FROM THE CAPITOL: Safety on the Streets

By Senator Leland Yee

In high school science classrooms, students are taught that data becomes fact only when it can be tested. Experiments are set up with control groups and variables, and through testing and retesting, one ends up with valid and reliable information.

Unfortunately, when it comes to public policy, such experiments are often unfeasible. In a state of 38 million people, there are so many variables associated with any piece of legislation that it is rare that we get a neat determination of how laws affect human behavior. However, in January of 2009, one such experiment began on San Francisco’s 19th and Van Ness Avenues, and now it is up to us to learn from it. In a city with an already abnormally high rate of pedestrian traffic accidents, 19th Avenue was one of the most dangerous streets, with nearly 600 pedestrian collisions taking place from 2003 to 2007, resulting in 10 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

Through the years, we have successfully changed the speed limit on 19th Avenue from 35 to 30 mph, installed pedestrian countdown signals at traffic lights, improved signage, and added bulb-outs to shorten the distance for pedestrians at several crosswalks. Despite all these changes, we continued to have an unacceptably high fatality rate on 19th Avenue.

In 2008, after five years of hard work, we were finally able to get a double-fine zone on 19th Avenue when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 1419 — a bill I crafted with the help of several San Francisco community members. The combination of the fines and the improvements resulted in a substantial drop in traffic accidents along 19th Avenue, and there was not a single pedestrian death in 2009 — a result of which all San Franciscans can be proud.

As part of the compromise to get the double-fine zone on 19th Avenue approved, the Senate Transportation Committee insisted that we also include a double-fine zone on Van Ness Avenue, another dangerous corridor in our city. However, thus far, the improvements that have been made on 19th Avenue have failed to materialize on Van Ness Avenue, and as a result we have not seen a similar statistical change.

The fine increase cannot be used as a magic bullet, but rather as a piece of a larger strategy to improve traffic safety. It is my hope that the successes we have had on 19th Avenue can be repeated on Van Ness, and my expectations are that we would then see similar progress.

Good public policy is never made in a vacuum. It is carefully crafted with input from the community that will be affected by it, and when it fails to meet the needs of that community it should be retooled until it does. While it may be too early to say anything with absolute certainty regarding this law, what we have seen thus far is encouraging and that increased fines are an important piece of the puzzle needed to help save lives.

STREET TALK: Consumisyon on elections

By Greg Macabenta

If you think that the Commission on Elections has been purged of multi-million dollar hamburjers and million-vote phone pals, look again. This constitutional body is still infested with characters who cannot tell right from wrong.

When Congress passed the Dual Citizenship Law, Republic Act 9225, many of us who had become naturalized citizens of foreign countries welcomed the opportunity to reclaim our Philippine citizenship. The day the law became operative, I was with the first batch that crowded into the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco to become a Filipino citizens again.

At last, we would have an opportunity to exercise the right of suffrage, to participate in the choice of the leaders of the land of our birth, to contribute to its emergence from poverty not simply with our money remittances but also with our skills and other assets.

But we celebrated too soon. Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos – the Hamburjer Man, star of the NBN/ZTE multi-million dollar scandal – ruled that dual citizens could not vote in the 2004 elections. Led by Loida Nicolas-Lewis, then chair of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), several of us appealed to the Supreme Court to nullify the ruling.

On August 4, 2006, the high court ruled in our favor, decreeing that the Dual Citizenship Law was meant to “to “enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos.” Unfortunately, the decision came too late for us to vote in the Garcified presidential contest, where a million votes were added on to an Arroyo victory, but it allowed us to help bring in a new batch of senators – and kick out a lot of undesirable ones - in the 2007 polls.

