Wendy N. Powell

The Tax Man Targeting our Right to Diversity of Thought

2013-05-17T11:25:09-04:00

The governmental agency with the reputation for extreme and the most practical power over people's livelihood is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They have the ability to take away, garnish wages, and require you to leap at their request. They do not have the ability to regulate your thoughts and political affiliations. Or do they? There is a new reason to avoid the Tax Man. Stunning evidence is growing that they have done just that.

Simply put, this powerful independent agency of the Treasury Department, of the Executive Branch of government regulates, counts and collects beans. How they have become an instrument of political activity is a question that needs to be answered for preservation of our American liberties. What could be the political gain for the tax guy?

We need to recognize the new reality afoot that your conclusions and political affiliations may cost you. The affiliation du jour is being conservative. This may or may not be a new IRS problem but we likely find out soon.

The targeting of almost 500 conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the past three years is a critical example of American political posturing. It is the jaw-dropping uniqueness of targeting these groups for the purpose of scrutinizing nonprofit applications for tax-exempt status. This has created unprecedented bipartisan disdain that leaves us questioning the focus of this agency, who ordered this, who created this initiative that reeks of tax-exempt bias. It doesn't only reek; it screams bias and possible criminality.

IRS agents, from a yet to be disclosed agency level, were put on notice to be on the lookout for conservative sounding "triggers" such as the Tea Party, Liberty, Patriot, Constitution preservation, government spending, making America a better place, Christian and pro-Israel, bells and whistles. These triggers alerted the IRS "thought police" to go into action. With this criterion, they required applicants to play ball with them, squeezing their energy, diverting funding, and time away from their organization's mission.

According to CNN:

"Among the criteria used by IRS officials to flag applications was a 'Be On the Look Out' list which was discontinued in 2012, according to the report. The criteria
included:

-- Whether 'Tea Party,' 'Patriots' or '9/12 Project' was referenced in the case file.
-- Whether the issues outlined in the application included government spending, government debt or taxes.
-- Whether there was advocating or lobbying to 'make America a better place to live.'
-- Whether a statement in the case file criticized how the country is being run.
-- Whether it advocated education about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They delayed their applications and demanded answers to dozens of these intrusive questions that included names of affiliations, contributions, Facebook posts, and emails. Many of these requests for information will be scrutinized for the legality of the data requests. Many, if not most nonprofit organizations do not have the financial resources to create burdensome materials to accompany their requests for tax-exempt status. Many gave up the fight, some spent thousands of dollars to create the responses to the IRS, many were required to provide personal information about their donors and information about those they intend to educate including minors.

This is a clear assault on our rights to diverse views and freedom of association. The reality is that the "tax man" has become a political kind of guy, recklessly targeting the right, ironically becoming their own political machine. Without swift investigation, resolution, and accountability for this IRS scandal, any one of us could become a target based on our political thoughts and association. What we all have in common regardless of our political lean is the rule of law. And the law is clear that we have freedom of speech and freedom of association.

President Obama announced that this situation is "intolerable and inexcusable" and has "directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to hold accountable those who made mistakes in the Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of conservative groups."

Senior IRS Official Lois Lerner apologized for the inappropriate targeting that occurred during the 2012 election but claims that it was not politically motivated. Simply put, Ms. Lerner, the one thing that is crystal clear about this controversy is that it is a political intrusion into our affiliations. IRS leadership became aware of these problems in 2011.

We need to demand answers about how deeply infused these issues are in the IRS. Initially it was reported to be an isolated rogue incident but it was quickly realized that there were at least three locations, including Washington D.C., and California, that involved targeting conservatives.

The IRS admits they used inappropriate methods with conservative groups. But we need strong assurance that this type of targeting will not continue and will not expand to other possibly illegal forms of scrutiny. This cannot become a specter, societal norm that the IRS can use to target us based on our constitutional right to free association. Failure to see appropriate resolution and accountability will result in growing sentiment of righteous indignation from all political parties.

U.S. Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan is calling this likely an issue of mismanagement: It's miles beyond bad management; it is about harassment and singling out Americans based on their political ideology. House Ways and Means Committee hearings will begin on Friday. Is this managerial incompetence or a concerted political effort?

We all have skin in this game to maintain our liberties. It is an ironic turn of events that the very issue of inappropriate scrutiny of our liberties is now the focus of the IRS by the public, media, elected officials; even the ACLU has raised its head.

We must remember that the IRS will be a critical component of regulation of Obamacare. Much work needs to be done to assure appropriate compliance with coming attractions.

Mr. President, It's Lonely on the Administration Side of the Bargaining Table

2012-12-30T23:44:11-05:00

President Obama is in the throes of the biggest financial challenge of his political career. The looming fiscal cliff will affect all Americans, quite likely to trigger a new recession if not averted. That is all Americans, not just the nouveau riche of the $400,000 set; it will affect us all. On the other side of the fiscal cliff, we would find finger pointing, blame, and change without hope.

Obama has reminded us that he won the election; he did. The definition of "rich" has been contracted from his initial $1 million salary; fair game? He promised to raise taxes on the rich in his campaign.

The president is at the very top of the government pecking order. In fact, he is the only person on the administration side of the bargaining table. It is a very lonely place with The House and Senate representing the American electorate with dramatically different posturing on the other side. President Obama's role as chief executive officer of the United States is to lead through these difficulties, reasonably review proposals to make certain we can tax appropriately while affording our expenditures. He is the driver, the head of this conglomerate called the United States. Being a strong supporter of collective bargaining, Obama must find himself in a conflicted role reversal of sorts.

In very relevant comparison to collective bargaining, there are expected norms that both sides must follow. That includes respect for negotiators, positions and interests, and fair evaluation of the proposals. This does not include disparaging comments and automatic rejection of proposals and solutions.

Speaker of the House John Boehner put a package on the bargaining table that reflects President Obama's previous bargaining position; a tax increase for those wage earners of $1 million or more along with spending cuts. But the rules of negotiations have changed. Obama won the election. In his victory speech, he said, "In the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together: reducing our deficit; reforming our tax code..."

He is now strengthening his resolve. His most memorable campaign promise was a tax hike for the "rich" and he won.

His goal of putting the U.S. on a path to cut deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years provides movement, but his plan proposes $1.3 trillion in new spending and an unlimited debt ceiling that is ready to blow. Not long ago, Obama warned that raising taxes in a struggling economy is "the last thing you want to do," but that is exactly what is happening. Most lawmakers think it is likely that we will not be able to resolve the fiscal cliff. A bitter pill provides difficult posturing.

