continue this conversation leading up to the election, and beyond.

Full disclosure: as noted in my disclosures page, the City of Richmond sometimes uses my company Summersault as a vendor, and so deliberations about fund allocation have a potential impact on my own business’s income.

But more importantly, the conversation about raising the debt ceiling is the wrong conversation to be having.

I’d like to present those observations, but instead of referring to “the U.S. Government” every time, I’ll just refer to this guy “Sam.”

Please tell me if I’m wrong or over-simplifying:

• Sam consistently spends more money than he makes. This means that Sam will always be short on cash, and that his lifestyle is by definition unsustainable.
• In order to keep living the life he wants to live, Sam makes up for being short on cash by borrowing money from his neighbors.  Sam has found a lot of different neighbors who are willing to loan him money, and he’s always reassuring them that he’s good for it.
• At some point, even Sam recognized that he couldn’t just borrow money without limits, so he set up a maximum amount of money he wanted to owe to his neighbors at any given time.  He called it his “debt ceiling.”
• But over time, as Sam got even more used to his lifestyle and didn’t bother to fix his inherently unsustainable cash flow, he realized he’d set the debt ceiling too low. So he raised it!  After all, it’s just his own self-imposed limit, so he can tweak it a little here and there and then lower it again later.  It’s similar to Sam’s friend who has a problem with alcohol abuse but always thinks he can handle one more drink when out at the bars.  Sam has raised his debt ceiling 10 times already.
• Sam’s friends (some of them experts in financial management) have tried to convince him to stop spending more than he makes so that he doesn’t have to keep borrowing money and raising his debt ceiling.  But this way of life is so enjoyable for Sam (at least when he’s not worrying about the neighbors he owes), he’s forgotten any other way to live.  Sometimes Sam gets angry when his friends and neighbors won’t leave him alone about his spending habits.  A few times he’s used physical violence (or the threat of it) to get some of his lending neighbors off his back for a bit.  Some people say they’ve seen Sam outright stealing from others to pay his bills.

If Sam were a person, we’d know that he is on his way to some pretty serious lows in life.

Bankruptcy, losing family, friends and neighbors, health issues, homelessness and possibly violence or early death.  Maybe someone would stage an intervention, maybe he’d get help after a close call, but maybe not.

But we know that Sam’s financial habits don’t work, aren’t sustainable, and aren’t to be emulated.  Sometimes, we know that it’s only by hitting bottom and facing these hard realities head on that someone with a problem like Sam’s can actually begin to rehabilitate himself.

It seems unfortunate, then, are we willing to allow our representatives in Congress to distract us with a conversation about raising the debt ceiling AGAIN because “there is no alternative,” knowing full well that it just enables the government to defer confrontation of its unsustainable way of operating.  All of the back and forth about who wants to cut what spending, who will get taxed how much, etc. is political theater, hand-waving and misdirection so that we don’t pay too much attention to the underlying problems.

Would a good and helpful friend of Sam’s indulge him in a long conversation about whether to raise his limit on borrowing today or next week, or whether he should continue his unsustainable spending on this restaurant or that piece of clothing?  When Sam says, “C’mon dude, get off my back, I’m just trying to have some fun here,” would we lay off?  No, a good and helpful friend would shake him by the shoulders and say (or scream) “Sam, you’ve got to find a new way to exist that doesn’t require you to perpetually borrow money from your neighbors.“

Unfortunately, as U.S. taxpayers, we’re all affected by and responsible for Sam’s actions.  He’s family, and the harm he does to himself is harm he does to us.  Are we going to let Sam go on this way, or are we going to intervene and make Sam try something different?

(Thanks to Planet Money for this explanation of the debt ceiling that inspired this post.)

Got a new debit card for a new checking account.  Sticker on card says “must be activated at an ATM before use.”  Went to ATM at bank, inserted card, entered temporary PIN (securely mailed in a separate envelope).  ATM menu came up, one option was “Change PIN.”  Entered new PIN.  ATM said “Card is being retained” and ended my session.

What the heck.

Went inside bank, asked teller what’s up.  Our conversation, paraphrased:  “You can’t change your PIN on the first use.”  “But why did it offer me the option, then?”  “I don’t know.”  “How can I get my card back?” “The person who handles that isn’t here today.”  “But I’m about to travel and was planning on using it.” “There’s nothing we can do, come back when the person who handles that is here.”

Waited several weeks to let astonishment at poor user interface design subside and to see if the highly digitized and heavily audited banking industry would notice that it had mailed out an ATM card that was promptly retained and consider contacting the owner about it – nothing.

Visited bank again.  Paraphrased: “We can’t find your ATM card anywhere – not at the branch where the ATM was, not at any other branch.” “So it’s lost?” “Yes.” “What do I do now.”  “Sign here and we’ll send you another one.”