Now comes the 2010 presidential elections, a monumental event in the continuing struggle of the Philippines to extricate itself from a fate of corruption, incompetence, crime and poverty. Like the invigorated American electorate who voted in large numbers in the last US presidential elections in their desire for “change they could believe in,” overseas Filipinos have become motivated to actively participate in the selection of the new Philippine president to ensure that all vestiges of the graft-ridden administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are ejected and changed. Since the passage of the Dual Citizenship and the Overseas Absentee Voting Laws, the response of overseas Filipinos, particularly those in the US, had been embarrassing, to say the least. We had lobbied long and hard to have both laws passed by Congress, but when they were finally signed into law, only a handful of otherwise qualified Filipino voters took the trouble to register, and fewer still bothered to vote.

A January 19 story filed by GMA News gave these dismal numbers: “A total of 589,830 overseas Filipinos registered for the 2010 elections. According to the poll body’s statistics, 224,884 new voters were added to the list of 364,946 active voters from the past two elections. In addition to the land-based Filipinos, a total of 21,097 seafarers will also be allowed to vote in the 2010 elections.

“Since the OAV was signed into law in 2003, figures have not been encouraging. In the 2004 national elections, only 360,000 of the more than four million qualified overseas Filipinos had registered. Of this figure, only 65 percent or 233,092 actually voted.

“In the 2007 midterm elections, at least 145,000 more overseas Filipinos registered to vote but only 81,732 cast their ballots. Data from the Comelec indicated that the countries with the most number of overseas Filipino voters are Saudi Arabia with 111,549; Hong Kong, 95,355; and the United States of America, 40,430.

“In terms of geographic regions, the Middle East and African nations have the most number of overseas voters, with a total of 225,148. The Asia Pacific, meanwhile, has 215,548; Europe, 61,294; and North and Latin America, 66,743.”

Among the reasons for the poor response are provisions in the law that make it difficult to register and vote. But what has made a bad situation worse is the fact that the Comelec has not really done enough to encourage voter registration. In fact, it has actively discouraged registration in the forthcoming elections by setting the deadline a full month earlier, August 31 instead of the end of September.

In a case filed before the Supreme Court by Raymond Palatino on behalf of Philippine voters, the high court directed the Comelec to extend the registration period by 69 days. Encouraged by this, a FilAm from Boston, Maritess Salientes Bloom, filed a petition with the Comelec in Manila asking for an extension of 28 days for overseas voters. This effort was supported by NaFFAA and actively pursued by Loida Nicolas-Lewis and Rodel Rodis.

For some reason that defies logic, another overseas group, the Global Filipino Nation, headed by Vic Barrios, filed its own petition for extension but only asked for two extra days!

To further complicate matters, a private conversation between Lewis and a Comelec official, to the effect that the Bloom petition had been “approved,” was prematurely announced as a fait accompli. The celebration was cut short when the Comelec subsequently announced that the petition had, in fact, been denied.

As in the past, the leaders of NaFFAA are preparing to appeal this adverse decision to the Supreme Court. According to Rodis, the rationale given by the Comelec for denying the Bloom petition do not hold water. The Comelec avers that giving an extension of 28 days would upset the work schedule of the poll body, require more personnel and resources and, in effect, jeopardize the conduct of the elections. Rodis scoffs at this.

According to Rodis, “The Comelec rejected our petition because to grant it ‘would wreak havoc to the Commission's over-all preparations for the 10 May 2010 National and Local Elections. Petitioner must bear in mind that to set an additional registration period now would have a rippling effect to our Commission's schedules, which are already tight as it is.’
“First of all, for the information of the Comelec, overseas voters do not vote in ‘Local Elections’ just in case the Comelec was not aware of that. How would extending the registration period to overseas voters ‘wreak havoc’? The work would be done by the local consular officials who still have the voters registration machines. What kind of ‘rippling’ effect would it have? The Comelec made the same arguments against the Palatino petition and yet none of the ‘rippling effects’ it warned against materialized. Comelec would not need to hire any new workers to register the overseas voters.”

Added Rodis: “The Comelec's decision actually presents us with the opportunity to put the Comelec on trial for its gross incompetence and for completely ignoring the needs and interests of the overseas absentee voters.”