An overwhelming number of voters, however, also realize that raising taxes will not in and of itself solve the budget crisis. While many Americans support tax increases for higher paid households, it is likely that changes in the tax code would resolve the issue more effectively. Sixty-seven percent think more will need to be done to close the budget deficit, compared to 19 percent that think tax increases alone will work and 12 percent who aren't sure.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the result of the fiscal cliff on American household would range from an increase of $1,064 for household income of $20,000 to $30,000; on a graduated scale to $254,637 for income of $1 million.

The president, the House and the Senate need to review the pulse of the American public. It's not only about a win in the presidential election. According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal:

• 68% view the fiscal cliff as very serious or serious
• 65% want to see compromise to reduce the deficit and cut spending
• Only 28% want to see Washington stick to their positions.

A similar Fox News poll revealed similar results:

• 89% want to see major cuts in spending
• 83% Democrats
• 91% Independents
• 95% Republicans

Rasmussen reports highest ever support for reduced government spending at 73 percent.

Washington, this is your electorate speaking. In any responsible and productive negotiation, facts and opinions are critical aspects of the outcome, most certainly the positions and opinions of constituents.

The fiscal cliff negotiation is a model for bad faith bargaining. Instead of accusations by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of wasting time and DOA proposals, public criticism and name calling, they need to take a critical look at the desires of the electorate. Reid referring to Speaker Boehner as a dictator does not foster cooperation in negotiations. Public perception is critical and the lack of fairness in this looming negotiation could result in taxpayer apathy. The result? Americans suffer, adjust withholding, reduce spending, slowing the economy.

In a sense, the elected officials that represent the American people are losing sight of what matters in the sake of their political views. The American electorate and economy is what needs to be in full view and primary consideration. The legacy that will remain long after the fiscal cliff negotiations are over is on the administration side of the table, the president. We will remember who the president was at the time of the fiscal cliff, but not too many other players.

Haunted by "Ghosts of Bosses Past"?

2012-12-11T14:13:58-05:00

'Tis the season for gatherings and good cheer with friends and colleagues present and past. But do these gatherings provide you with memories of bad experiences with bad bosses, bullies perhaps?

When you have experienced the wrath of a bad manager, particularly a bully, it is easy to get "haunted" by their behaviors. It makes you wonder, how long does these post traumatic waves of painful memories affect your lifestyle and career? Understand bullying for what it is: a displaced display of power that targeted you. Perhaps in extreme cases you may have lost your job, scaled down your lifestyle, and changed careers. But how do you get over being bullied?

According to BullyOnline.org, "The target of bullying tries harder and harder to avoid saying or doing anything which reminds them of the horror of the bullying." (You can learn more here.)

I ran into a former colleague the other day and felt the virtual and all too familiar wave of anxiety that comes with the experience of being bullied... we both did. Memories, flashbacks of struggling in a workplace where a bully was able to wreak havoc washed over me. The feelings of hopelessness, confusion and loss of self-confidence returned. It was like a frozen state without hope of resolution but I moved on, at least to some degree. According to experts, on some level, this is considered a reaction to post-traumatic stress. It makes us wonder if the demoralizing effects of the bully ever go away.

We were both targets of this bully and it showed. It brought back bad memories of being targets. But can you escape their effects and power over you? How long does it last? Try to cope with the blend of bad and good experiences to move on? Realize that you are not alone.

According to a 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute National Survey, 35 percent of us have been bullied at work. Realizing there is no automatic resolution. I have developed my own practical method to get the "ghosts of bosses past" out of the way:

Concentrate on the fact that bullies often do themselves in, poetic justice of sorts. Their bullying tendencies turn inward and in my personal experience, it happened just that way. Does that provide satisfaction? Some, but it is comforting that one particular bully will no longer be able to affect others.

Change your focus to change the future. This is important for the healing of all forms of post-traumatic stress and remember, you were the target of a bully's power play, not a lasting victim.

Never lose the thought that bullies focus attention on their targets for reasons that were personal to them. Don't carry the bully's shortcomings into the future.

If you observe bullying of others; step up. They need your support.

Remember, your job is not your life; it supports your livelihood. A bully may affect you but does not define you.

Reach out to help others in need. Helping others and performing acts of kindness yield amazing results including increased self-confidence and satisfaction. Make a conscious decision to heal by helping and educating others. I do just that.

Give yourself back the confidence that proper feeding and care and the right perspectives will provide, feeding your self confidence that is. Consciously decide to back-burner these feelings. Perhaps, they won't return. The present and future belong to you, not the bully. It has been said that recognizing your problem starts you on the road of recovery. Unresolved grief and anger about being bullied can follow you to your next career opportunity or at least your next encounter with a former colleague. Recognize it, get assistance if necessary, and rely on your strengths.

From my experience, ranging from investigating cases of bullying to being a personal target, it is clear that unless you take your psyche to a level of resolution, you have let the bully take you over and in that case, he/she wins. It takes concentration, effort, and practice to turn away your focus. Concentrate on your future pursuits and the strengths.

Remember, all of the "ghosts of bosses past" are not bullies. Countless more are the fine individuals who have helped you mold your career along the way. Change your focus from helplessness to confidence. Remember, where you are in your career, it's a blend of both positive and negative experiences. Learn from them all.

The bully does not define you. Your career and experiences have lasted much longer than the intended effects of the bully. Remember, you were a target, not a victim.

Above all, don't let the lasting effects of a bully define you. Need help? The Workplace Bullying Institute is an excellent source.

'Stand Down' for Veterans Day -- Then Get Them Back to Work

2012-11-09T00:15:33-05:00

"Stand down veteran" is just what I would say on one special day every year. Our country celebrates Veterans Day by closing banks, government offices, and schools. It is a federal holiday intended to honor veterans of the United States Armed Forces. We give a day off to some Americans in recognition, but are we really recognizing the right people we intend to honor?

Each year, I watch my favorite veteran, former Army Sergeant Powell go to work like it's any other day of the week. On his way, he drives by closed schools; he can't get his banking done, cannot mail a letter, notices lighter traffic. But it is a regular day of work for him and most veterans... but he has a job. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for many of our country's finest. They need jobs.

Let's not forget to recognize the vets at work by giving them thanks for their service to our country. Make a positive spectacle of them. Buy them lunch, celebrate with a cake, and let them leave early, or give them the day off. Despite the fact that our federal holiday doesn't provide vets with R&R, create your own policy to recognize them but please don't disregard their service to country.

While we talk about giving veterans a holiday from work, we need to think about getting them back to work.