Interface design and customer service morals:

1. Unless you are trying to deceive and annoy your users, don’t design interfaces that offer options leading to predictable frustration or failure (e.g. a “Change PIN” option that guarantees the card will be retained if selected).
2. When a user reports a bad interface design, at least pretend that you will try to suggest an improvement to someone who can do something about it.
3. If you’re designing systems that are intended to be secure (e.g. for banks), it might be good to keep track of authentication credentials (e.g. ATM cards) that are retained during their initial activation attempt.

Bank interface story #2:

Decided to make an extra payment toward principal on a loan I’m paying down.  Clearly indicated on payment slip that extra amount was to be applied to loan principal.

Received loan statement indicating extra amount was applied to future monthly interest and escrow payments, not loan principal.  Called bank and explained to customer service rep.  Rep didn’t understand concept of paying on principal vs. interest/escrow, had to get supervisor.  Supervisor explained to rep how to make the change, but rep had trouble getting the math right.  Several times.  I walked rep through correct math.  Rep finally thought she had it input correctly.  I asked “will this be retroactively applied to my original payment date so I’m not seen as making a late payment?”  “Oh yes, it will be retroactively applied.”

Weeks pass. Got letter and voicemail from bank noting that they hadn’t received my loan payment for the previous month and that I was being charged penalties and interest.  Talk of collections and loan defaults if payment not made today.  Called 800 number, their office is closed today.

Really starting to treasure the time I’ll get to spend with bank reps sorting this one out.

Customer service morals:

1. If you let customers specify how they want a payment applied, consider respecting those requests when you process the payment.
2. If you’re hiring people to answer the phone at a loan customer service center, make sure they understand concepts involved in loans and loan payments, and that they’re able to perform basic financial math.

I recently took the IRS’s advice and inquired into enrolling in “EFTPS” – Electronic Federal Tax Payment System.  (It’s too bad they didn’t call it something really cool like “Maximum Velocity Pay” or “Blue Tiger,” but I guess EFTPS is at least accurate.)  The idea behind EFTPS is that it will save you time and simplify payment and filing of federal taxes.  So far, here’s what the process has involved:

1. Receiving copious amounts of printed materials sent via postal mail encouraging us to sign up for EFTPS.  There was no obvious option for opting out of these mailings.
2. Visitng the EFTPS website and “enrolling,” which meant typing in a bunch of information that the government already has on file and could have looked up using our Federal Tax ID number, which we also provided.
3. Receiving an “Enrollment Trace Number” that we had to write down as a second unique identifier in the process.
4. Waiting 10-15 days to receive a letter in the mail informing us that we’ve successfully enrolled in EFTPS, and noting that we’ll receive a PIN in a separate mailing, for security purposes.
5. Receiving a PIN letter on the same day as the welcome letter, in identical mailing envelopes, so as to make it especially easy for someone trying to intercept the PIN.  And just noting: that’s 10-15 days for them to automatically generate and mail out a 4 digit number.
6. The PIN letter says that we must now call a toll-free number to obtain an Internet password, which will require the Enrollment Trace Number and the PIN to generate.
7. I call the number and enter our Federal Tax ID, our enrollment trace number, and our PIN.  The system generates a temporary INITIAL password that we can use to log on to EFTPS for the first time.
8. As a part of the first login, I enter our Federal Tax ID, our PIN and our temporary password.  To generate a new password, I again enter our Federal Tax ID and our PIN, and then enter a new password.
9. Finally, we have access to EFTPS.

Sigh.  I hope I never have to see inside the brain of the person who thought up this process.  “If we just make it complicated enough with enough different numbers, no one will EVER be able to crack it!”  Of course, the end result is a sense that the government wasted taxpayer dollars creating and implementing an overly complex system.  Shocker, I know.

Why not a simpler version?  If being able to safely receive postal mail at the address on file for your business is the linchpin of communicating sensitive information securely (which is NOT a given), we could have done it this way:

1. Visit EFTPS website, enter Federal Tax ID.
2. Receive postal mailing with a sufficiently unguessable PIN
3. Visit EFTPS website, enter Federal Tax ID and PIN, pick a password, enrollment is complete.

That’s at least one fewer postal mailings (and the paper and postage required), at least one less phone call (and all of the phone menu infrastructure required to support that call), and at least a few minutes saved on the part of EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL TAX PAYING BUSINESS IN THE U.S.

I think I’ll suggest it to the IRS.  Via e-mail, subject line: “Proposal for Blue Tiger.”

And then I’ll probably go back to walking checks down to the bank.

While I commend the efforts of those who are seeking to maximize the funds that have a direct impact on the actual aid work, I’m not sure that this particular request makes sense to me.

