Why 'I have a dream' is a great speech

Martin Luther King Jr. at the Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C., Aug. 28, 1963.
Photo by: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

The 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech on Aug. 28 offers an opportunity for reflection on the nature of the speech itself. Why was it effective? And why does it continue to stir us today? 

ABC News interviewed several top scholars on this issue, including Arizona State University professor of English Keith Miller, as part of its coverage of the anniversary.

According to Miller, who is an expert on the rhetoric and songs of the American civil rights movement, King excerpted pieces of other famous texts – including the Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation and the song “America (My Country, ‘Tis of Thee)” – as a way of tying the civil rights movement to other great moments in American history.

"He's appealing to the most sacred touchstones that there are in the United States," Miller is quoted as saying. "He's incorporating these other voices that are more or less unimpeachable."

King also referenced multiple biblical passages, many from the book of Exodus, for example, which paralleled the struggle of those fighting for greater rights in the U.S.

"So [the speech] is a revamping of Exodus, or a later chapter of the Exodus," said Miller in the article.

Miller’s latest book is “Martin Luther King's Biblical Epic: His Final, Great Speech,” published by University Press of Mississippi in 2011. 

The Department of English is an academic unit in ASU’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Article source:
ABC News

Article:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/things-make-dream-famous-speeches-history/story

Walmart, McDonald's, KFC trash Labor Day

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

26 August 13

readersupportednews.org

 
he good news this Labor Day: Jobs are returning. The bad news this Labor Day: Most of them pay lousy wages and low if non-existent benefits.

The trend toward lousy wages began before the Great Recession. According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, weak wage growth between 2000 and 2007, combined with wage losses for most workers since then, means that the bottom 60 percent of working Americans are earning less now than thirteen years ago.

This is also part of the explanation for why the percent of Americans living below the poverty line has been increasing even as the economy has started to recover - from 12.3 percent in 2006 to around 14 percent this year. More than 35 million Americans now live below the poverty line.

Many of them have jobs. The problem is these jobs just don't pay enough to lift their families out of poverty.

But wait a minute. Over this same period, productivity has grown by nearly 25 percent. That means the typical American worker is now producing a quarter more output than he or she did in 2000.

So if wages have flattened or declined for the bottom 60 percent, yet productivity has increased, where have the gains gone? Mostly, to corporations and the very rich.

All of which gives some context to the strikes in recent weeks at fast-food chain stores, such as McDonalds, where workers are demanding a raise to $15-an-hour from their current pay of $8 to $10 an hour.

And the demonstrations and walkouts at Walmart stores, whose workers are also demanding better pay. The average Walmart employee earns $8.81 an hour. A third of Walmart's employees work less than 28 hours per week and don't qualify for benefits.

Few of these workers are teenagers. Most have to support their families. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28; and women, who comprise two-thirds of the industry, are over 32. The median age of big-box retail workers is over 30. These workers typically bring in half their family's earnings.

They deserve a raise.

At the very least, the minimum wage should be increased from the current $7.25 an hour to $10.50 - and to $15 in areas of the country with a higher cost of living. Had the federal minimum simply kept up with inflation from the late 1960s, it would already be well over $10 today.

Contrary to the predictable pontifications of conservative pundits, such a raise won't cause many low-wage workers to lose their jobs.

Unlike industrial jobs, these sorts of retail service jobs can't be outsourced abroad. Nor are they likely to be replaced by automated machinery and computers. The service these workers provide is personal and direct: Someone has to be on hand to help customers and dole out the burgers.

And don't believe critics who say any wage gains these workers receive will be passed on to consumers in higher prices. Big-box retailers and fast-food chains have to compete intensely for consumers. They have no choice but to keep their prices low.

This means wage gains for low-paid workers are most likely to come out of profits - which, in turn, would slightly reduce returns to shareholders and compensation packages of top executives.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing.

According to a report by the National Employment Law Project, most low-wage workers are employed by large corporations that have been enjoying healthy profits. Three-quarters of these employers (the fifty biggest employers of low-wage workers) are raking in higher revenues now than they did before the recession.

