Random Drug Testing: A Spector of my Past

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Bill of Rights)



From a distance I have been watching the random drug testing discussion in Hillsborough these past few weeks. It was heartening to see the Courier News “Our Opinion” column address the very concerns I had years ago when I joined Mike Joye in filing a lawsuit against Hunterdon Central ("Is the medicine worse than the ailment?", Courier News, January 8, 2008, pp. A-8, or http://www.c-n.com/, click on “Our Opinion” under the 'Opinion' category). When introduced at Central, I was on the Hunterdon Central Random Drug Testing Task Force and worked intimately with the ACLU challenge. They were on my speed dial for a few years. I know from whence I speak here. I know how many students were tested based on suspicion the year before random drug testing was introduced, fewer than 2% of the population, probably under
1 and 1/2%. Over several years, we all traveled together to the state Supreme Court. We the parents lost by one vote.

Random drug testing of students weakens the strength of both the federal and state Constitutions. It weakens parental control to address an issue that may not be so desperate that it requires such a dramatic reaction by our schools. For instance, at one point Hunterdon Central, getting resistance from parents to come in and be present during the testing, opted to just eliminate the requirement that parents be present.

Hunterdon Central consistently argues random testing is a deterrent. It gives the students an out. Well I can argue that the traffic lights in Flemington keep out the pink elephants. You get my drift. How many pink elephants are there here in Flemington? What Central never produced was a shred of evidence independent of the drug company intervention we saw at Central or Central’s own claims to support this statement. Central offers the argument based on just, well, offering the argument. Let’s get some evidence independent of Central’s conjectures and independent of those drug companies and labs that stand to profit.

In 2003, the University of Michigan released the results of a survey of more than 600 middle schools and high schools. This INDEPENDENT survey indicated that there was NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in drug use of students between schools that tested and those that did not.
http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2003/May03/r051903.html

This is the type of data that should be combed through before our citizens have to forsake any more rights. In the absence of such independent data, although I requested it as a task force member, I concluded that the big winner here is DATIA, The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry. Google it. Parents have every right to insist on independent data to substantiate the claim that random drug testing is a deterrent. Be sure to know the source of that data. Weakening parental control and constitutional protections is a serious matter. The benefits need to outweigh the losses.

There is always the option of a voluntary testing progam that would respect everyone's rights.

See Joye vs Hunterdon Central at http://www.njsba.org/sb_notes/july2403/NewSite/NewFiles/drug.html

Stay tuned.

Mrs. Hughes

What a day beautiful...enjoy Mrs.Hughes


http://crackle.com/c/High_Wire/Mrs_hughes_skewed_views/2041059#vt=1

Bike Safety

To all Boro Council Members,

I hope you can help here.

I was on my way home for Angelo’s with dinner about 6:30 Monday night. As I turned up homewards from Walter Foran, I traveled on North Main towards Thatcher Hill.


Shortly before I hit the Flemington Arms, in the dark about 30 feet ahead a kid on bike crossed my path. He was wearing a black ski cap, black jacket, black everything. He was barely visible. I am not much for imposing a lot of personal rules and “regs” with respect to people’s personal preferences but I ask you to consider requiring bike riders, and we have more and more of them in the Boro, to wear reflective vests after dusk.

I have good eyesight but to me he was hardly visible. He was just a child. I am hoping we can find a way to keep these riders safer.

I hope there is a way to address this problem before someone does get hurt.

Thank you for your consideration.

What Can Flemington Afford?

"The true test of the first- rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time." F. Scott Fitzgerald


All college students and their families would surely like tuition relief. We were surely one of them. The Greiner family did not see any expensive vacations or furniture, well, for years as we scrimped and saved to send our daughters to a state college. So I sympathize with the intentions of those state legislators who sponsored bills S78 and A4032, the intent of which is to allow illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/S0500/78_I1.HTM). Is this fiscally sound or fair?

Perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse. It is hard to argue that educating our residents, legal or illegal, is anything less than good for our society. Perhaps these state legislators are begging the more general question--- what indeed should be our illegal immigration policy, statewide or nationwide? One almost immediately sees the strangeness of this question. Why do we need any illegal immigration policy? Illegal immigration is, well, illegal. But most of us are aware that the issue is far more complex. With respect to economics, there are, let’s say, short- term immigration issues and long- term immigration issues. Short- term issues are about the financial realities of the here and now. Long-term issues are about the financial realities down the road. “The Economist” , a weekly British publication, for years has argued in favor of the long- term economic benefits of immigration in America. Their line of reasoning maintains the increased population will mean more contributors down the road to our Social Security and Medicare programs. This is as opposed to the problem of the dwindling populations in Europe. European nations have fewer and fewer contributors to their far more expansive social benefit programs.

Roughly we see at least three classes of immigrants---Those who seek political asylum, those who are highly trained and migrate in order to work in the country with the greatest opportunity for technological advancement and those who are unskilled but are attracted by our newly expansive welfare and social benefits, not available during the influx of immigrants one hundred years ago. Those who are highly trained are high wage earners. The high wage earners result in net fiscal benefit for America. Those who are unskilled are the low wage earners. The low age wage earners result in a net deficit for the states they immigrate to.

Note the following information…“Based on federal, state, and local government expenditures and tax receipts, the NRC (National Research Council) estimated that the short-run fiscal impact of immigration was negative in both New Jersey and California. In New Jersey, using data for 1989–1990, immigrant households received an average net fiscal transfer from natives of $1,500, or 3 percent of average state immigrant household income. Spread among the more numerous state native populations, this amounted to an average net fiscal burden of $230 per native household, or 0.4 percent of average state native household income. In California, using data for 1994–95, immigrant households received an average net fiscal transfer of $3,500, or 9 percent of average immigrant household income, which resulted in an average fiscal burden on native households of $1,200, or 2 percent of average native household income. The impact of immigration on California is more negative because immigrant households in the state (a) are more numerous relative to the native population, (b) have more children, causing them to make greater use of public education, and (c) earn lower incomes, leading them to have lower tax payments and greater use of public assistance. For the nation as a whole, the NRC estimated that in 1996 immigration imposed a short-run fiscal burden on the average U.S. native household of $200, or 0.2 percent of U.S. GDP. “
(Excerpt From “Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration” by Gordon Hanson, Council on Foreign Relations, Council Special Report #26, April 2007 pp 22-23
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/ImmigrationCSR26.pdf)

In 1989-1990 NJ already was running at an additional $230 net fiscal burden per native household. With our burgeoning immigration population, what is it today? Anyone have any more recent figures?

Those who are concerned about the illegal immigration issue are often manipulated out of the discussion, accused of being racist. So with respect to this very serious issue, we are often coerced to dance rather than reason and resolve. Crossing America’s borders and entering without legal documentation is an illegal act. Numerous immigrants all over the world who want access to America have equally numerous stories of hardship. I am second generation American of Polish and Russian heritage. I know firsthand why immigrants kiss American soil.

We in Flemington are absorbing what we believe to be a significant, questionably legal population. We are out of land and have no room to expand. Our infrastructure, laid out years ago to serve a certain size population is being heavily utilized. Our apartments are meant to hold a certain number of renters. We have a fixed income senior population, folks who have lived here all their lives and should not be forced to move away due to rising property taxes to cover the school expense incurred by in influx of illegal immigrants. We have NJ citizens, paying their way, who would like to live here but cannot afford to due to housing prices and property taxes while illegal immigrants are living here and utilizing services they do not fully support financially.

People, children, public services cost money. This is why we have to take seriously the legality of immigration. How many can we accommodate here and how much does it cost? Cost is just one issue regarding the immigration question. This is by no means the end of the discussion and cost perhaps should not be the sole determining factor in guiding immigration policy. But it is a practical issue in the sense that we need to live I within our means. We cannot just throw all caution to the wind.Long time Flemington residents, who have built and carried the Boro financially throughout their lifetimes, on fixed incomes need to be taken into account too.

Stay tuned.

The Re- Org That Wasn't

It is that time of year when local governments convene with the newly elected members and re-organize the council assignments. Likewise on January 3, Flemington Boro held its re-org in a manner of speaking.

