iftttwall

Mike Barry, the Dean of the South Texas College of Law, sent an insightful message to the students and faculty concerning the Houston Astros cheating scandal. With his permission, I reproduce it here.

—

I long have been a fan of baseball.  I particularly appreciate how baseball is, in many ways, a great metaphor for life.  For instance, baseball understands that one doesn’t succeed every time.  Indeed, a batter who fails on fewer than seven out of ten attempts is considered a pretty good hitter, and a team that wins 100 games (just under 62% of the 162 games each season) is considered exceptional; that’s a good reminder on days when things don’t necessarily go our way.

I also like that, as in real life, data can be used to improve performance, whether it is the spin on a slider or the likelihood that a batter will hit to a particular field; in the real world, we do the same (for instance, how we here are at South Texas are using data to assist those taking the bar exam so that they can succeed on their first attempt).  There also is a workmanlike quality to baseball, as the players are on the field virtually every day during the season –  going about their business, day in and day out; similarly, those in the working world face similar expectations.  And, the little things matter in baseball, whether it is the code of the game (don’t admire a home run you just hit, for instance) or how little improvements in a pitcher’s mechanics or a batter’s approach can yield significant results.  I find that in life, little things matter, too – such as how each of us can attempt to treat our coworkers and colleagues with respect and can try to improve, even just a little, on the day before.

But, the latest issues involving the Astros stealing signals in violation of Major League Baseball rules reveal some potentially significant life lessons, as well, for those of us in the study of the practice of law.  Here are three conclusions that I might ask you to consider, and some questions that those conclusions prompt:

First, culture starts at the top.  Many of you will run your own law firms.  Others will rise to prominent positions in government, the judiciary, business, and the legal community.  And, regardless of the role you find yourself in, you will be a leader for, at the very least, your clients and your staff.  You will set the tone for those who work for you and who work with you.  In the case of the Astros, one line from the findings (which are attached) is particularly telling:

Many of the players who were interviewed admitted that they knew the scheme was wrong because it crossed the line from what the player believed was fair competition and/or violated MLB rules. Players stated that if Manager A.J. Hinch told them to stop engaging in the conduct, they would have immediately stopped.

I added the emphasis.  If the manager – their on-field leader – had told the players to stop, they would have done so.  When you are a leader, your action – or your inaction – speaks volumes.  What you tolerate, you teach.  What you condone, you own.  Every leader must set not only a culture of ethical conduct, but must identify and eliminate behavior that deviates from that standard.  Here’s how the report identifies those responsibilities:

to adequately manage the employees under their supervision, to establish a culture in which adherence to the rules is ingrained in the fabric of the organization, and to stop bad behavior as soon as it occur[s].

At all times, each of us should ask two questions of ourselves:  Are you proud of the culture of the organization for which you have responsibility?  If not, what will you do as the leader to change it?

Second, mind the grey areas.  Some have suggested that the Astros’ practices were not specifically prohibited by the relevant rules at the time; others are convinced that the rules were explicit.  Regardless, there was enough specificity that players and the manager collectively knew that what they were doing wasn’t proper.   As attorneys in practice and students of the law, we understand better than most that there invariably are grey areas; in fact, we have a responsibility to represent our clients zealously, and much of that zealous representation is conducted in those interstices.  It is how we deal with those uncertainties, however, that reveals our character and our commitment to justice.  There is letter and spirit to the law.  There are larger issues of justice.  And, there often are issues beyond the legal concerns; personal, professional, and business interests typically must also be considered.  It is important not only to have your own moral compass to guide you through these grey areas, but also to have a group of trusted friends, mentors, and advisors to use as beacons and north stars.  The advantage of our profession is that there always are folks we can call when uncertain, individuals with more expertise and / or distance from the issue to help ensure that we are making the right calls.  Who are those mentors for you?  On whom can you rely for wisdom?

Third, actions have consequences, and reputations are easily damaged.  In this day and age, when just about everything we say, do, type, or search is recorded, we are creating a seemingly endless record of our actions.  As a result, it is increasingly unlikely that bad activities will remain undiscovered.  And, if and when that misconduct is identified, there will be a paper trail (in the case of the Astros, some 70,000 emails were reviewed).  Here, the Astros were fined the maximum amount possible under MLB’s constitution, lost several prime draft choices, and now have a perceptional asterisk next to their World Series victory.  Their reputation (and that of several of their leaders) is tarnished.  If an attorney were involved in a comparable scheme in the legal domain, sanctions could include the loss of the client’s case, financial penalties against the attorney and / or the client, and professional discipline for the attorney (up to and including disbarment – a prohibition on ever practicing again).  And, once an attorney’s reputation has been tarnished, an attorney can find it well-nigh impossible to restore it.  That is why we tell every 1L at Orientation that your reputation begins in law school – and that it should be jealously guarded.  Your actions will bolster or undercut your reputation.  Are you comfortable that your activities withstand that review?