We can only hope for the best. The Supreme Court could rule in favor of overseas Pinoys – but past experience warns us that the decision could be made AFTER the 2010 elections. In such a case, the Commission on Elections would have succeeded in frustration our efforts to participate in the choice of the new president. It should be renamed, Consumisyon on Elections.
But we’re not entirely helpless. Those who have already registered should vote. And those who haven’t and can’t register should actively campaign for honest and competent candidates and direct their friends and families in the Philippines to do likewise.

Otherwise, heaven help the Philippines. We might yet end up with a new president named Money Villarroyo.

(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)

NO LIMITATIONS: Mayweather Exposed

By Ted Laguatan ESQ

If Floyd Mayweather were not a boxer, he might have been a magician or politician or con man. Well, he tried a con on Pacquiao – so he’s both boxer and con man. Many ask: “Why doesn’t Pacquiao just accede to Mayweather’s demands for blood tests?”; “Is he hiding something?”; “ Why did he refuse these demands?”

Without any proof whatsoever, Mayweather and his co-conspirators have accused Manny of using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). He also insists on specific blood tests which no boxer has ever imposed on another boxer. State boxing commissions are there to regulate testing protocols.

In previous fights after stringent tests, Manny emerged squeaky clean. Mayweather knows that Pacquiao’s skills, speed, power and stamina stem from continuous improvement, discipline, rigorous training and excellent physical and intelligence genetics – not PEDs.
So what’s Mayweather’s gimmick?

Here’s my take on this:
Mayweather remains undefeated not only because of his boxing skills but also because of his ability to psyche out opponents. His hero is Muhammad Ali who taunted opponents before and during a fight – a strategy meant to screw up their minds and foul up their training regimen and mindset in the ring. Among other tactics, Ali riled opponents with insulting monickers: Sonny Liston (“Big Black Bear”); Joe Frazier (“Gorilla”); Leon Spinks (“Blacula”); Floyd Patterson (“Rabbit”). Notably, after his fights, Ali maintained good relations with opponents.

Following Ali’s lead, the cunning Mayweather brewed a devious covert stratagem to beat Pacquiao: Beat this dude by messing up his mind. Accuse him of using roids and other PEDs and insist on blood tests. He’ll absolutely be resentful because he knows he’s clean. Questions will be raised about his character. These will unbalance him mentally and emotionally - constantly agitating him and keeping him mad as hell. He can’t sleep, eat, or make love. Repeatedly insult and call him a ‘punk ass’. His training regimen will crumble. When he climbs into the ring weakened, angry, rushing and raging to tear my head off - he’ll be ripe for the taking. I’ll run circles around him, make him look like a fool - frustrate him into making disastrous errors. I’ll own him.

Misdirection. Magicians and smart lawyers well understand this principle. To illustrate, a magician directs the audience’s attention to his right hand while his unnoticed left hand surreptitiously reaches for the hidden card or rabbit. Discretion prevents me from revealing how super lawyers use the same principle in winning cases.

Mayweather’s sneaky misdirection involves directing the attention of the boxing public to accusations of PED use and to blood testing demands with staged pronouncements of concerns for the boxers’ safety – smokescreening his true intention which is to mess up Pacquiao’s mind and emotions.

If detecting PEDs was really his honest intention, this objective can easily be accomplished: Just do the blood test right after the fight. Pacquiao had readily agreed to this fool-proof protocol. The fighter found PED positive will immediately be disqualified. If victorious, his victory is instantly nullified and the innocent fighter declared winner. Mayweather did not limit his demands to this reasonable reliable protocol because he has a different agenda. When he fought Arturo Gatti, he repeatedly called him: “a C+ fighter”, “a fake”, “ a blown up club fighter”. See?