Veterans need our help. Based on these remarkable statistics:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: The unemployment rate for veterans who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time since September 2001 -- a group referred to as Gulf War-era II veterans -- was 12.1 percent in 2011. (over four percent higher than the average American) The jobless rate for all veterans was 8.3 percent.

But the young veteran (ages 18 through 24) the unemployment rate is 29.1 percent, 11.5 percent higher than the same non-military age group unemployment rate of 17.6 percent.

Stunning news and a reminder for Veterans Day: In a rare and overwhelmingly bi-partisan move in Congress, the VOW to Hire Heroes Act was passed on November 10, 2011 and is proposed to be extended for at least four years.

The purpose: improve the employment possibilities and transition from active military to civilian jobs and provide incentives to employers to hire veterans.

Provisions of the VOW Act include:
• A tax credit of up to $5,600 for hiring out of work vets unemployed for more than six months and a step down amount of $2,400 for hiring the vets unemployed for more than four weeks.
• A tax credit up to $9,600 for hiring vets with service-connected disabilities who have been unemployed for more than six months
• Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to provide career counseling
• Expands education opportunities for older veterans with up to one year of GI education benefits.

Additional reimbursements under the Special Employer Incentives (SEI) are available for employers who hire veterans including up to 50 percent of the veteran's salary for up to six months for instruction and training.

What is not to like about these initiatives? This defines the philosophy of "win-win." Now we are talking about real, meaningful initiatives that would make a difference in veterans' lives. This is a shining example of public money well spent. Employers, check out these options for assisting veterans and receive tax breaks and reimbursements for your efforts.

Don't forget, if you want to treat your favorite vet, there are many initiatives and specials offered to veterans including free national park admission, discounts at restaurants and stores. Check out The Military Wallet. They provide updates on discounts and stunning recognition, for our country's finest.

And, remember, you can help a wounded veteran and their families at the phenomenal Wounded Warrior Project or help a vet through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Happy Veterans Day and a personal thank you to my family, friends, and many of my students who have proudly and bravely served. And God bless the memories of the beloved fallen Americans who lost their lives in the act of defending our American freedoms.

And please remember fallen veterans, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Air Force veteran Sean Smith upholding the military philosophy of "no one left behind" by their valiant attempts to save Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and our embassy in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2012.

Booyah! And never forget our veterans!

The Ultimate in Style and Grace: The Legacy of Becca Kirtman

2012-09-04T16:06:55-04:00

Rebecca "Becca" Kirtman was a special teen with an enormous heart and resolve. At the young age of 15, she was already working on the framework for what was to become her legacy, "Becca's Closet." Becca, a cheerleader and National Honor Society student with a penchant for making life better for those less fortunate, created a program for donation and distribution of formal dresses for students who would not otherwise be able to afford to attend the Ball, prom, homecoming, or other formal high school affairs in style. By her sophomore year, she single handedly collected and distributed 250 dresses to students.

In 2002, I had the pleasure to meet Becca at the home of my dear friend, her Aunt Jackie. Becca was a lovely and polished teen dressed in a stylish cropped shirt, and hip hugging pants, ready for fun. I recall her doing the normal teenage routine, hanging out with her cousins and my son at the local National Coney Island. Becca was striking, not just a meet and greet, she was memorable, grounded beyond her years and had a purpose. By that time, Becca was already on her way to making her dream a reality.

Becca was to become an angel way too soon. A year later, nine years ago this week, a tragic accident took her home to God. But Becca's amazing family has kept her memory and passion alive through her legacy. They knew her zeal for living and helping young women all too well, helping them get ready for the rites of passage into the formal event world.

Immediately after Becca's passing, her family formed the non-profit organization, "Becca's Closet." I went to Becca's Closet in Ft. Lauderdale and observed young women excitedly sifting through beautiful and gently used gowns, transforming them into Cinderella for the ball, right under the smiling picture of Becca on the wall. The only qualification for the students: They had the need for the gown, and proof that they are a high school student (school photo ID presented at their appointment), nothing more.

While many hear about Becca's Closet from teachers and counselors, individuals can make their own appointment. Through happy tears, I saw Becca's parents, Jay and Pam, and volunteers assist the young women to find the dress that could change their young social lives; Impressive and remarkable to say the least. This was nothing short of magic, all because of Becca's high school dream for the student's life changing moments at the direction of Becca's plan.

And Becca lives on in that dream. Many volunteer-run Becca's Closet chapters have donated hundreds of thousands of gowns to young women around the country, in the Bahamas and Singapore. Donations come from private donations from individuals, dress manufacturers, and retailers. Since 2004, the foundation has awarded more than $100,000 in post- secondary scholarships to high school seniors who demonstrate exemplary service to their schools and communities and are committed to a lifetime of community service. Becca's Closet and its volunteers have been featured on NBC, CNN, MTV, VH1 and many news outlets.

Becca would have celebrated her 25th birthday this year. Her life is celebrated every time a young woman graces the ball with the spirit of her dream. This story and legacy is nothing short of spectacular, the living plan of Becca and her loving family.

I can't think of a better demonstration of style or grace than the legacy of this young lady with a dream.

Please take a look at your own dresses in your own closet that have created your memorable, life changing moments. Perhaps someone is waiting to create their own with your help. Help keep Becca's legacy alive.

Fly Like an Olympian

2012-08-22T13:24:55-04:00

The Olympic torch has been extinguished and the bouquets have wilted. The Olympics are over, but the amazement of the talent, the anticipation of greatness in action remains part of our wonderment. I miss the Games mostly because I enjoy watching success in a time when we see so much failure and dissension. The Olympic Games are a snapshot in time but Olympians live their lives consistently devoted to their success, harnessed skill, passion, and sacrifice. Curiosity remains about what it takes to achieve and maintain that glory and lifestyle.

The Olympics provides a unique look at a world where athletes can compete with men in unstylish speedos, women in bikini bottoms that could have wardrobe malfunctions at any moment, and a new American Olympic hero with a controversial hairstyle and penchant for a snack that was criticized as unhealthy.

Some have won -- in fact, Michael Phelps has been named the most decorated Olympian of all time. Some have lost and experience as they say, the agony of defeat. Expectations have been fulfilled and some have realized gripping disappointment. It peaks our curiosity about the lessons learned from the success and failure of the Olympic athletes and how it applies to our everyday existence.

Olympians are exceptional human beings -- they have learned to fly. Whether it's propelling from a mat on the floor reaching irrational heights, flipping on the uneven bars, propelling into space for the perfect dive, or running in fast forward; they fly, defy gravity as we know it. Like a Peter Pan story where he found his "happy thought" and learned to fly, they uniquely have learned to harness their passion and energy while maintaining their convictions and faith. Why can't we all harness that power whatever our passion may be?