McDonald's - bellwether for the fast-food industry - posted strong results during the recession by attracting cash-strapped customers, and its sales have continued to rise. McDonald's CEO, Don Thompson, was awarded a big-whopper of a compensation package last year, valued at $13.8 million.

Yum!Brands, which operates and licenses Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut, has also done wonderfully well. Its CEO, David Novak, received $11.3 million in compensation last year. The company enjoyed a 13 percent gain in annual earnings - its eleventh straight year of double-digit growth. Shareholders got a return of 15 percent.

Walmart - the nation's largest employer - also continues to grow despite a sluggish economy, and pays its executives handsomely. The total compensation of Walmart's CEO, Michael Duke, was $20.7 million last year, up from $18.1 million in 2011. Total sales rose 5 percent to $466.1 billion. Earnings per share rose 10.6 percent.

Not incidentally, the wealth of the Walton family - which still owns the lion's share of Walmart stock - now exceeds the wealth of the bottom 40 percent of American families combined, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute.

It would not be a tragedy if some of these shareholder returns and compensation packages had to be trimmed in order that low-wage workers at McDonald's, KFC, and Walmart got a raise.

Indeed, if this nation is to reverse the scourge of widening inequality, such a trimming is necessary.

Putting perspective into Miley's twerk

Robin Thicke, left, and Miley Cyrus perform at the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday, Aug. 25, 2013, at the Barclays Center in the Brooklyn borough of New York. (Photo by Scott Gries/Invision/AP)
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130827_Miley_Cyrus__twerking_moves_disturbed_some__garnered_groans.html#QbF383PFf1QPKg3o.99

By Jim Keyworth
Gazette Blog Editor

Am I the only who had no clue what "twerking" was/is until the sensation Miley Cyrus caused Sunday evening at the VMA Awards?  I have to admit that I have never watched the VMA Awards or Miley Cyrus, and, in fact, the Consort and I were at our local movie theater seeing "The Butler" when she took the stage.

But in the interest of full public disclosure and of remaining relevant in this ever-changing world of ours, the Rim Country Gazette Blog hereby presents a primer for us older folks and for others who are hopelessly out of it.

According to Wikipedia, "twerking is a dance move that involves a person shaking the hips in an up-and-down bouncing motion, causing the dancer to shake, 'wobble' and jiggle."  So far, so good.  But check out the above photo from Miley's performance.  Surely, there is more to twerking.

Your obedient editor decided to consult a higher authority, a lady who bills herself as the "fashion consultant" for The Inquirer (who would've thought).  Anyway, according to this expert source, twerking involves "one person (usually a woman) gyrating backwards against another person, her behind jiggling."

Now we have a definition that matches Miley's performance.  All that's left is to put it all into some kind of perspective.  

What does it mean?  What is the world coming to?  How can we let our children watch such perversion?  Who let this happen, anyway?

My god, this is Hannah Montana gone wild.

But we let our children watch TV shows and movies and play video games where violence is glorified.  Every day. 

We send them out into a world where people who can't tie their shoes are armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. 

And we've carelessly created a hazardous world of pollution and climate change that they'll be fortunate to survive.  

And yet we're consumed and frenzied about the antics of a modestly talented young woman strutting her stuff on a TV show that can be turned off.  

Strutting her stuff?  Where I have heard that before?  Oh yeah, a guy named Shakespeare:

"Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."

If you haven't yet, you really need to see "The Butler."  And take your kids.  It's infinitely more relevant than anything Miley Cyrus will ever do.

Here is a primer: Twerking can be done alone or with a partner. It involves one dancer (usually a woman) gyrating backward against another person, her behind jiggling. Can we say sexually explicit?
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130827_Miley_Cyrus__twerking_moves_disturbed_some__garnered_groans.html#QbF383PFf1QPKg3o.99

Here is a primer: Twerking can be done alone or with a partner. It involves one dancer (usually a woman) gyrating backward against another person, her behind jiggling. Can we say sexually explicit?
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130827_Miley_Cyrus__twerking_moves_disturbed_some__garnered_groans.html#QbF383PFf1QPKg3o.99

Here is a primer: Twerking can be done alone or with a partner. It involves one dancer (usually a woman) gyrating backward against another person, her behind jiggling. Can we say sexually explicit?
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130827_Miley_Cyrus__twerking_moves_disturbed_some__garnered_groans.html#QbF383PFf1QPKg3o.99

Here is a primer: Twerking can be done alone or with a partner. It involves one dancer (usually a woman) gyrating backward against another person, her behind jiggling. Can we say sexually explicit?
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130827_Miley_Cyrus__twerking_moves_disturbed_some__garnered_groans.html#QbF383PFf1QPKg3o.