Every council member very nicely summed up his or her last year, welcomed new members, thanked appropriate persons and talked of the high hopes for the upcoming year. Senior Democrat councilwoman, Sandy Borucki, and Democrat councilwoman, Brooke Liebowitz, were elected Boro council president and vice president, respectively.

Mayor Hauck then turned to that portion of the meeting that deals with the new round of council assignments. As best as I understood, the new Democrat majority had given a list of assignments to the mayor previously and advised they had discussed the assignments with him. The mayor indicated he did not think the list was up for discussion but more a matter of the Democrats informing him of the slate they would endorse by their votes. With four Democrats and two Republicans composing the council, the Democrats can automatically pass what they are inclined to pass, to put the mayor’s read of the situation in context.

Mayor Hauck also submitted his own list of assignments, citing NJ state code that asserts that the mayor appoints with the advice and consent of council. In other words, according to NJ state code, the mayor of a municipality introduces the appointments to council for its advice and consent as opposed to council members submitting a slate of appointments to the mayor, as was done by the Democrat council members. (See NJ State Code online---http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/A3500/3427_I1.PDF.
See section (e).)

When making assignments on Boro council, Mayor Hauck explained that the prior year he established committees composed of members of both political parties to tackle issues in Flemington. He thought this approach kept all council members better informed on all matters for Boro council consideration. Based on his experience of years as Boro clerk, councilman and now mayor, he expressed concern about concentrating the bulk of the workload in the hands of two council members. (Four of our six council members have only one year’s experience or less.) Hunterdon County clerk, Mary Melfi was appointed to head the OEM again. This was the only appointment made that was publicly discussed. Mayor Hauck justified appointing Ms. Melfi who had earlier resigned, citing the devastating Hunter Hills fire last week and the need for an experienced person to handle this type of Boro job. Other prospective appointments were tabled until there was further review of the statutes under question by Boro attorney, Barry Goodman.

Mayor Hauck indicated that in accordance with state code, he was offering his own slate for acceptance or rejection by the council for the record but he indicated he did not intend to force the issue. His intent was to make his position on assignments known for the record. Republican councilwoman, Erica Edwards, wanted to know more about how assignments were traditionally made. Democrat councilman, Mark Legato, indicated he felt this was partisanship but conforming to NJ state code strikes me as just abiding in the laws of NJ. With only one Republican council member at the meeting, the Democrats could have handily passed their slate, overriding the mayor. (Republican Councilman, John Gorman,was absent due to illness.) I did not understand Councilman Legato's comment. Councilwoman Brooke Liebowitz wanted to reconcile the differences, explaining that she wanted council members to be satisfied with their assignments. She suggested the council convene and revisit the assignments together. This plan was adopted. Meanwhile, Boro attorney, Barry Goodman, said he believed at this point in time the mayor’s interpretation was correct but he wanted more time to research state code on this issue and particularly on the issue regarding the appointments to planning board before offering a final opinion. Mayor Hauck had indicated that planning board appointments were made by the mayor and did not require Boro council approval. There were no votes along party lines.

Then they all adjourned to attend the re-org dinner in honor of the re-org that wasn’t.

Again I invite Mayor Hauck and all council members to feel free to contact me with any topics they wish to share with the community. I will do my best to accommodate all requests.

All the best to Boro council in 2008.

Stay tuned.

What's Next?

Cruising around the Flemington website, www.historicflemington.com the last week in December to my surprise I learned that this year Boro council meetings will be broadcast via our website.

In this day of “Tivo “ this and “Tivo” that and Podcasts and ipods, we are accustomed to watching or listening to what we want when we find the time. And that convenience in these hectic days surely has its merits. But, on the one hand as Heisenberg notes, deliberately observing the process changes the process. Hence there has been much ado about the wisdom of televising court proceedings. Not knowing who is observing them may discourage residents from speaking their minds. We live in a very small borough. There is no anonymity as there is in Congress with its televised broadcasts. It may on the flipside invite grandstanding. On another hand, Boro hall is no more than five minutes from anywhere in the Boro and interested parties can go to council meetings, express their views, ask their questions and discuss Boro business with council members, personally. Not possible when relying on a broadcast. On still another hand, watching broadcasts may invite more interest and increase attendance at Boro council meetings. Boro residents, observing Boro council operating with full transparency, will inform the citizenry and the citizens ought to see to it they are informed because actions taken by council members are predicated on the consent of those they govern, basic John Locke and the contract between the governed and those who govern them. We are entitled to be sure council is doing what we want it to do because the power to govern in Flemington, America comes from the consent of the people. Given the nature of this broadcast issue, so very discretionary, it might have been nice to see what the residents thought about nudging our Boro into a more technological, no- holds- barred venue. After all some residents like the bit of respite Flemington offers from the hustle of the technological age and settle here for that benefit, small town life and goings on. Years ago we voted on the color of our Christmas lights, red and green vs. all white as we prepared to decorate our little hamlet. The traditional red and green won out. We are like this in little Flemington, personal, but we are open to the new and exciting too.

