Putting aside the substance of the legislation for a moment, the whole debate has been a fascinating exercise in political framing:

Using “Right to Work” as a label is a clever and strategic way to frame what the legislation is about.  If you are “for people having jobs,” how could you dare be against their “right to work”? Any critic of “right to work” laws has to try to find some other meaningful label to use for themselves that isn’t derived from the original name, but in doing so they lose some of the attention of voters.  (From what I can tell, the phrase “right to work” was introduced when a group of business owners in the southern U.S. formed the National Right to Work Committee in the 1970s to try to work against union efforts.)

The “Big Labor” bashing that happened last year across the Midwest set the stage for the “Union” label itself to be tainted to some degree in the minds of many voters (“Wait, are those unionized teachers really just trying to squeeze out every last taxpayer dollar while they sit around in luxury doing nothing? Golly!”), and so at least in part because of this association, I don’t think unions have succeeded in being the rallying point for those who oppose these proposals.

A related frame that gets invoked all the time around this legislation is “creating a pro-business climate.”  If you are for “right to work” then you are for creating an atmosphere where businesses can thrive.  If you are against “right to work,” you must hate commerce, capitalism, business and the American Dream.  Of course we know that “pro-business” doesn’t have any particular meaning; someone who traffics in human slaves can say they are “pro-business” but that doesn’t mean they’re operating in the interests of most people.  But again, critics haven’t succeeded in presenting a suitable alternative theme – being “pro-worker” or “pro-living-wage” – and so the debate is framed around whether you are for or against business, period.

Another frame that’s emerged in Indiana is the idea of Democratic state representatives who have used procedural moves to prevent a quorum for voting on this legislation as “cowards” who are “shirking” their duties and who don’t have the courage to just come and vote.  Democrats have argued back that they are trying to stand up for the interests of their constituents, but it’s so effective for Republicans to use the image of “we showed up to do the business of the people and guess who didn’t?” to beat up on Democrats as insolent children, and so they’ve used it every chance they get.

In a culture that generally celebrates “fighting back when you’re being bullied” instead of “call out the bully for the chaos and disrespect they bring,” Democrats haven’t been very effective at calling those fouls.  The closest they’ve come (as seen in e-mails I get from my state rep) is talking about how the legislation was “rushed” and “rammed through” and then about how “disappointed” they are in this “massive mistake.”  By only being against what their Republican colleagues are perpetrating and lacking a frame that everyone can be for, they end up mostly looking like sore losers.

I won’t even get into the “class warfare” against “job creators” being waged by “job killers.”  You get the point: In Indiana and elsewhere, conservative Republicans are dominating the frame game.

If we put aside the frames and labels that polarize this debate, we could see more clearly what’s happening in the statehouse.  We could see a broken system of legislating perpetuated by vindictive, reactive and politically driven agendas that don’t necessarily represent the interests or priorities of voters.  We could see politicians manipulating the fears and relative ignorance of their constituents to go for the quick win in that day’s news cycle, instead of thinking about what’s actually good for those same constituents in the long run.

Even if it passes, the “right to work” legislation has been a failure and an embarrassment for Democrats and Republicans alike.

As a resident and employer here I can say that I think the intent of the bill is unhelpful for Indiana workers and a waste of taxpayer time and dollars to pursue given other more pressing needs.  But more significant and important for me is what the process and framing being used signals about the dishonorable intentions of lawmakers and the foundering condition of governance in the Hoosier State.

I think straight party ticket ballots generally only do a disservice to Indiana voters.

At best, it enables a kind of impulsive loyalty to a vague label that can mean very different things to different people.

At worst, it facilitates voter ignorance, allowing good candidates to be glossed over while other candidates are voted in based on affiliation instead of qualification.  (I was surprised in my own limited experience as a candidate how many people in Richmond said they thought I was probably a better person for the job than some of those running in their own party, but wouldn’t vote for me because of my party affiliation on the ballot.)  And as Doug mentions, political parties aren’t a concept that the state or federal Constitutions help us navigate very well, so baking them into our electoral process doesn’t seem quite right.

If someone wants to vote only for candidates of a particular political party, that’s fine, but let it be because they’ve researched who those candidates are and what they stand for, and then made their choices well in advance of election day.  And if this change to election law hurts Democrats because Democrats were winning on party loyalty alone, then so be it; that’s a problem for the party and its candidates to take up with voters.