There likely are many more lessons to be considered from this situation; I expect that the Harvard Business School and major magazines soon will publish a case study on the Astros and the leadership and management failures that permitted this scandal.  And, as with anything in sports, others may see the situation differently and reach different conclusions.  But for me, these three lessons – and the questions they prompt – seem most relevant for us in the practice and study of law.

The report concludes that the Astros created a culture “that valued and rewarded results over other considerations.”  We, as attorneys and leaders, have a responsibility – as officers of the court and as individuals entrusted by society with significant powers – to understand and weigh those other considerations, as well.  How we do so will reverberate for our clients, our professional careers, and our communities – potentially for years to come.

—

I agree entirely with Dean Barry. If a Professor was aware his students were cheating, but took no steps to stop the cheating, the Professor should be fired. If a Dean even had an inkling that students were cheating, but took no further actions to investigate, he should be fired.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2teynw1
via IFTTT

1/16/1919: The 18th Amendment is ratified.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2R28bOd
via IFTTT

In releasing a proposal to pay for single-payer—the fully government-financed health care system she calls Medicare for All—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) faced two challenges. The first was to produce a plan that did not raise taxes on the middle class. The second was to produce a plan that was simple to understand and easy to explain. As one anonymous outside adviser told The Washington Post, her campaign “want[ed] to figure out—with one go—how to stop the ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ question.”

As it turned out, she failed on both counts.

Warren’s plan, released at the beginning of November, starts with the fact that employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance for their workers. She aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget, transforming it into government spending. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount, equivalent to 98 percent of what they now spend, adjusted for the number of workers they employ, in order to help finance Medicare for All.

Warren claims “we don’t need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All.” Instead, she refers to this as an “employer Medicare contribution” under which companies “would send payments to the federal government for Medicare.”

But there is a commonly accepted term for requiring companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. Her plan is thus a nearly $9 trillion tax on employers, charged on a per-worker basis, with exceptions for small businesses. That would inevitably end up affecting employees’ compensation. It is hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.

Warren has argued that total costs for middle-class families would go down under her plan, but there are reasons to doubt this, including an analysis from Emory University health care economist Kenneth Thorpe finding that under Medicare for All, more than 70 percent of people who currently have private insurance would see costs increase. A separate analysis from the liberal Urban Institute projects that single-payer plans would raise national health care spending by $7 trillion over a decade, contrary to Warren’s estimates.

Other outside experts, meanwhile, have suggested that Warren’s plan will cost more than she anticipates and raise less revenue. In an analysis of the fiscal effects of Warren’s plan, Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, estimates that she would end up increasing deficits by about $15 trillion over a decade.

That’s because Warren doesn’t account for the likely economic ripple effects her plan would almost certainly cause; instead, she assumes that even with an array of new taxes and fees on businesses and wealthy individuals, economic growth would continue without change. Corporate tax rates would go from 21 percent to 35 percent, which, as Roy notes, “would have a meaningful [negative] effect on employment and economic growth, especially in the manufacturing sector and other capital-intensive industries.” This allows her to claim far more tax revenue than is realistic.

In addition, Warren assumes that by moving nearly all of America’s health care financing to the federal government, administrative costs—the overhead that supports the actual delivery of care—can be cut down to levels that few independent experts believe possible. Warren also calls for paying hospitals 110 percent of today’s Medicare rates, reducing the cost of her plan by a little more than $4.2 trillion relative to other projections. Yet faced with political pressure from hospitals, which are typically paid much higher average rates due to private insurance, state-based programs in blue states like Washington and Maryland have ended up paying far higher amounts.

For Warren, however, realism is clearly not the point. She released her plan after months of pressure to explain precisely how she would finance the tens of trillions in new government spending that even the cheapest, most implausibly efficient version of a full-fledged single-payer system would require. Just as World War I generals used wooden tanks to fool enemy infantry, Warren has enlisted a legion of implausible savings mechanisms and unworkable tax hikes, hoping to look convincing from afar.

Warren did not come up with a plan to pay for Medicare for All. Instead, she concocted a $52 trillion package of fanciful assumptions and unworkable reforms, and figured out how to pay for that.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2szBWMU
via IFTTT

In Australia, the government of the state of Western Australia has defended the use of emergency services levy money to fund artwork for fire stations. The government has a long-standing, bipartisan policy that 1 percent of the cost any public buildings costing over $2 million must go to art. Some firefighters and government officials say emergency services levy funds should only go to firefighting equipment. But Emergency Services Minister Francis Logan says there’s plenty of money to go around, noting that funding of brush fire battalions has increased by an average of 4.5 percent a year.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2tmg87L
via IFTTT