We need to ask ourselves, what is it that we are willing to do and sacrifice to reach the stars? Is it foregoing our family relationships as many Olympians must do? Would you be able to change your living conditions or take a step back and finance your goals? Is it the pursuit of an advanced degree to stand out from the competition? Or is it the time, devotion, and self-denial required to practice and grow to reach our personal best?

Do you picture yourself in the role of success and concentrate on goals and celebrate small victories along the way? Olympians do just that.

We can't forget that listening to those who have lost is as meaningful as those who have won. The winners will continue their successful workouts to get stronger, striving for more excellence with a new-found confidence. But most who went home without a medal around their neck don't hang their head and say "poor me." Quite the contrary, they shed their tears, then evaluate where the winners were great, what went wrong, and where they need to improve, how to soar to reach their dreams.

American gymnast Aly Raisman chose to personally recognize the 40th anniversary of the fallen Israeli Olympians who were murdered at the 1972 Munich Olympics in her own way. She chose "Hava Nagila" as her background music for her floor exercise. The International Olympic Committee chose to avoid public commemoration of the event but our gold medalist Aly did it in her way, happily and uniquely American. It is her personal passion that likely boosted her to gold with clapping of the crowd, success through passion.

To the pundits who criticized gold medalist Gabby Douglas for her hairstyle and used the opportunity to mock her fast food celebration, "get a grip on the American style." Gabby demonstrated All American style, grace, class, and faith in God stating, "the glory goes up to Him, and the blessings fall down on me." This American girl has been raised to focus, do without, demonstrate her beliefs. She holds on to her convictions and lives comfortably in her passion and goals.

Michael Phelps can proudly wear his medals and enjoy his status as the most decorated Olympian; Usain Bolt can brag about his athletic prowess as the fastest human; Ali can proudly display her heritage and commemorate Israel's loss in her unique way; and Gabby can praise God, select whatever hair style suits her, and can eat whatever McDonald's fast food reward she wants. They all deserve their glory and their celebrations. They have found their "happy thoughts" and maybe their "happy meals," and focus on what makes them fly.

It is a wonderment that the Olympians perform the feats that make them appear super human but when we look at the devotion and focus required for greatness, it is no mystery. Despite the drive and dedication, many Olympians live in poor conditions and claim asylum. This year, 21 missing athletes and delegates have claimed asylum in England or are missing.

We can't all be Olympians but we can identify and strive for our personal best and maintain our convictions and faith as well. We want to capture personal success and we must decide if we are willing to do what is required for greatness. They all share a sense of conviction, focus, passion, and self-confidence that makes them soar.

Shall we try?

Another Casualty of the Chick-fil-A Saga

2012-07-30T18:48:25-04:00

Donald Perry VP of Corporate Relations at Chick-fil-A suddenly died of a heart attack amid the controversy of calls to boycott the restaurant due to the religious beliefs of their CEO and President Dan Cathy. Mr. Perry had been embroiled in the controversy about Mr. Cathy's personal beliefs about gay marriage. This is not only about the personal beliefs of President Cathy; this has everything to do with our freedoms. The boycott may wane but the political issues and attack on personal and religious beliefs will live on.

Chick-fil-A didn't hang out a shingle announcing the views of the CEO; there was no denial of service to anyone; no hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation. Most people go there for chicken, no lesson in morality or religion, nothing more.

This popular restaurant that serves great chicken has been chastised and quite literally run out of town because of religious beliefs.

Chick-fil-A was told to stay out of Chicago by Rahm Emanuel who said, "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values."

What are those values that businesses must comply with to meet that definition? Do people need to check their personal beliefs at the door to the city? And is there going to be a morality test in Chicago to pick and choose businesses based upon religion, national origin, or any of our protected classes? Will they conduct an audit of existing businesses to make sure they comply as well?

And in Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino announced Chick-fil-A doesn't belong there. It makes you wonder how far and wide this goes and what other businesses don't belong there. Menino has walked back his comments realizing that he did not have that power. But after the chicken is out of the coop, it's tough to get it back.

The power of our elected officials has eroded to the level of skimming our coveted First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, religion, and expression. We wonder what is next, banning of Muslims from doing business in Detroit, Jews doing business in Utah? What about Chinese restaurants? Does the city agree with their religious and political philosophies?

My philosophy is that we all have different views and convictions; live with it. Last year, President Obama held the same opinion as the president of Chick-fil-A. We have the ability to patronize who we want and who we don't, so be it. Boycott them if you want, but we all enjoy our freedoms and that includes the ability to purchase a darn good chicken sandwich if we wish to do so.

This is a sad casualty of a new trend of erosion of our freedoms. There is a troublesome focus on "broad brush" and sweeping power of some elected officials. We elect individuals to represent the views of their electorate... or not. Can they act on their personal views to the point that businesses are prohibited from doing businesses within their purview? We need be assured that the political wind doesn't blow too far away from the public. But I realize that we live by sound Constitutional principles. After all, our elected officials swear to uphold that very critical document.

The Muppets have even made the scene, severing ties with Chick-fil-A. They have said "What would Kermit do?" That is certainly their right but they have taken it to a level that mocks our freedoms. "Don't mess with the Muppets. You'll end up looking like a fool." But using character puppets for Heaven's sake, to joke and speak out against constitutionally protected rights on either side of that coin, sorry, not appropriately a laughing matter. And who is Kermit to make a fool out of anyone?

Potential Green Party presidential candidate Roseanne Barr tweeted: "Anyone who eats S*** Fil-A deserves to get cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ." She tried to walk it back but as we know, that chicken has left the coop. The message was received, enough said.

This matter is much larger than Chick-fil-A; the purchasing public has a short memory but this speaks volumes about our freedoms. Most of us believe in the philosophy of live and let live. Some believe, if you don't agree with me you should not exist.

Let's not erode our rights that we hold so dearly. Even the ACLU recognized that Chick-fil-A has a right to do business. And rest in peace Mr. Perry. You personally did not ask for this fight.

Business Owners and Developers: Give Credit Where It's Due

2012-07-18T13:20:05-04:00

It's time to re-evaluate your business to determine who is "credit worthy" for your personal sweat and financial equity.

President Obama, in a speech on July 13 in Roanoke, Virginia told a cheering crowd of his supporters, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

"We are all in this together" -- right?