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.

The Indiana Economic Development Corp. offered Really Cool Foods up to $3.05 million in performance-based tax credits, up to $165,000 in training grants and will provide Cambridge City officials with a $200,000 grant to assist in off-site infrastructure improvements needed for the project. Wayne County officials offered the company 50 acres of land, $165,000 in grants and a 10-year property tax abatement.

The facility opened in October of 2008 with 250 of the projected 1,000 jobs to start, and over the last few years the company has had numerous challenges reaching initially estimated milestones of investment and jobs created.

Today, the company told workers who showed up for their morning shift that the facility was closing, and in a press release sent after 9 AM, announced the company is shutting down.

A couple of initial thoughts and questions about this unfortunate announcement:

First, if the reports are true, what a crummy way to treat your employees.  Even if there had been layoffs in recent years and even if the economy is bad, short of natural disaster I don’t think there’s ever a good reason to have an entire workforce find out about the end of the company when they show up for work that day.  (Not to mention the timing of right when the weather turns really cold, right before the holidays, etc.) Yes, it’s harder and maybe even risky to share the news in advance, but I think employees deserve the respect of being a part of that conversation well before the rest of the world knows.

Second, I’m sure there might be a lot of finger pointing going on around this announcement, but it really is important to investigate why a company so well received in our area and so generously supported by taxpayer dollars has to close after only three years in operation.  Yes, the economy is bad, but it was bad three years ago too.  Is this a case of bad planning, excessive optimism and hype, poor management, problems with the location…what caused this, and how can we stop it from happening again (especially on the taxpayer dime)?

Governor Mitch Daniels welcomes Really Cool Foods to Indiana

Speaking of the taxpayer-funded incentives, the local Economic Development Corporation likes to talk about the role of clawback terms in their offers to businesses wanting to locate here.  Does such a clause allowing us to recoup these subsidizations exist in this case, and are they “on it” when it comes to being a registered creditor for any sale of assets or bankruptcy proceedings?  What percent of lost revenue and outright grants does Wayne County and the state of Indiana stand to get back?  What will we do differently next time in vetting a potential recipient?

Lastly, Really Cool Foods has often been cited in our region as a success story of the conventional model of economic development, using taxpayer dollars to sell the area to large employers in hopes of landing significant long-term investment in the community.  More and more, the evidence points to this as an outdated and unsustainable model, and when the success stories turn into nightmares, we have to pay attention to that.  I personally hope we turn toward job creation at a more human scale, but whatever we do, we need a model that’s sustainable when you look at the big picture – global economic trends, fuel costs, climate change, etc. – and not just what makes for a good headline over one, three or five years.

My heart goes out to everyone involved with Really Cool Foods – especially the workers and their families but even the people who worked hard to bring them here in the first place and the management who had to wrestle with a foundering enterprise along the way.

But one way to honor their pain and misfortune is to make sure it’s not repeated in the future, and that we find ways to be better stewards of the people and resources in our region.

Earlier today I attended the Indiana University 2012 Business Outlook Panel in its visit to Richmond.  It’s a group that “has presented national, state, and local economic forecasts for the coming year to business, political, and community leaders of Indiana” for the last 38 years.  I attended the same gathering back in 2005 and I have to say that today’s commentary wasn’t much different from what it was six years ago: “things are not great with the economy, but there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic.”

As I noted in my reflections from the 2005 event, there were a couple of troubling ideas that permeated the remarks, especially from the panelists looking at global and national trends.

The main one that I continue to struggle with is the idea that we just have to wait for the global economy to improve and drive things to get better at the national, state and local level.  In defending the power of globalism, one of the panelists even outright made fun of the idea of building a regionally self-reliant economy.

A more regional approach to economic development – instead of depending on the importation of resources from around the world – is exactly the approach that many others (myself included) are saying is key for communities like Richmond to surviving the increasingly intense effects of rising fuel prices, the falling value of the dollar and the destruction of the natural environment.  While I appreciate that there’s hope in what a thriving global economy might mean for midwestern cities, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to ask the people without jobs or credit or homes or disposable income to keep waiting it out, just another year or two.

