Laugh along with the Judiciary

If you need a laugh, I highly recommend reading Chief Justice Roberts’ 2008 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. Seriously!

He starts out in a whimsical voice, talking about the National Museum of American History, and the Star-Spangled Banner Gallery which homes the Flag which inspired Francis Key to write the national anthem. He also takes the time to point out how the flag has been preserved, but not fully for people have cut off parts as souvenirs over the years. It’s even missing one Star! Very patriotic of Chief Justice to point this out.

Alas, he then talks about the total appropriation for the fiscal year ($6.2 Billion). It is here that all of the elegant writing, turns into that of a little boy who wants another cookie; “That represents a mere two-tenths of 1% of the United States’ total $3 trillion budget. Two-tenths of 1%! That is all we ask for…” If you didn’t catch it, he wants more.

Roberts continues by pointing out the many (3) areas which they have saved in their budget, in rent, personnel, and information technology (IT). I especially like the savings they stipulate for IT, they believe that they will achieve savings and cost avoidance totaling $55.4 million through 2012! Just look at all the money they are saving!

I believe my favorite part of the report however is the two page commentary on the unfair salaries of the Court Justices. I believe this is where he is speaking in his little boy voice again – “simply provide cost-of-living increases that have been unfairly denied! We have done our part—it is long past time for Congress to do its.”

Of course if you really want to hear a summary on the court’s activities and what work he and the other justices actualy did over the past year, go ahead and skip to the end of page 8. The report is only 13 pages long, so it won’t take long to read about the actual workload of the courts.

Losing faith in politics

When it’s time to vote, I think almost everyone can agree that it brings to light just how flawed the system is. I’m not necessarily talking about voting nominees either, but voting on amendments as well.  The wording is so tricky that most of the time, voters don’t even know what they are really voting for.

Here in Florida for example, we have a proposed constitutional Amendment, No. 2 Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.  It reads as follows:

The amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.  The direct financial impact of this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

What is tricky about this, is that many people voting No on this amendment, think that by doing so, it legalized gay marriage. A statute is already in place which provides for a single form of marriage in Florida, so voting NO on this does not legalize gay marriage. However, voting yes on this, may impact health care coverage and benefits that cover unmarried couples who live together and will prevent the recognition of some types of out-of-state marriages.

Its not just this amendment, other as well seem to affect so much more then the issue they claim to represent. Just look at the bail out bill! It seems like only 10% of that bill actually discussed how to handle the bank! What use was the other 90% ?

What happend to the days when a bill only discussed one topic?

Is Grandma Safe? – Growing Nursing Home Deficiencies

A representative from GAO was speaking on C-SPAN this morning on a congressional report released this month on the effectiveness of Nursing Home monitoring. And guess what? The final conclusion was:

Federal Monitoring Surveys Demonstrate Continued Understatement of Serious Care Problems and CMS Oversight Weaknesses.

As a Marketing major, surveys are one of my most sacred tools to capture accurate information. It is because of this that I am astonished by the GAO’s recommendations on how to correct the survey’s flaws in administering the surveys. The recent Executive Action was issued:

- Executive Action -

To address weaknesses in CMS’s management of the federal monitoring survey database that also affect the agency’s ability to effectively track understatement, we recommend that the Administrator of CMS take the following actions:

• Require regional offices to determine if there was understatement when state surveyors cite a deficiency at a lower scope and severity level than federal surveyors do and to track this information in the federal monitoring survey database.

• Establish quality controls to improve the accuracy and reliability of information entered into the federal monitoring survey database.

To address weaknesses that affect CMS’s ability to oversee regional office implementation of the federal monitoring survey program, we recommend that the Administrator of CMS take the following two actions:

• Routinely examine comparative survey data and hold regional offices accountable for implementing CMS guidance that is intended to ensure that comparative surveys more accurately capture the conditions at the time of the state survey.

• Regularly analyze and compare federal comparative and observational survey results.

While these recommendations would improve the processing and analytical side of surveys, it does not address the root of the problem. The root problem is that Monitoring surveys are skewed to a point where they are not getting an accurate reflection of the care given in nursing homes. The way these surveys are currently done, gives the nursing homes advanced knowledge on inspections. It is universally acknowledged that if a person, business, or corporation is given notice prior to inspections, the survey will be skewed. The survey will not reflect day to day actives of the nursing home’s care, but instead show a higher level of care created by the institution to pass inspection. Without changing the manor in which the surveys and inspections are conducted, by creating a more spontaneous environment, changing the processing and analytical side of the surveys will do little to improve the reliability and accuracy of the surveys.