Right, as a business owner, you may ask yourself:

"Who was with me when the sweat equity was being performed to acquire the necessary education, perform feasibility studies, create a business plan, invest my own money, seek out funding, and location? Who shared my passion? Did you place your life on hold and risk your personal life to make a successful go at the business?" Perhaps, did you put personal relationships, marriages, having children on hold to create your lifestyle?

Many companies literally used hammers and nails and created their business locations from the ground up. A village did not show up to help their company. Government did not make that happen. Companies paid for permits, engineering, labor, all not free.

And what road blocks were put in my way? What regulations and laws do I need to consider that may stifle my success and growth? How will I know when I will be able to expand and what considerations are necessary such as unknown health insurance costs, LLC fees, and taxes.

While I was in school molding my knowledge base, were there others at home watching their favorite sitcoms? Were they planning to rely on my personal educational experiences? You bet. I received student loans that must be paid back. There was no assistance there. It came out of my bank account.

Statistics about new business creation (employers of approximately one-half of American workers) and the success rate reveal startling statistics:

Seven of ten new companies survive two years, 50% last five years. That is gambling of personal finances and lifestyle to bet on success or not. Most companies do not receive or request a handout -- loans yes; free money, no.

Companies must evaluate costs to comply with governmental regulations, again not free and line items on their budgets. They range from a cost per employee of $7,755 to $10,585 depending upon the size of the institution.

Companies pay taxes for road improvements, often significant levies for businesses; they pay for the Internet, that is not free. They pay for their marketing, all part of their business plans and expenses.

Small businesses largely rely on their own human and sweat capital along with loans from banks. That is loans from banks that they must pay back using their profits and revenues. This is not free or found money. My small business was formed from deductions from my 401(k) as many are. There was no assistance. I built it alone and no one outside of my home made it happen.

We must ask ourselves, when is it that we need to get a piece of that business' pie? Is it in the business development stage or perhaps after companies realize success?

To whom do we need to provide recognition and when if at all? I see much due recognition in my classrooms for the students who want a level of lifestyle that they are preparing to work for. I respect that.

What do you think you need to credit and what is your experience?

Doggone It, Our Own USA Olympic Team Doesn't Buy American?

2012-07-14T14:24:22-04:00

One thing you can be sure of, our USA Olympic Team is true blue. That is red, white, and blue under sheep's clothing. Breaking news: their opening ceremony uniforms are made in China with a French beret on top. Could these uniforms designed by Ralph Lauren have been made in the US? Of course they could. The last I remember, we have an entire section of New York City known as the garment district that could have and should have created their uniforms, the shame of it all.

According to the designer the outfits embody "the spirit of American athleticism and sportsmanship" and this is not the first time that Ralph Lauren has snubbed the American label in the Olympics. The same thing happened in 2008. I guess short memories prevail.

Made in China doesn't embody the American spirit, or does it?

More importantly, it makes me wonder why anyone associated with the US Olympic Team thought it remotely appropriate to offshore our uniforms that contain our trademark. Wear American made or nothing at all.

How about a concerted effort to buy American if you can?

But, speaking of games, "olly, olly, oxen free", come out from hiding if you can! It's more of a sad Olympic sized game of "hunt and seek" but you come up empty handed. Find the hidden object folks and good luck to you.

My proud Midwestern-rooted family has been on a search for American made products. We go into stores, any stores, with cash in hand ready to purchase items manufactured by our own. Let me tell you, it doesn't take much money, and you certainly won't go broke shopping. Why? Because there is a real scarcity American made products, period. And companies don't get much revenue on the American made dime. Higher wages prevail. Try it; it makes a critical point.

It's a priceless experience to walk into stores and tell them that you want to buy their products but only something made in America. Generally, they say, "No problem, right over here, or there." But the products don't exist. Sales associates scoff at the question, "You aren't serious, are you?" No, I am dead serious. But we end up keeping our wads of cash in our wallets because there just aren't many products to purchase.

Diane Sawyer of ABC News had the right idea. She challenged Americans to find American-made products that they can recommend to all of us to buy in support of our country. We can revisit the mom and pop shops, small businesses that are struggling.

In this year of political punditry, this is not about Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. This has become about the all American USA Olympic Team not supporting the American made label. This did not happen overnight folks, it evolved from a World friendly "group hug" point of view. Tacit approval and purchases only support the lack of US manufacturing.

We wonder where American manufacturing went. We wonder about the high rate of unemployment and we wonder where our hard earned dollars go. There is no need to look any farther than your local and national stores.

We need to take a page from our fore fathers. When our country was experiencing the Industrial Revolution when manufacturing was king, we protected our products by creating tariffs on imported goods. We protected jobs by putting a stamp on our products for all to realize the necessity of supporting our own growth of economy. And it worked.

It's nothing new that American companies struggle to pay the high wages that our own workers command. We pay pensions, benefits, and other entitlements that are ever increasing the cost of employment. Regulatory agencies are regulating and taxes are taxing. Let's face it; labor is cheaper off shore.

Take a look at here. You won't see any Olympic uniforms there.
but be prepared for sticker shock. It is part of the reality that we call globalization. Don't forget, they can manufacture and produce goods far cheaper than we.

We are becoming a post-industrial nation when countries that manufacture and export their products to the U.S.A. are thriving and growing on their newly found capitalism, largely on our dime.

Will I cheer for the USA Team in Chinese clothing? Of course I will but it makes a cynical statement about the future of manufacturing in the USA. But, Americans, it's time to take the reins and call in our own financial cavalry. We are losing this competition.

Let the Olympians wear the traditional Olympic costumes or nothing at all, same difference.

How Is This for Affordable Health Care? Question the Health and Human Services' New $20 Million PR Firm Hired to Tout Obamacare

2012-05-24T17:29:43-04:00

The last I looked, the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare, was under the ultimate scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if it will be stricken down as unconstitutional or deemed legally sound. Evidence has been presented and a decision is expected in June. Concurrently, we have an uncontested financial crisis.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has just secured a new contract with leading PR firm Porter Novelli for a whopping $20 million to communicate the benefits of Obamacare. The goal of the new multimedia ad campaign is to educate people about staying healthy and preventing illnesses, according to The Hill. As of yet, there is no information about this contract on the HHS website. A self-professed Washington, D.C., insider and President Obama's former campaign on-air surrogate Kiki McClean is the managing director of Porter Novelli's Washington firm that won the contract in a reported competitive bidding process.