Dream deferred: minimum wage was higher in '63

By Richard Eskow

Campaign for America's Future

ourfuture.org

When Bayard Rustin addressed the March on Washington in 1963 he said this: “We demand that there be an increase in the national minimum wage so that men may live in dignity.” The crowd cheered in response.

But after fifty years of commemorating that march, after thousands of reverent re-readings of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, that dream remains deferred - and worse.

The minimum wage is lower today than it was in 1963 ... the minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, was $8.37, a dollar and twelve cents higher than today’s rate of $7.25.

'Gaystapo' to Christians: 'We'll take your children'

[Gazette Blog Editor's note: We offer the following as proof that homophobia is still rampant in the U.S., and that the radical right is becoming increasingly irrelevant in this country.  This would be laughable if it weren't so sick.]


By Matt Barber

Few people doubt that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hopes to become president in 2016. Unfortunately for him, he may have just signed away any chance of that. 

On Monday, Christie signed A3371, a draconian piece of legislation that bars licensed therapists from helping children overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior or identity. This law bans help for minors even when – as is so often the case – those same-sex attractions arise from childhood sexual abuse by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky. 

This law will prohibit minors and their parents from receiving counseling they desire and will force counselors to violate ethical codes because they will not be able to help clients reach their own counseling goals. This law would enslave children – whether abused or not – to a subjectively determined sexual identity that they reject.

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable. Consider this: Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found that homosexual men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse)” than heterosexual men.

Moreover, the Archives of Sexual Behavior – no bastion of conservatism – determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all gay-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender” noted the study.

For obvious reasons, this politically motivated law has been dubbed the “Jerry Sandusky Victimization Act.” Liberty Counsel, one of the fastest growing civil rights law firms in the country, has stepped in to protect New Jersey children, parents and licensed therapists. We’ve filed suit to block the law, as we’ve already blocked a similar law in California.

In his signing statement, Gov. Christie wrote: “Government should tread carefully into this area and I do so here reluctantly. I have scrutinized this piece of legislation with that concern in mind. However, I also believe that on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards.”

Beyond the fact that Christie and the New Jersey Legislature have just violated the First Amendment rights of New Jersey parents, children and counselors, there remains another problem with his assertion. It’s not true. As with any form of therapy, the “experts” are all over the board on the issue of change therapy.

For instance, both New Jersey Democrats and Christie cited the American Psychological Association, or APA, as justification for this gross infringement on the right of self-determination. Although, no doubt, the highly liberal APA supports this and similar Sandusky Laws for political reasons, the group’s own task force on change therapy – led entirely by members who themselves are “gay”-identified or known political activists – has had to admit, nonetheless, that homosexuality itself “refers to feelings and self-concept.”

The taskforce confessed that such therapy has shown “varying degrees of satisfaction and varying perceptions of success.” It acknowledged within its own skewed, very limited “study” that some people had “altered their sexual orientation. … [P]articipants had multiple endpoints, including LGB identity, ex-gay identity, no sexual orientation identity, and a unique self-identity. … Individuals report a range of effects from their efforts to change their sexual orientation, including both benefits and harm.”

Reports of “both benefits and harm”? Exactly what might be expected from any form of therapy.

But that’s for adults. Here’s the kicker: The APA also acknowledged that there is no evidence whatsoever that change therapy harms minors. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, addressed this, the most outrageous aspect of the law: “The very report that the governor cited for signing this law also admitted that there is absolutely zero research – none – regarding the effect of change therapy with minors.”

Get that? Gov. Christie just signed into law a bill purporting to prevent harm to minors from change therapy, citing, as the reason, an APA report that admits there is neither research nor empirical evidence to suggest that change therapy harms minors.
 
Is your head swimming? It should be.