Despite the inclusion of this troubling premise, the event was still interesting and perspective-bringing; some other tidbits shared by the panel:

• Political dysfunction at the national level is clearly eroding confidence in the ability of policy-makers (Congress and the President) to have any real effect on the economy
• To make sure we can survive through any kind of economic recovery, we have to address the Eurozone economic situation, stop implementing short-term, ineffective fixes domestically and start solving problems for the long term, open and evolve our financial system (“Federal reserve monetary policy currently penalizes people who save instead of rewarding them”), and pay attention to China’s emerging consumer culture.
• Despite the down economy, corporate earnings are up 11% and are expected to improve
• We have to do better at answering the question “what should investors do with their money?”  The market is too volatile, savings accounts don’t offer a return, and if we don’t have some good options, people will seek dangerous ways to get a higher rate of return (e.g. lending money to home-buyers who can’t actually afford it).
• Indiana has been hit harder than most states, using a quarter of a million jobs from 2007 to 2009.  Those jobs mostly aren’t coming back, in part because they’ve been lost from organizations that are more efficient and don’t need them any more.
• Private education and healthcare services are the two industries that are doing well in Indiana, with 36,000 jobs added in the last year.  The government sector has recently done well too as the result of stimulus fund application (there were 450,000 government jobs in Indiana as of May 2010) but that’s expected to level off or decline as those funds dry up.
• Housing sales in Indiana are down 3% and the average price of homes for sale are up 1% – not a good economic trend, and new housing construction has slowed significantly.

I also learned a new economic term that is very timely for my own hiring attempts at Summersault.  One of the event attendees asked the panel how they reconcile the issue of companies and organizations investing in lots of infrastructure and equipment to expand but then not being able to find qualified workers to fill those jobs.  The term for this is “structural unemployment” where there’s a mismatch between demand in the labor market and the skills and locations of the workers seeking employment.  Richmond is experiencing a form of this now, where we (including my company) have positions that are open but our workforce doesn’t always have the training or skills to fill them.  The panel didn’t offer any particular solution to this phenomenon, but the implication was that it is among our most serious challenges to solve.

Thanks to Indiana University East for sponsoring this event and to Reid Hospital for hosting it.  I hope it generates some useful conversation.

The dynamic duo have teamed up to do it again for Blog Indiana 2009, which starts later this week.  It looks to be an expanded and amplified version of the inaugural event – the conference will span three days with multiple tracks – blogging and social media, higher education, non-profit, etc. – and it sounds like there will be a lot more people there too (with great representation from Richmond).  Summersault has returned as an event sponsor, and I’m also presenting again, this time with a session on “Using Social Media for Real-World Community Improvement” and as a panelist in a session about “technology.”

I’ve apparently also been nominated for the award of “Best Hoosier Blogger” in the “2009 Blindy Awards,” and while I’m not saying that I will give you significant amounts of cash just because you click on this link and vote for me, I’m not saying I won’t do that either.

I’m looking forward to gathering with fellow bloggers and fans of technology, and sharing about how these tools can help us make life a little better for everyone.  I hope to see some of you there!

The Quaker college has tried for decades to get a traffic signal at its entrance, an effort that began soon after Earlham student David Rantanen was killed crossing the highway in 1962. Since then, two more people have died and several more were hit and injured by vehicles on the four-lane highway near the school’s main drive.

While the decision isn’t official, the concession on the part of state highway planners that a signal is needed is a major one.  I cringe when I’m in a car or walking as a pedestrian in that area, as it really is a game of “look both ways about 10 times and then cross your fingers and run for it” for pedestrians.  And while I ascribe no general ill will toward Earlham students on the part of Richmond drivers, it does seem to be a section of road that highlights the inherent disdain that some drivers have for pedestrians in this town.  Sometimes they even speed up a little when students are crossing, instead of slowing down.

The usual criticisms are already resurfacing: why should taxpayers pay for a crossing between two parts of a private campus, why didn’t Earlham just build a pedestrian bridge with its vast vaults of extra cash, etc.  (And as usual, critics are posting their demands for answers in the Pal-Item’s online comment section instead of taking them to the people who can actually answer them, which in my mind means they don’t really want an answer, they just want to complain.)

But I think we can generally address those concerns by remembering that all of us pay for infrastructure like roads, sidewalks, crossing signals, traffic lights, etc. that may or may not directly benefit our own daily commute – it’s nothing new to ask the entities that are responsible for managing that infrastructure to build some new ones in places that are needed.  The lives of pedestrians are no less worth protecting as they cross a public road, just because there happens to be privately owned land on either side…that’s pretty much how every residential street works.