Now this communication campaign appears untimely at the very least and an expenditure that is clearly extravagant. This impending PR campaign is irresponsible when there is a Supreme Court decision expected in the not-too-distant future that may affect the very existence of the Affordable Health Care Act. This is a premature waste of taxpayer money. This is wrong on so many levels.

Surprisingly, the HHS employs a startling 83,745 employees, and is one of our largest government agencies. Granted, those 83,745 employees work in a diverse arm of the government handling the health issues of the American public including health and social science research, food and drug safety, disease prevention, child abuse, violence prevention. But in my experience, outside contractors should not be hired unless there is no one capable of providing this service and expertise on the payroll. This is even more critical in the public government sector.

The message is that there is no one in the staff of 83,745 employees who can tout, explain and communicate the benefits of Obamacare. This PR campaign was apparently budgeted and planned as part of the Affordable Care Act. But why are they doing this now? It has been more than two years since The Affordable Health Care Act was signed into law in March 2010. Why wouldn't the public affairs arm of the HHS handle communication concerning health recommendations? Is there no one capable there either? Is this not the very reason they exist?

When can we remember a publicly funded advertising campaign directly related to a Supreme Court case that is in the deliberation process? Should SCOTUS be sequestered to keep them out of the political eye of the government sponsored public relations campaign?

We may wonder about Congressional vetting of these types of expenditures. The bipartisan team of Senators Clair McCaskill (D) and Rob Portman (R) requested information about HHS contracts (which would include the impending PR contract), from HHA Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Feb. 28, 2012. They requested a response by May 16. After receiving no response, they collectively continue the request for information to enable them to do their due diligence.

Be still, my heart! This not only lacks smart business and political sense on so many levels of government, it puts into question the value, mission, and abilities of the HHS staff. This is an extreme example of untimely and unvetted spending when they should be looking for sound cost-cutting measures.

The Hot News: Unemployment Dipped to 8.1 Percent But What About the Chilling Effect on the Critically Thinking Unemployed

2012-05-09T16:55:51-04:00

We are celebrating a dip in unemployment to a three-year low of 8.1 percent, but it doesn't add up. The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reports this assumption -- yes, an assumption based on a raw data. For those of us who look at the summary, we think this is great news, assuming more of the unemployed are now working. But we need to keep a critical eye on the news feeds with analytical balance. Something doesn't add up. Are we celebrating false achievement?

While we watch the news reports and the political pundits sweep excitement about the dip in unemployment, it makes us wonder: what is the truth and why doesn't it add up? We have multitudes of government employees crunching this data. Is this creative accounting? Or is there a misunderstanding/miscommunication about the real snapshot of our crisis with unemployment?

What is the real rate of unemployment in America? We need to consider several factors: the ever-increasing labor pool, as well as the dejected people leaving the pool or being forced out, the rate of job creation, which has recently dramatically dropped to 115,000 (actually the smallest increase in new payrolls in six months).

We must not forget to consider:

• The jobless or underemployment rate of 53.6 percent for recent college graduates
• 5.1 percent unemployment with at least a bachelor's degree is the highest since 1970.
• 154,365,000 Americans are in the employment pool -- but why is the figure out of the starting gate less than in 2009? This figure is not static. We have at least 2 percent more not less in the pool.
• 968,000 discouraged workers dropped out of the candidate pool in April. Are we ready to discount those dejected job candidates that have given up the search?

We must remember "'tis the season" of spin from the political parties. It's an election year, after all, and we analyze information with our own filters. We see comments about obstruction and discrimination of women (whose unemployment rate is 0.1 percent lower than that of men). But what we want are facts that help us to plan our future careers.

The White House claims that there is a different picture, a more optimistic look at the data. "We see a picture of the economy healing," White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger said in an interview on CNBC. We need workable details. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney claims he has the answer. What is it? We want to see it.

Some facts that are not changing:

• We can't compete with the salaries of off-shored manufacturing, simple. Unless American workers want to take extreme reductions in pay or enter into concession bargaining with the unions, it just ain't gonna happen.

• Small companies are planning to keep their employee numbers under 50 to keep away from the Obamacare umbrella. Many more plan to take a penalty from Washington that is much cheaper than paying for health care.

• Until we are ready to loosen the reins on small business, which is the backbone of job recovery, we won't see significant movement. Watch and see what would happen with more leverage and power on the part of these employers.

• Multi-national companies legally avoid federal taxes by sending jobs offshore. Pull the reins in on this practice that is contributing to the American job crisis.

Eliminate the purveyors of the raw data. Yes, eliminate many of the departments that provide a piece of the pie without considering the whole picture. Merge the number crunchers and make them accountable for the data in one governmental agency that considers the whole ball of wax. We deserve nothing less. While I don't like the idea of expansion of government departments, we need to create a team of expert economists to spit out the real skinny without spin. Charge them to wade through the murky data and make sense of it for us starry eyed unemployed hopefuls. We need accurate, solid information and direction.

Here is the latest -- 12.5 million Americans unemployed and a combination of 22 million Americans unemployed or working in the category of underemployed. Now that is a startling figure that equates to serious problems for Americans and our communities.

Consider this data. Sleep on it. I did, and it doesn't add up. What is the real rate of unemployment? Many economists estimate it at least 10 percent and more, considering the Americans who have given up the fight and the adjusted starting gate figures of below 2009 (that are used in the Department of Labor). This is nothing to celebrate.

Call 'em out, ride 'em in, all of them on all sides of the problem. And above all, provide accurate details for our consumption about our livelihoods. In my book, this is nothing to celebrate.

The New Diversity Divide

2012-03-13T13:34:51-04:00

The recognition, respect, and acceptance of differences has been an issue of public attention, policy and compliance for close to a century. Diversity is not only about race, it is just about every aspect of our individuality that makes us different. Values have been programmed in the home, most organizations have trained employees on the expectation for respecting differences and the consequences for non-compliance. Friends and family recognize their differences and then pass the potatoes.

But how have we become so visibly intolerant of opinions, religions, and cultural norms that it results in verbal attacks and slurs for our opinions?

Now, I enjoy a robust debate of ideas but have never seen such a division of thought that resorts to name calling and less than civil admonishment. People are becoming less and less tolerant of others who don't hold their beliefs. We are all different, a product of our value programming, education, successes, and failures.

Has the term diversity in and of itself morphed to apply to some and not to all? 'Tis the season of political discord but it is a regular occurrence to hear public admonishment of political opinions that results in insults and generalizations of the people with whom they disagree. Is it fair game for some factions of our society and not for others? Has this become an evolution of diversity?