Regulations: Trucking, Shipping, and Electronic On-Board Recorders

In today’s motor carrier industry, driver fatigue is one of the biggest reasons for carrier accidents. Because of pressure from shippers, truckers are encouraged to drive for longer periods of time in order to stay on schedule. The hours of service rule imposed on the motor carrier industry by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is structured in a way to discourage these extended driving periods. However, this has resulted in drivers altering their logbooks to avoid being in violation of their hours of service regulations and paying fines.

The Pre-2003 HOS regulation rules required only 8 hours of being off-duty before allowing 10 hours of driving time and prohibited driving after 15 hours of being on-duty. The truckers could also drive for only 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. These rules were a bit more flexible because any time that the driver took off-duty during the work shift it did not count towards his 15-hour limit. One driver, by the name of Charles, misses this particular freedom because it allowed the drivers to take naps, breaks, or participate in other activities they needed to accomplish without an excess amount of pressure. This was especially convenient for the truckers, because if they arrived at a shipper who took a particularly long time getting the shipment onto the truck, the driver would have the flexibility to drive the whole 10 hours even if the loading and unloading time took longer than expected. Of course, the drivers may not have been resting during these off-duty times and, as a result, were still fatigued. These type of situations resulted in changes in 2003.

The current regulations set up by the HOS rule in 2003, became stricter with hopes that by allowing less freedom, driver fatigue would be reduced. These new rules kept the 60/70 hour restrictions in the 7/8 day period, while changing two things. Firstly, they created a “restart” for the 60/70 hours if a driver took a consecutive 34 hours off. This was believed to allow truckers more freedom to tailor their schedules to their business requirements. Secondly, they increased the driving time to 11 hours, believing that this allowed most drivers to make it back home, or to a destination where they would be able to quit driving. However, the total on-duty time was reduced to 14 hours. This left a total of 3 hours for loading and unloading of the trucker’s loads. These new driving restrictions also did not allow drivers to “stop the clock” while on duty, therefore if loading and unloading took longer than 3 hours, the trucker’s driving time would be reduced. Most of the drivers admitted to adjusting their logbooks in order to make up for time lost in the loading and unloading processes.

Because of these illegal adjustments, the FMCSR would like to mandate the use of electronic on-board recorders for drivers with poor safety records, while providing additional incentives for those who will switch voluntarily. In theory, these logbooks would be tamper-proof while forcing drivers to adhere to the HOS restrictions and save time by no longer using the paper log. There are beliefs that the requirement for EOBR’s could eventually be industry wide. However, there is some concern for this mandate because the EOBR is installed at the cost of the truck owner. This will create higher driving expenses and shipping costs which will ultimately reach the end consumer. Also, if the EOBR’s are not required for everyone at the same time there will be an uneven responsibility for drivers in terms of costs, not only owner operators but also motor carrier companies. This will force some to leave the already-short-handed trucking industry.

When speaking with the truckers, most agreed that some type of hours of service regulations were needed to encourage safety and reduce driver fatigue. However, they do not believe that the current HOS rules are fair or productive to the industry. Even more believe that the enforcement of an EOBR would just lead to more stress and aggravation. Few thought that the EOBR would be used correctly and a few saw it as an invasion of privacy for someone to know what they are doing at all times. Like with most situations, people will try to manipulate the system to work for them. So unless the EOBRs can be made tamper-proof, drivers believe that most carriers will find ways to cheat on their hours of service. Most also concluded that completely tamper-proof EOBRs would be a long time in creating.

Also, a main issue the truckers pointed out was that there are not enough rest stops to accommodate the trucking industry. For example, a long haul driver may come to the end of their 11 hours of driving, and not be in an area where they may stop or cannot find a parking spot, leading to illegal adjustments of their log books. With an EOBR, drivers would be put in the situation of continuing to drive to find a place to stop, exceeding their hours and facing fines, or stopping in an area which may be unsafe or unsuited to accommodate the truckers. Ultimately, the EOBR would lead to an increase in driver’s hours of service violations because inputs are updated automatically. So because the drivers’ logs are recorded in real time there is less opportunity to behave illegally but less flexibility if in a situation as previously stated.

If EOBRs were used without first solving this parking issue, the drivers could potentially be fined every time they exceed their hours of service. All this accomplishes is adding insult to injury. Therefore it would be my recommendation to the FMCSA that the EOBR rule not be adopted. Instead I would suggest a study be conducted to identify major trucking routes, the volume of trucks, and estimate how many rest stops and trucking spots are needed to ensure that the carrier industry is able to adhere to its rules. Another option would be to change the hour of service laws so that they are more flexible to fit the motor carrier industry. Only after trucks are logistically able to adhere to hours of service rule should the EOBR rule be considered.