First, a little background on how processing fees work:

How money gets from here to there

Most donations that any of us give to any organization flow through some sort of multi-step process before the funds are actually available to that organization.  The simplest form, of course, is that I walk down the street to the organization’s headquarters and hand them cash that comes out of my wallet.  The cash is in their hands, ready to use however they might need it.

A more common flow is that I write a check and mail it into the organization.  The costs and hassles here are still minimal – I might pay 42 cents for the stamp, I probably had some envelopes laying around, the additional staff time needed at the organization to convert the check to usable funds is probably wrapped up in a deposit they’d do anyway, and their bank probably doesn’t charge them for that process.  But still, it’s a little more overhead and infrastructure than the cash transaction needed.

Which brings us to credit card transactions and other forms of electronic giving.  When you pay for something with a credit card, there are a slew of institutions involved in making that transaction successful.  There’s your relationship with your credit card company that allows you to have the line of credit in the first place.  There’s the receiving organization’s relationship with a credit card processor, which allows them to take you credit card number and hold some dollars on your account.  There’s the credit card processor’s relationship with other credit card companies, which allows them to talk to your credit card company to make sure you have those funds available.  And then there’s the credit card processor’s relationship with the receiving organization’s bank, which allows them to deposit your money into the bank account. Similar relationships are in place when you use online payment services like PayPal.

Of course, all of this happens with the swipe of a piece of plastic and some behind-the-scenes bit shuffling, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not an incredibly complicated series of relationships and many pieces of physical and technological infrastructure.  It’s understandable that there are some costs involved.

Do they really need to charge that much?

Now to be sure, I think that the credit card companies and PayPal are making quite a nice profit margin on their operations.  Between the fees they charge the receiving organization for using their services (usually a monthly charge plus per-transaction fees) to the interest and account fees they make off of each credit card holder, it’s arguable that they’ve got quite a nice little racket going.

But this reality doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the transaction is being made for a charitable cause – I use my credit card regularly for things that I think are good and necessary in my life, the life of my community, and the larger world, and they may or may not be going to an IRS-recognized 501(c)3 charity.  If the credit card companies choose to use some of their earnings to give back to the relief effort, that’s their choice, but I’m not sure we can demand it within the capitalist context of the financial ecosystem and our on-demand society that allows them to exist and thrive in the first place.

Another angle to this is that there are some very clever, entrepreneurial people out there who have pioneered the technologies and relationships that let you do things like send a text message to a certain number in order to donate funds to a good cause – one that’s gotten some attention with the Haiti giving is mGive.  If someone has created a tool that didn’t exist before allowing faster, easier donation of funds in a way that raises more money, I think they should be allowed to make a business model around that creation.  Choosing to donate some or all of their proceeds back to the relief effort would be an admirable thing for them to do, but I’m not sure we have a right to be indignant if they don’t.

Refocusing on the bigger issues

When we give money to a relief effort, we expect that that money isn’t going to end up in the pockets of the people in need of help.  It will be used to buy things and services that help them, and it will be used to fund the infrastructure needed to get those things and services delivered.  Donation processing fees may not be as tangibly or obviously necessary as the cost of a supply airlift flight or medical supplies, but they’re still a part of that infrastructure and ecosystem.

Again, I’m not saying that credit card / electronic transaction processing fees or the whole credit system is fair or just – I suspect that is not true at all.  But calls to change it should be focused on the broader industry practices and the culture that enables those, not the temporary diversion of fees charged during charitable giving.  And those calls are out there – major retailers (e.g. 7-Eleven) have launched campaigns to fight back against the fees they’re paying to accept credit cards, and there are plenty of private and governmental efforts to cap interest rates on cards.

If you’re interested in these issues and like watching glowing rectangles, I highly recommend the Frontline special “The Secret History of the Credit Card” and the film Maxed Out.  I also suggest you talk with the people who run the businesses and organizations you support, and ask them how credit card processing fees affect them – you may find yourself writing more checks or even handling cash more often.

I can’t help but contrast this to today’s news that AIG (American International Group), a for-profit corporation that is not doing well, will be given $30 billion in taxpayer dollars, after the $150 billion in taxpayer dollars they got last year apparently didn’t do the trick.

U.S. taxpayers have involuntarily been made into long-term equity investors in a failing business venture.  I don’t think we have any reason to be confident that “just a little more money” is going to do the trick this time.

Please excuse me while I go throw up.

AIG has been called “too important to fail.”  I would like to see the full list of corporations and individuals who are Too Important to Fail, who are so above the natural benefits that come with experiencing failure in any system – software development, capitalism, or otherwise.  I would like to know that, if it’s not TOTAL FAILURE TO SUCCEED AT WHAT THEY DO, and then TOTAL FAILURE TO BE BAILED OUT WITH $150 BILLION, what are the criteria and warning signs that might make us say, “hmm, I guess we shouldn’t keep investing in that approach, let’s learn from that failure and move on” – ?