In the media, we have heard women discussed in the most vile of terms from both sides of the political spectrum. The critics have focused on irrelevant facts. For some, is it safe to resort to verbal abuse because of the mere difference in beliefs and culture? It appears to be becoming too normal of an occurrence that will result in mainstreaming. Many call it freedom of speech.

You hear, "Don't push your religion on me." Most people of faith do not. But the new ABC show, GCB which stands for Good Christian Belles, changed its title from Good Christian Bitches for obvious reasons (based on the book Good Christian Bitches by Kim Gatlin). The show stars Christian women making fun in the name of Christianity. Cast member Kristin Chenoweth (Kitten) has been quoted saying, "There's a difference in making fun of and having fun with ... and we do the latter." But this title had me at "hello" -- had me curious, not interested, that is. I can't get beyond the title, clearly masked to disguise the original intent.

Now, I have a robust sense of humor but I can't imagine Hollywood making fun of another religion or culture referring to their women as "bitches." It appears that certain factions of our society are fair game. The question has been asked, "Is it open season on Christians?" or more specifically, open season for some religions and cultures and not for others. The use of an acronym doesn't provide a disguise. Whatever your opinion about Christianity, it makes you wonder about what is fair game and what is not, and for whom does it apply.

Could Hollywood replace the "C" with another religion or ethnic group? Is there a reluctance to focus on other cultures that do not value women or is it that Christians are an easy target?

Is this a new cultural civil war? Instead of recognizing what makes us distinct, we have become so polarized that we have become intolerant. We have the "99 percent" who are expected to not like the one percent. We have close friends and family who are quick to rant, criticize, and get personal about differences of political opinions and beliefs, and of course the political pundits encourage discourse.

Conciliation is not in the cards. It's no longer "My dog's better than your dog." It has become, "I get your opinion and what is wrong with you." The line in the sand has become more important to maintain that understanding and compromise. Insults are more important than focus on the issues. Of course we all have our freedom of speech but we can't forget, with our freedom comes responsibility ... and that comes with living with the effects.

Has this great divide eroded our cultural diversity? At least the intolerance for differences of opinion and imbalance of recognition, respect, and acceptance has notably changed. We are not all the same; we have our personal biases, right or wrong. It is the effects of intolerance to our differences that has created a new level of cultural divide.

College Football Coach Salary Envy

2011-12-20T11:48:27-05:00

While we bemoan the salaries and gains of Wall Street and TARP funded business, there is another category of serious curiosity; the dramatic increase in salaries of football coaches at public institutions.

While the everyday American struggles to make ends meet, we look forward to cheering on our favorite college teams and their coaches. We take ownership of our favorites; talk about "my team," wear our registered school pride products. But do we think about how public institutions of higher education pay coaches millions of dollars annually to provide your weekend thrill? I do, and it makes me wonder about how richly we value and reward college coaching.

While I cozy up for a season of my favorite college sport with my fellow fanatics, I look around and wonder where the season went. With a dozen games on any given Saturday, and a couple more if you are lucky, you look up from your beer and the season is over.

They perform for us loyal fans for a little while each year while bringing on a big price tag. Of course, there is planning, recruiting, and training in the other 40 weeks of the year but in reality, their time is limited and seriously regulated by the NCAA.

The recently signed contract of Urban Meyer at Ohio State University has raised my ire about the relative value of salaries. The newly appointed Buckeye Coach Meyer signed a contract valued at $24 million over six years. Of course the price tag of Meyer's contract includes not only his annual base salary from Ohio State, a whopping $4 million per year, it includes bonuses, a private jet (including personal use), golf course membership, apparel, additional retirement contributions, and pay for endorsements such as Coca Cola. Now, how many sales of registered products does it take to pay for that giant salary? Coach Meyer will also receive perquisites for his family including the pricey benefits of a suite at football games and a dozen game tickets.

Meyer is expected to win, and if he does, he will receive bonuses for bowls and championships. Is that not the point of providing a rich salary: winning? For the average Joe, it equates to showing up for work every day, do what you are supposed to, and you will receive a bonus for doing your job. Hogwash, or in this case, a more appropriate descriptor is: Nuts!

Meyer is not the highest paid college football coach; That prize goes to Nick Saban of Alabama with a contract valued at $32 million over eight years.

How is this for a raise in average salaries of major school football coaches?: 55 percent over six seasons.

USA Today found that in 2006 the average pay for major college coaches was $950,000. The average compensation in 2011 is $1.47 million.

To provide perspective, the average projected increase in pay for lucky fans is 2.86% for companies who are providing increases in 2011.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, salaries of top public college presidents (2010 data) range from a total compensation of $1.8 million at Ohio State University, $905,000 at University of Washington, $783,000 at University of Michigan, and $728,000 at Arizona State. A mere fraction of salaries of top college football coaches and they are providing leadership for multi-billion dollar institutions every day, year around.

The reality is that coaches have created their own salary market, a task that the rest of us cannot afford to do. In this economy, we don't have the luxury of holding out for the highest bidder. Most of us take what we can get. But, they have driven up the market by making demands of public institutions that would be a fantasy to most. It's about "me too" and drive up the next bidder.

A close Buckeye friend of mine said, "But look at all of the money that Coach Meyer will bring into Ohio State. He will bring in much more revenue than he makes." But, do coaches bring money into the schools or do they take more than the deserve? Sure, fans will purchase licensed products with a return of rich royalties to the college but they are generally distributed outside of the athletic department budget. And the benefit goes to...?

Again, these are public institutions but athletic departments are their own cost center, revenue generating budgetary units. A common misconception is that athletic departments bring in cash and share the wealth with their colleges; Not so much, folks. You hear of the occasional donation or percent of profits allocated to the school's public funds but it's not as common as you may think. More commonly, they break even, go in the red, or even take money from the college's revenue.

In fact, the late Athletic Director of University of Michigan Don Canham was famous for balancing his athletic budget. He claimed that 99 percent of athletic departments were not able to do it but times were different, salaries were different.

It's all in the game of who can you get and how much will you pay for the privilege.

Morally Bankrupt Sandusky Was "Just Behaving Like a Jock"

2011-11-16T13:46:55-05:00

According to his attorney Joe Amendola, "He (Jerry Sandusky) was just behaving like a jock" As expected, this horrifying story is getting worse and worse. Sandusky throws a bone to the media to claim that he showered with young boys and touched their legs, horsed around but nothing else.