When I asked my still councilman husband about this new broadcast development and how it came to be and what other members of council thought, he advised me that the issue of broadcasting meetings, its pros or cons, were never brought to Boro council during his tenure. So broadcasting Boro council meetings was just set up and announced on the website with no discussion on Boro council. This I do not understand.

Stay tuned.

The War of Unintended Consequences

Best movie I have seen in a long time. It is now at the American Cineplex on Route 202 in Flemington. I cannot urge you strongly enough to see “Charlie Wilson’s War.” It is especially a must see for those who because of limited time cannot read the books or watch the documentaries on our difficulties in the Middle East but want to understand more about our Middle East problems, some of their roots and the possible ramifications of early withdrawal from Iraq. It may be helpful in sizing up presidential candidates this election year. So, yes, I recommend a movie to help with our enlightenment. This true story deftly executed by director Mike Nichols is the picture that is worth the thousands of words needed to justify US responsibility in the Middle East and specifically Iraq and why we risk serious danger to our national security would we withdraw from that country prematurely.

On December 25, 1979 without much reason or provocation other than Cold War antagonism, Russia invaded Afghanistan. Under President Carter, the US responded lamely until the philandering, Texas good ole’ boy Congressman Charlie Wilson took interest and undertook action to arm the members of the Afghani mujahadeen with the kind of artillery needed to down the Russian choppers. During the so-called Cold War years, the US and Russia engaged in proxy wars in the Middle East. This war in Afghanistan was viewed thusly until Charlie Wilson gave into his qualms of conscience with regard to little Afghan children being maimed by shiny land mines and Afghan women being stabbed or raped by Russian soldiers.

In the recesses if his own moral consciousness, which was certainly an interesting trip to explore in and of itself, Wilson decided that this type of suffering of the Afghan people caught up in the proxy war between two super powers was not acceptable. He began a campaign to arm Afghanistan in order to level the playing field. It is all there, the sex and the freewheeling but not necessarily ineffective American style of world management we have come to expect in the US. We overhear the back room deals between enemies who work together as friends when necessary. We see the shock and awe of American military firepower. And again there is the inexcusable misreading of the possible bad outcomes of the US refusal to help re-build Afghanistan after the Russians pulled out and left the mess they created behind to fester. This is a lesson we need to get so we do not leave Iraq to the doom we left Afghanistan.

For those who blame 9/11 solely on American diplomatic failure, the role of Russia instigating turmoil in the Middle East should not be overlooked. The Russian invasion, the wasting of Afghanistan and Russia’s ultimate defeat were all pivotal in bin Laden’s successful attack on America. Believing that the Afghanis had defeated one super power, surely they could defeat another, bin Laden reasoned. Foolishly, in Afghanistan’s great hour of need and in the warmth of its great gratitude to the US, America abandoned Afghanistan. After the Russians left, Afghani factions fought within and then in 1996 ultimately fell to the Taliban which hosted bin Laden after he was invited to leave Sudan. Bin Laden entertained his recruits there and his lieutenants eventually struck us on 9/11. The rest of this history we are painfully aware of firsthand.

To make a good choice in November, we Americans need to understand and be informed about a world that is a world away from us on so many levels. Viewing this movie is a painless way to begin this fact gathering process. Charlie Wilson’s war has escalated into every American’s war. I urge you to take it in.

Because of the nudity, sex, violence and language this movie is not suitable for children.

Stay tuned.