The governor is one of three things. He is either: 1) ill-informed, 2) politically motivated or 3) stupid.

I don’t know, I guess he could be 4) all of the above.

Meanwhile, there are many experts outraged over this gross overreach by Christie and other New Jersey liberals. Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA, wrote in USA Today: “Contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.”

Dr. Cummings has testified to personally helping hundreds of formerly homosexual clients achieve the change they desired.

Things get more sinister yet. On Wednesday, New Jersey Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly homosexual, bombastically compared change therapy to “beating a child” and suggested that the government take children seeking change away from their parents. He told Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, “What this does is prevent things that are harmful to people. If a parent were beating their child on a regular basis we would step in and remove that child from the house. If you pay somebody to beat your child or abuse your child, what’s the difference?”

Mat Staver responded on the same program: “It is shocking to hear the law’s sponsor threaten parents that the state will remove their children from them if they provide the counsel they need and which helps them. This is the ultimate nanny state,” he said.
 
I’ll take it a step further, and I think I speak for many Christian fathers. None of my three children suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction, but if any of them did and they decided to seek change therapy to reconcile their feelings with their faith, Mr. Eustace and the rest of his Gaystapo would be extremely ill-advised to crest my front porch with designs on taking my children.

Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia? 

Raising minimum wage a political goldmine

By Ruy Teixeira

Think Progress / News Analysis

Published: Sunday 25 August 2013

nationofchange.org

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was an issue that was hugely popular with the public, fit perfectly into the progressive agenda, appealed to the white working class, and split the Republican Party right in half? Sounds to be good to be true, right? Actually, it’s hiding in plain sight: raising the minimum wage.

Start with overall public opinion. The public’s views on many policy issues can be very complicated; there are nuances to the nuances, so to speak. The polling on the minimum wage, however, is about as unnuanced as it comes. People just think it’s the right thing to do and decades of attempts by conservatives to convince the public otherwise have been an abject failure. Take, for instance, this Pew Research poll from early 2013. By a thumping 71-26 margin, the public said it favored increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 an hour.

Moreover, there was astonishingly strong support across demographic groups. Blacks and Hispanics supported the proposal by 91-8 and 83-14, respectively, and whites felt similarly by a not-as-large-but-still-strong 64-33 margin. Those with family incomes below $30,000 supported raising the minimum wage by 79-20, but so did those with incomes above $75,000, who were also on board by a high (65-32) margin:

Unsurprisingly, Democrats and independents supported a higher minimum wage by, respectively, 87-11 and 68-28. But here’s where it gets really interesting: Republicans also supported a rate hike, albeit by a narrow 50-47 margin. So raising the minimum wage roughly slices the GOP down the middle.

This split in support has a very distinct class character. Working class (non-college) Republicans supported the proposal by 58-40, while college-educated Republicans opposed it by 60-34. Similarly, low income Republicans (less than $30,000) supported raising the minimum wage by 68-31 while high income Republicans (over $75,000) opposed such a raise by 57-40:

Of course, even strenuous advocacy of raising the minimum wage will not suddenly persuade a majority of white working class Republicans to support progressive candidates. But even modest white working class defections would go a long way, even — or perhaps especially — in red states.

No wonder Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is running for Mitch McConnell’s seat in Kentucky, is making a higher minimum wage a central part of her campaign. In fact, the only really hard thing to understand here is why more candidates with progressive views on the minimum wage aren’t following Grimes’ lead. Let’s hope in the future they will.

PSWID board still dysfunctional as ever

[Gazette Blog Editor's comment: Here's the latest from Water for Pine Strawberry, a watchdog group that tries to inject some sense and reason into the proceedings of the Pine Strawberry Water Improvement District (PSWID).  While this report is difficult to follow, it does provide some enterataining reading and proof positive that PSWID is still as dysfunctional as ever.]

COMMENTARY & OPINION
on PSWID BOARD MEETING
of July 18, 2013

By Pam Mason
Water for Pine Strawberry

I am reminded of a quote by Alexander McCall Smith... 

 

“Manners are the basic
building blocks
of civil society.” 