Is this supposed to persuade us to think that this is acceptable and defensible behavior? Is this an excuse that will help explain the naked coach hanging with boys? Everyone is supposed to believe Sandusky according to Sandusky: The reported sexual act that Coach Mike McQueary witnessed was obviously a figment of his imagination; Sandusky claims that McQueary misinterpreted towel snapping as sexual; the reports of all of the brave young men are fabricated and at least misinterpreted. But Sandusky wants all of us to believe him because of his profound credibility.

I have been around jocks and college and professional athletics most of my life and nowhere in the "jock handbook" does it remotely give tacit approval for coaches to shower with/sexually abuse children. Lord help the coach who would have behaved this way under my watch.

No question, this firestorm had been on the back burner of the Penn State Administration for years. It was the moral and legal equivalent of the proverbial skeleton in the closet that some people live with, wondering when life as they know it will implode, and it did. The reality is that between 2002, when Sandusky was observed and heard having sexual relations with a youngster by McQueary in the campus shower, and until at least 2007.

Sandusky allegedly continued to sexually abuse boys, many boys. That is at least five years that could have made a monumental difference in their lives. Penn State Athletics and Administration could have done the right thing. How many continued to be abused?

This could have been stopped at the campus shower but it wasn't. Sandusky thought he was home free, riding on the laurels of his good reputation when this morally bankrupt individual was permitted to be a part of the Penn State Athletic Program in good standing. A janitor claims he saw Sandusky having sex with a child in the Penn State locker room as far back as 2000. No one took this seriously. Again, the reality is he allegedly continued having sex with young boys on campus because he could.

Of course there is plenty of blame and questions of credibility to go around. McQueary has just contradicted his testimony to the Grand Jury. He wrote to a friend, a not so close friend according to his e-mail,

"I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me. I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right ... I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions."

McQueary, on his administrative leave, still thinks he handled this correctly or perhaps the only way he could handle it. It doesn't get much worse than sexual abuse of a child. While he thinks telling Coach Paterno and his father, and now an allegation of a report to the police, this raises a question of our moral and legal responsibility to protect children. He is now claiming that he involved the police, in direct contradiction of his testimony.

McQueary may have forgotten some details, critical details. If so, he needs to correct his testimony, and the time for this was yesterday. Many think his conflicting testimony will harm prosecution of Sandusky. The real harm could be to McQueary, lying to the Grand Jury. We cannot forget that there are eight young men who have testified and another ten have recently have come forward with allegations against Sandusky.

Joe Paterno is not talking and has hired a high profile attorney. Sandusky claims that Paterno never held a conversation with him about the allegations. Is Penn State still trying to let the chips fall on this horrific tragedy?

McQuary is the focus du jour. It's time for those involved in the negligence and cover up of the disgusting facts to come forward. What and when did Joe Paterno know about the Sandusky allegations? What about Penn State police, athletic director, the president, and vice president of business and finance? At this turn of events, Mr. McQueary who is currently on administrative leave, is being hung out there alone; it's time for the rest of the sordid story.

Lessons Learned From Penn State's Former Coach Joe Paterno

2011-11-10T10:26:31-05:00

Every fall, we have looked forward to watching Joe Paterno grace the college football stage. The fired Paterno was the coach with the most: most wins, most longevity, most beloved. And to most of us who watch college football, he was "Joe Pa" on a pedestal. What irony is in a name, the paternal name given to him assumes the ultimate level of care for his program and players. No one could fathom the firing of Joe Pa after 61 years of coaching at Penn State.

The allegations of the sex crimes of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, combined with the negligence of university officials, have tarnished Paterno's reputation. His record on the field and grooming of athletes is not in question; This is a case of negligence on the part of the Penn State football program, administration, and the college president. It just doesn't get any more serious under your watch.

Sandusky has been charged with 40 counts of sex crimes with eight victims dating back 15 years.

Many say Paterno didn't do anything wrong, but the issue is, he didn't do the right thing.

Of course, there are no criminal charges filed against Paterno, no allegations that he was in any way involved in abusive behavior. He has been a shining and caring example for his athletes but lest we not forget, Paterno knew about eyewitness reports of sexual abuse of minors since at least 2002. These allegations include on-campus sexual abuse of minors.

Initially, he did the right thing, reported the allegations to the athletic director in 2002, but what came next? Sandusky allegedly continued the sexual abuse of star-struck minor boys until at least 2007. This could have been stopped in 2002 and the future sexual abuse of boys could have been stopped. No reports were made to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare nor law enforcement, which is required by law.

Paterno washed his hands and moved on. Sandusky still maintained an office on the athletic campus as a retired member of the Penn State program. But where was the concern that a member of the University in assumedly good standing may strike at youngsters, student athletes, fans, summer sports campers, and not to mention the reputation of his athletic program?

We can all learn an important lessons from Paterno. Of course you always need to get the proverbial monkey off your back when you become aware of alleged malfeasance under your watch, and in this case it was an alleged felony of monumental proportions. But it doesn't end there. When you become aware of a suspected crime in your workplace, you must follow it to fruition. Don't forget, tacitly excused behavior IS excused behavior. Sandusky was sitting boldly, comfortable in the Penn State Athletic Department.

Don't think your hands are clean if you have only passed on the word to administrators who assumedly will take care of the problem. You need to follow through the allegations or you may become implicated in the workplace negligence. Athletic Director Tim Curley and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz have stepped down from their positions and have now been charged with failing to report the incident to police and lying to a grand jury. President Graham Spanier was fired on November 9.

This negligence of administration ranks up there with a negligent hiring decision. There is no difference between hiring a coach with a history of crimes against children and letting him remain employed once you have become aware of credible allegations. In either circumstance, you know the danger and are willing to take the chances of a repeat offense. You must be prepared to take the ramifications and in this case, it came home to roost.

Jo Pa said to a group of 300 students this week, "The kids who were victims... we need to say a prayer for them. It's a tough life when people do certain things to you.. I wish I could have done more." Indeed, it is a tough life for the victims and makes us wonder about those prayers and hopes of Penn State administration that this tragedy would just go away. These young men who have come forward need justice. Coach Sandusky took away the innocence of the young men he allegedly violated . He also took down the reputations and careers of colleagues who blindly trusted him.

You may say, let the legal system take its course. But, the reality of the seriousness of this case has set in and the University needed to make employment decisions based on the credible evidence. This is what employment decisions are made of.

Paterno said "We're always going to be Penn State." But the closeted reputation of Penn State Athletics, fully known by four layers of administration, was paramount to doing the right thing. Protecting youngsters from a sexual predator was in the secondary.

Paterno will be remembered by this tragic turn of events as a final defining moment of his career and his illustrious coaching career will be tarnished with these accusations. What a sad way to end the stunning career of a beloved coach.