|
Videos
July 29, 2008 By Chad Vander Veen
As I write this I am feeling mixed emotions. I'm sure most of my fellow Sacramento Kings fans are as well. News broke that disgraced NBA referee Tim Donaghy, convicted of betting on games he officiated, claimed in court documents that a certain seven-game playoff series in 2002 was rigged for the league's benefit.
The only series from that year to go seven games was the fabled contest between the Kings and the vile Los Angeles Lakers. It just so happens that Game 6 of that series went down as one of the most shoddily officiated games in sporting history - so much so that observers across the country suspected it of being rigged to ensure a Lakers victory. In fact, it was so bad consumer advocate Ralph Nader filed a letter with the NBA demanding the league investigate the "notorious officiating."
This latest incident is another black mark for the NBA, a company that goes to great lengths promoting a fan-friendly image. And since the Donaghy scandal, the NBA says its operations have become more transparent. It's this transparency that league commissioner David Stern maintains is guarding against corruption.
But the truth is there have long been suspicions that NBA officials routinely and purposely alter the course of certain games. When it comes down to brass tacks, the NBA is a business enterprise first and an athletic competition second. That being the case, it certainly makes financial sense that large market teams like Los Angeles reach the league's pinnacle series. It also makes financial sense for high-profile series to be extended as long as possible. And from a business perspective, it makes no sense at all for the NBA to actually be transparent.
In government, there is a constant call for agencies to be transparent. Many people argue they should be able to see where money is coming from, where it is, and where it goes. After all, government is of the people, by the people and for the people, right? Earlier this year, The Sacramento Bee provoked outrage when it published a California state employee database that listed names, positions and salaries. The newspaper argued public employees' salary information is, in fact, public. However, many public employees were furious, claiming their privacy had been violated. Had it? Did it ever exist in the first place?
Despite the outrage, the question remains: Shouldn't the public be able to find out whatever it wants regarding government? As for the private sector, if business is on the up-and-up, there shouldn't be anything to hide. That's dangerous logic. Besides, it's far easier to not be transparent and probably more profitable too. Why would any organization be transparent if it doesn't have to be? Government could take a page from the NBA by simply appeasing the masses with an illusion of transparency. That must have been what Stern thought. That is, until a man he thought he'd seen the last of called foul.
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/policy-management/Public-Employee-Salary-Databases-Push-Transparency.html
A lot of people are shocked to hear about the cuts in the Department of Economic Security's assistance to people who have no income at all. I am talking about the General Assistance program which gives a minimal amount of money (less than $180 a month) to disabled people who have NO OTHER INCOME. This program has been around for 40 or 50 years. It was designed to give people something to live on until other sources of income could be applied for such as Social Security disability and SSI. Every bit of the money from General Assistance would then be paid back to the State of Arizona by SSA and SSI before the disabled person even got one dollar. It was a "safety net" so disabled people had some way of paying rent and living expenses. It takes time before other assistance programs can be obtained. It is possible to be disabled and not qualify for SSA and SSI so some people have to wait until they are old enough to get that type of help. General Assistance then becomes their ONLY INCOME until then. Also, Social Security's medical requirements are tough and many times it requires months and years of appeals to finally get assistance. General Assistance was always there to help get you through it. Now, it is gone. All the people who depended on this tiny bit of money to get by are out on the street. Our "safety net" has been abruptly jerked out from under us. I have always worked and paid taxes and all of a sudden, I found myself suddenly disabled. That very month, when I applied for assistance, the entire program was taken away. I know the State of Arizona needs to balance its budget, but balancing it on the backs of people who have no income at all is just WRONG! I am just asking for people to call, write or e-mail the legislature and ask to have this program re-instated. We wouldn't allow the Aid to Dependent Children to be taken away and we should never allow disabled people to lose their only source of income.