What a pity that good manners and civility are left at the front door by certain PSWID board members when it comes to any discussions or topics that Mr. Sam Schwalm tries to present to the board.  At the last meeting, the cartel consisted of four members, with the loudest being Vice Chairman Mr. Gary Lovetro.   Some topics from the public meeting are as follows.
 
Mr. Schwalm attempted to give a presentation consisting of six slides.  From what we could determine the information he wanted to share was about the amount of pipe in the existing infrastructure and the kinds of pipe used.  A fracas ensued with Mr. Lovetro asking why this was in Sam’s board member report.  Apparently Mr. Schwalm was told he could not have it as an agenda item but could include it in his report.  Gary Lovetro asked if he was disputing the numbers previously provided by the Accounting Manager, and he felt Sam was talking about capital projects and wanting to refute the budget.  During the outbursts Sam countered with “essentially you are saying that board member reports cannot contain any content.”  Mr. Calderon also interrupted saying this comes under the master plan and we all know the pipe needs to be replaced, and when we have the master plan the possibility is a bond or bank loan. ($7.5 Million)  Mr. Schwalm tried to explain that his intent was not to have a discussion about any capital projects but he had some information and wanted to put it out there.  Mr. Pugel at some point indicated that we don’t self- appoint ourselves as the experts, let’s get it from the people who are in the business.  The lawyer claimed he was not a referee and was not sure where this was going ...  I think your point is that no action will be taken today.  He said that anything that required action should be on the agenda.  Mr. Lovetro accused Mr. Schwalm of circumventing the rules, that he was out of order and it was a potential violation of Open Meeting Law.  The board took a vote to end the presentation with Mr. Pugel, Lovetro, Calderon and Dickinson voting yes and Mr. Weeks and Schwalm voting no.
 
The Rules and Regulations workshop was held before the regular meeting, and the tendency to ride rough shod over suggestions made by Mr. Schwalm was evident.  When it came to Rules and Regulations for agenda setting, Sam asked if each board member could be allowed one agenda item per meeting.The answer was NO. Secretary Mr. Dickinson declared that if two people asked for the same item it would be a potential violation of OML.  Currently the Chairman and Secretary set the agenda.  Mr. Tom Weeks said that board members should be allowed to put items on the agenda without censorship.  He later remarked “we are elected officials from the community, we should be able to ask to have it put on the agenda and not have it denied by two other people.”  The Fire Department Board always asks towards the end of their meetings if any members have anything they want put on the next agenda. 
 
After his presentation was cut off, Mr. Schwalm was able to get in an agenda request for a presentation from ADEQ with reference to a Water System Evaluation.  It will again be up to the Chairman and the Secretary if this agenda request ever makes it.  No wonder our agenda request asking if former board member Michael Greer is still working on PSWID property, is ignored.  If a less favored board member has difficulty getting an item on the agenda, members of the public who seek clarification on an issue stand no chance at all!

PRESENTATION LINK 
(Water Usage Revenue by Sam Schwalm)

Further on in the meeting Mr. Schwalm was allowed to make a presentation on Water Usage Revenue for FY2014 as an agenda item.  He is concerned whether the revenue had been appropriately forecasted for this year’s budget, and clearly stated that he was not going to be asking to change budget or revenue.  His opinion was that we might be facing a shortfall of $78,540 to $97,468 for FYE 2014.  He explained the point of this agenda item is why that shortfall might occur and if we might be proactive.  His presentation was based on history of water usage revenue and took into account anticipated revenue from the recent rate increases and the meter replacement program.  Mr. Schwalm advised that the meter replacement program is trending at 50% and anticipated at end of FY to be 81%.  Mr. Lovetro challenged Sam when he was speaking, and pointed out DM Brad Cole had just said he will hire additional installers and upped his prediction of meter replacement to 100%.  Sam Schwalm indicated that he was showing the effective meter replacement for the fiscal year. Since meters are being replaced through a significant period of the fiscal year, any additional revenue from the replacement will not have full effect. He also tried to explain the revenue predictions exceeded the amount of water that is reasonably recoverable by meter replacement.   Mr. Calderon interrupted and Chairman Pugel did eventually advise the members to let Mr. Schwalm finish and then they would ask questions and speak with the DM and accounting manager. 