Congratulations to Earlham for creatively staying on this and to the INDOT folks for (finally) taking heed.

1) Apparently, all you have to do to throw off the facial recognition software that protects us from identity theft or worse, is smile:

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is restricting glasses, hats, scarves — and even smiles — in driver’s license photographs. The new rules imposed last month were deemed necessary so that facial recognition software can spot fraudulent license applications, said BMV spokesman Dennis Rosebrough.

And then he had the gall to spin it as an improvement, since it would be horrible to admit that humans had done a better job:

The new technology represents an advancement of what the BMV already was doing, Rosebrough said. BMV employees always have looked at the old photo of a person to see if it looked like the person seeking a new license.

FAIL.

2) I was at a local video store yesterday, trying to rent a video using Anna Lisa’s account. I gave the cashier her phone number and name, and he said he’d have to call her to verify that it was okay for me to rent on her account. When she didn’t pick up, I offered to call her on my cell phone (in case she wasn’t picking up the call from an unknown number), and the cashier said, “okay, yeah, just ask her if it’s okay and then you can tell me what she said.”

FAIL.

I really appreciated that it was a “grassroots” conference, organized by Noah Coffey and Shawn Plew of Indianapolis, and not a big corporate conference organized by people trying to sell us stuff. Sure, there were corporate sponsors (Summersault was one of them), and there were some grumblings about session leaders spending too much time promoting their own products/services. But on the whole, this was a group of people who are passionate about new media and wanted to get together to see what else was out there, talk about some of the issues that come up, and just get to know each other better. Oh, and we also totally geeked out on Twitter.

I presented a session on Blogging Basics right at the start of the conference, and from what I can tell it was useful to the folks who were there – I think a few of them were starting blogs at the conference with some of my tips, which is great. As much as it was a technical talk, it was also a look at the culture and context of blogging in the Internet overall, and I really enjoyed spending some time looking at that.

I was also on a panel with Laurin Manning, Ruth Holladay, Joshua Gillespie, Steve Dalton, and Thomas Cook about how blogging and social media affects politics and the current election cycle. Things went okay, but we didn’t really have enough time to dive into some of the more interesting issues, and it was more of an orderly rotation of monologues than a panel discussion. That said, I hope it started some other conversations, and at least now I can say I was on a political panel with the Director of Political Operations for a presidential campaign.

I’m going to blog more about this later, but there’s something really great about remembering that, contrary to a lot of the messages out there about what it means to be successful on the Internet, you don’t have to be a Silicon Valley star or national figure to feel like you’re making a difference in the online world, and to some degree then, in the offline one. Travis touched on this nicely with his post about placeblogging – noting that it’s the textures of our everyday lives that end up being most relevant and interesting, not how many times we’re thrust into the spotlight in a sea of people who otherwise don’t connect very well to our own experiences. I feel more grounded in my “place” in the world of blogging and new media for having experienced those discussions with people who were not only in touch with the technologies, but who are also connected to this geographical place in some way.

This was amplified given that I was joined at the event by Richmond bloggers Anna Lisa Gross and John Dalton, and finally got to meet Doug Masson from Lafayette, whose blog I already follow regularly.

What’s next? Well, I hear that preparations for a 2009 Blog Indiana event are already underway. Locally, I’m hoping to be a part of producing a “New Media Summit” for Richmond and Wayne County, where we can explore some of these topics and do some of this education at an even more local level – stay tuned for more information on that soon, and let me know if you want to help make it happen.

Roundups and reflections from other bloggers:

• Blog Indiana 2008 Wrap-Up
• BlogIndiana conference: All good things must come to an end
• Blog Indiana Conference
• Technology-Enabled Attention Help
• BlogIndiana
• Blog Indiana Conference Notes and Presentation
• Noah’s Photos
• helloleticia’s Photos
• Photrade Gallery of Photos

Other related links:

• Blog Indiana 2008 Wiki
• Blogroll of conference participants
• Indianapolis Star article: IUPUI event helps bloggers find audience
• My delicious links tagged with “blogindiana”

And don’t forget that the Richmond blogger community is alive and well – if you have a blog missing from my list, please let me know.

The cool part is that the conference is only $49 for both days, and even cooler, I’ve got a 15% discount for you if you use this link to register. If you’re interested in blogging and social media at any level, I hope you can make it.