Wouldn't work with DNR and MDC. Funding sources in their charters. Also, one of two things would happen; DNR could no longer be legislature's whipping-boy as it currently is, because of how funding is drafted into that agency's Charter. They can, and do, whack DNR's funding at every chance they can get. They will NOT give that up. They also can control permit fees, even appropriate those fees away from that agency. They're not going to give that up either.
They can't do so with MDC because of pittman-robertson and other controls in the Charter.
So, back when Blunt said "no new vehicles for any state agencies.", Conservation bought pretty-much a new fleet. DNR was in vehicles 10yrs-old with parts falling off.
MODOT is also protected. Not so the any education departments--remember the raw deal they got with the state Lottery?
The boards and commissions typically already don't respond to public comments unless there is a credible threat of litigation. It won't change a thing as to who gets what; the Department itself has been legislatures whipping boy for a long time. Decisions are not only influenced by the Gov. or their cabinet, but also by individual reps & sens. Already the level of serving "at pleasure" has descended as low as it can be taken, and much lower than it should.
You want a better DNR? Clamor for a way to make appointments durable so that politics, power, and influence takes a hind-seat to science. Blunt put politicians in control (ex-Sen Childers, who recommended current Sen. Schafer). Nixon has put lawyers in control. Staff can't effect the duties of the department's charter and mission (the will of the people) as a result.
Uh, huh. And that's why we have a democratic Gov, a black, liberal, pro-fem POTUS, divided National congress, and a "conservative" slanted SCOTUS.
The "conservative" backlash will eat itself. The TPers already demonstrated that, or weren't you paying the attention bill?
We're in a time that both parties need to tread very carefully. Woe to those that don't, because they'll be in the limelight at lightspeed.
Seen much action out of our Conservative Republican dominated, veto-proof house majority in Missouri? I would that they had your gusto. What they are suffering is aftershock, as in "oh crud. it's all on us, huh? we better be careful..."
And that would be why they haven't gone all yippee-ki-yay and put in motion all sort of "conservative" intrusions aligned with big business exemptions.
Or, did you have another reason they've been so quiet in their veto-proof majority where they can force their agenda with nigh utter impunity?
They're scared. That's good.
Actually, there are a lot of implications where cheaper surveillance is considered. First, look at the violations from manned flyovers. Next, consider that the Agricultural Statistical Service maintains complete confidentiality on production numbers. Why? Because some people are declaring less than they have. That could potentially make some information quite interesting to the IRS.
Does the legislature have better things to do? Yep. And need I remind that this legislature's party dominance was the same party seeking to make it a crime to photograph agricultural operations from public right-of-ways, even in the case where there was an obvious violation?
Just adhere to the rules on the books. If you're violating private property boundaries, stop, unless you have cause that'll get you a warrant to proceed. It's not that hard. There are blank-check warrants for search and seizure at the CCSD. All the officer has to do is fill in the blanks. They are already signed by the judge.
I equate a breed of animal known for aggressiveness and damage potential to a firearm with a mind of its own. Granted force was necessary, but significant restraint was exercised. That's grace under pressure. Props guys-n-gals! :-)
(I'm normally the among last to compliment LEOs on their discretion, if that weights my compliment any...)
That's -some- of your Sunday crowd for you. Make your Server tithe for you. Anyone who has stuck it out enough knows the sort. Water off a duck's back--you just don't expend any extra effort since your gratuity will be the same regardless so long as the minimum is guaranteed.
In my experience, the AoG were the worst after the "man-hater girls' club".
Drunk rush was always a blast, save for the occasional aggro-drunk, or the overly amorous luv-muffins. Still, after a bit, even those weren't a problem. Easy to handle once you knew their particular buttons, or were skilled at ascertaining the most probable. Generally they thanked you in addition to tipping well.
On kids' night, tip extra. You are making your little PITAs somebody elses' problem for a bit--what do you pay a sitter? Remember, little Johnny and Jenny's tantrums affect the tips of everyone in earshot.
Been a good run. Thanks for the memories! I'd just rather buy the paper 3x weekly as I usually do at vendor price.
What I liked most about that particular occupation was the challenge it presented in order to be successful. Well, that and it was a sublimely empowering feeling that when I'd had enough of managers' shenanigans and took my skill to a different establishment, that my "regulars" followed me.
Seems their loyalty wasn't to the place or the menu. They knew they could trust me to give them the best no matter what or where. The server-regular relationship is one where loyalty is still a currency of value. That doesn't mean you skrimp on anyone--your customer base is (virtually) a guaranteed income as opposed to a roll of the dice. Your goal is to eliminate the gamble on your take-home because where your income can fluctuate wildly, your mandatory bills don't.
Oh contraire. Having been in the trenches throughout high-school and and a long stint through college, not only do I speak fluent "Servers' cant", I also know how to /not/ be a burden.
Among the more experienced, we recognize our own. Among the inexperienced, us "retirees" from the Trade drop invaluable pearls of wisdom. There's a total subculture you're missing.
Make no mistake that by no means can a server be successful without having developed some rather useful skills which cross-apply to many facets of the consumer society at large.
I was two years into my State job before I surpassed the earnings I made my last year as a server. Heh. I once took a 20-top of glum, depressed people that just came from a funeral and had them laughing and carrying-on in a jovial manner by the time their food was ready. I won't disclose the tip amount, suffice to say it made up for a month of Sundays.
Sure the problem lies in the office; the lobby, whatever it may be, has a carrot to offer which is unavailable to the rest of the voting population, the office holder has the option to take it, and you can't punish an ex-lawmaker at the polls. As for the smell test, it's not the issue of favors per-se, but influence in general; lawmakers are privy to confidential communications from appointees concerning specific items and issues typically brought to that high a level of governance by--you guessed it! A lobby. Those communications aren't exactly wiped from their memories when they leave office.
You can elect all of the "on the face integrity" you like. But once their in office, pfft, that can (and does) change without voters even knowing about it. As for appointees having to take a year-off, that too is insufficient. Many get jobs within the industry for which they'll be lobbying. They begin by lobbying in the department for which they used to work, on projects handled by staff, not themselves personally. Seen it happen firsthand. Not only does it stink to high heaven, it's ugly to boot.
Last login: Thursday, March 28, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.