Questions were asked by board members of both Mr. Schwalm and CH2M Hill.  The accounting manager said she was confident in her methods.  Mr. Pugel said that is why we hire experts in that field. In about 3-4 months we will know who is right about the revenue projection and Becki will let us know.  Mr. Weeks said in the long run we will know where we are at.  Mr. Lovetro said as board members we need to let the professionals do their job.  Mr. Weeks remarked that it is a board members duty to ask questions.  At the end Mr. Schwalm made a motion “The board instructs CH2M Hill to identify $80,000 in low priority operations and or capital spending that can be deferred until after the beginning of the year, with that spending contingent on Board approval after actual water usage revenue expectations become clearer.  Motion failed for lack of a second.
 
During the presentation the audience could hear Mr. Lovetro first at the back of the meeting hall loudly casting aspersions upon Sam Schwalm, and continued on down the side of the room with his back to the presenter.  This writer chastised Gary Lovetro for his rudeness and inability to courteously listen to others.  It is shameful that the public had to witness such boorish behavior from someone who is supposed to represent the community.
 
Mr. Pugel had an agenda item “to discuss and take possible action related to Economists.com proposal.” We will provide comments on that in a second email.

District Manager’s report said that over the 4^th of July holiday they “struggled to keep Strawberry in water; pumped water from Pine to Strawberry through Magnolia Line.”  Historically Strawberry did not have a water problem, and so we wonder if the the idea of cancellation of water sharing agreements in Strawberry is premature.  Adding to the Strawberry situation was the loss of a water sharing agreement with Mr. McKnight which has since been reinstated.  One of the reasons given for cancelling the WSA was to save money and rely on Pine to supply more water.  Since the water is pumped uphill there is an increased electricity cost and therefore the actual savings of cancelling the water sharing agreements amounts to only about $2,000.00 per year.  Mr. Lovetro stressed that without the Milk Ranch Wells they would not have been able to help out Strawberry.  One can only hope that the pumps or Magnolia Line never fails. 
 
What was missing from the DM report is any mention of filtration for the three Milk Ranch wells.  Maybe this is an oversight but we would certainly like to know what progress if any has been made.  The second tank is awaiting approval of construction.  Milk Ranch Well #2 is completed and runs at 50 gpm with 75 gpm the recommended maximum rate.  Milk Ranch Well #3 is still under construction. Strawberry Hollow Well (SH3) as of 7/18/13 is still not back online after eight months.  Tank Farm Well pump and motor failed due to excessive wear on the shaft (two years old) and was repaired almost immediately. 
 
DM again applied to WIFA for a grant in the hope that it can help with costs for a Leak Detection Survey.  The deadline for bids for the survey is July 26^th, 2013.
 
Mr. Weeks commented to the DM that maybe when doing the water meter replacements up in Strawberry that care be taken to properly flush that part of the system to avoid any complaints about grit.  This writer would also ask the same, when PSWID was working on road pipes, three times the shower and faucets cut out on me and I flushed out fresh sand and grit.
 
It was decided that the need for back flow prevention devices would be determined on a case by case basis by CH2M Hill.  Customers researched the issue and provided information prior to the meeting.
 
PSWID Lawyer Dan Torrens recently joined a different law firm and will be retained as legal counsel.  During the Rules and Regulations workshop it was declared by Mr. Lovetro that it should be mandatory for legal counsel to be in attendance at every PSWID meeting.  Mr. Pugel said it would be “penny wise and pound foolish” not to have the lawyer always present.  Mr. Schwalm had just suggested that maybe the legal presence should be requested by four board members and not the “standing request” from two to be at every meeting.  Sam suggested that this was a way to cut costs and Mr. Weeks asked how much the legal fees were.  Accounting manager said that they were below budget and Gary Lovetro claimed that the fees were less than those paid as a result of “frivolous complaints and public information requests.”   
 
Mr. Lovetro should be reminded that the Arizona Attorney General required the board to undergo a remedial session on Open Meeting Law, particularly on serial meetings.  As for every public information request being run by the lawyer first, it is the board’s decision to take that route.  Public documents are supposed to be available for inspection during normal business hours, and not just the work hours of the CH2M Hill Accountant.

(Stay Tuned for Part 2)