I know what some responses might be.  “It’s not that simple,” or “this is an exceptional circumstance,” or “you have no idea what you’re talking about.”  I will call B.S. on all of those responses, because the U.S. government is still spending my money to make it happen, and no matter what their reasoning is, they better do a heck of a lot better making sense of it for the American people.  Come on, I’m a smart guy, I’ve run a business with complicated finances, I can think about how complex systems work…explain it to me.  Make me understand why we should do the same failing thing over and over again and expect it to get better.  Give me one good reason to feel good about this.

Oh, there is that other axiom, isn’t there?  The overly-quoted one from Mr. Einstein.  “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

There are other things to be up-in-arms about, and there are many other injustices happening even within the government solutions to the economic crisis.  But today, I can’t think of any other word for it: this is totally insane.

…at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.

I think this is not only incorrect, but also quite counter to the “grass roots we can do it yes we can” message that got Mr. Obama to the White House.  If we accept that the only way to heal a broken economic system is through the actions of the federal government, we absolutely dis-empower and even discourage individuals, families, local communities, and regional partnerships from taking action, taking responsibility for their own way of life.  I think it’s irresponsible of Mr. Obama to suggest that we must turn to the federal government’s resources for something better, that there is no alternative.

Second:

Obama and others keep talking about how if we don’t act with this stimulus package, we “could turn a crisis into a catastrophe.”  I really don’t like the framing and implications here:

• We have to support this package because if we don’t, it will be our fault that things get worse
• This package is our only hope of things NOT getting worse
• The unemployment rates, suicides, rampant crime, amplified oppressive poverty, and general breakdown of our society is not a catastrophe

And if this is just a crisis, what does the catastrophe look like?  No one seems to be willing to paint a picture and follow it to its natural conclusions, but that’s a blog post for another time.

With these statements, Barack Obama is reinforcing the notion that a top-down, old minds, “the government will save us” approach is all we’ve got, and that you’re complicit in facilitating a catastrophe if you’re not on board with that.  There is no alternative.  Trust us.

There will be good things to come out of the Obama administration, I’m sure, but this is not one of them.  This is a shameful reversion to policies and framing that have very much hurt this country, not helped it.  I bet he could do better.

1) The Pal-Item reports on a meeting happening today about technology in schools:

The Richmond Community Schools Board of School Trustees has scheduled a special meeting for Tuesday to learn more about the school corporation’s technology needs…Technology coordinator Rob Tidrow has reported to the board that the school corporation is operating with outdated technology, and in some cases, technology that is obsolete…School officials have asked the board to consider paying for the upgrades with dollars available in a rainy day fund or the school corporation’s savings account.

I support our schools having current technology so that students can be engaged with and knowledgeable about how to get the most out of these tools. In the past that may have inevitably meant running the latest version of Microsoft Windows on the latest desktops from Dell (although there are plenty who would have said there were alternatives then too).

But in an age where many technology tools and services are online, and aren’t tied to a particular operating system or hardware vendor, it shouldn’t be a foregone conclusion that a school has to spend large amounts of money on proprietary software licenses and cutting edge hardware, when low-cost or free software and older but perfectly usable hardware can do the same job. In a time where school budgets are being cut, it’s worth looking at other options before reinvesting in more hardware and software that may also become obsolete as quickly as what they are replacing.

I pointed Mark to this issue, and in response he wrote up one particular technical approach that RCS could take. There are others, too.

2) Jason Truitt writes in his blog at the Pal-Item:

Expensive new technology requirements for 911 offices have brought six area counties together in a search for solutions. Fayette, Franklin, Randolph, Rush, Union and Wayne counties all use the same [911 emergency] system now, but it will be obsolete next year and no longer supported by Microsoft.

There may not be any off-the-shelf open source offerings that will meet this need, but for crying out loud, don’t just sign up for the next Microsoft contract only to find yourselves back in the same position a few years from now. While they’re teaming up, I hope they explore what other communities are doing to get more value out of their emergency systems, whether it’s creating systems themselves that use more open standards, finding new uses for old equipment, or even challenging the expensive requirements that might not be serving community interests as much as they are guaranteeing income for influential vendors.

These two particular cases may be decided as they always tend to be. I hope that in general, local decision-makers will realize that there are other ways to go that save money and make better use of existing resources.

Basically, the guy took an application (“pre-approved credit line – just sign here and return!”), cut it up into many pieces, reassembled it with tape, filled it out with a change of address and change of phone number, mailed it in, and got the approved, ready-to-use credit card back in the mail at the new address.

Most people probably don’t tear those things up, let alone shred, incinerate and bury them like I prefer to.  And while I don’t want anyone constantly living in fear that their identity will be stolen, there are some reasonable precautions to take.  After all, it’s not paranoia if they’re really after you.