The defamation lawsuit against Mayweather and co-conspirators is perfectly justified. Playing mind games, they have crossed ethical lines by resorting to baseless malicious defamatory accusations – ruining Manny’s good name and reputation. With good lawyering this case can be won. I would certainly throw in a demand for punitive damages which should kick in the big bucks – millions more. Punitive damages are proper and justifiable because malice is involved. I’ll even volunteer to prepare the pleadings and arguments pro bono re punitive damages. Hey, you can’t play dirty tricks with a national treasure – a good genuinely humble man … takes Filipinos’ minds off government corruption.

Team Pacquiao did right slamming the door on Mayweather’s face. That’s smart. Had they accepted Mayweather’s terms - the bogus PED accusations and the forced acceptance of unreasonable unjustifiable blood testing demands would have left a bad taste in Pacquiao’s mouth - affecting his emotions and mindset. The team did well in following WBC President Jose Sulaiman’s admonition: “He (Pacquiao) has always been clean… Let him (Mayweather) go to hell.”

I am positive that Mayweather’s camp will soon initiate new discussions to actualize the dream rumble. The enticement of boxing’s biggest purse ever is too irresistable for the tax-challenged Mayweather. Besides, his sneaky machinations which caused Manny to walk will forever haunt him if this fight goes nada. “Coward!” - Bob Arum alleges. Maybe not. Scheming? Definitely.When the fight is on, expect Mayweather to continue trying to mess Pacquiao’s mind. Hopefully, Pacquiao gets to read this article. Some good science here.

Now that Pretty Boy’s insidious tactics are bared – he won’t come out looking so pretty when the dust settles and the smoke clears. Expose the crime they look like slime.

Ted Laguatan is officially certified as an expert/specialist lawyer by the California State Bar. He does immigration law, personal injury, complex litigation, medical malpractice and other cases. He is rated as being among the top 5 percent best lawyers in America by a magazine for lawyers. For communications: 455 Hickey Blvd.,Ste.516,Daly City, CA 94015, Tel. (650) 991-1154, Fax (650)991-1186, E-mail: laguatanlaw@gmail.com

FROM THE CAPITOL: Being the support for one another

By Senator Leland Yee

The word family, or pamilya, is a word that I have learned from my involvement in the Filipino-American community. Being the in community I see the different meanings of the word family, in the labor of love of putting various community events together, in the gathering of seniors to get together and move their feet to music, and to dinners that celebrate an anniversary, an opening, a graduation, the list goes on.

Over the past few months, I have been joined by many friends in the community—friends that I see around often, and some that I haven’t had the chance to see in a while. I am always enamored with how time is not a matter of importance. I say this in the sense that despite not having seen one another in a while, it seems as if it was just yesterday we saw each other and we can easily pick up from where we left off. This has been apparent to me in many of these gatherings.

I recall the efforts last fall to declare the month of October as Filipino-American History Month. In working with the Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS), language was developed together for Senate Concurrent Resolution 48, which recounts the recorded history of Filipino Americans in the United States and in the State of California in particular. Once word spread about this effort, so did the quick outpour of support for the legislation. With the backing of Filipino-Americans all throughout the state and in other parts of the nation, as well as my colleagues in Sacramento, we were able to provide the Filipino-American community the recognition that was overdue and well-deserved.

I have great admiration for the dynamic of the Filipino and Filipino-American pamilya. It is what truly makes your community unique. The words unity, camaraderie, and friendship also ring true to your people.

I encourage you to keep the same commitment to helping one another and our community. At a time when many people are losing their jobs, their homes, their confidence, it is important that we remain and continue to be backbones for one another.

We must also not forget our brothers and sisters in countries like Haiti who are recovering from a major earthquake two weeks ago, and those in the Philippines, who are still recuperating from the aftermaths of Typhoon Ondoy which struck three months ago, that we remember them and provide them with our continued support and love. As such, it is fitting and proper that I thank you all for your many contributions to our society. And let us keep the positive momentum going in 2010.

STREET TALK: President Villarroyo?

WRITTEN BY: GREG MACABENTA

Manny Villar is lucky, he is running for president of the Philippines. If this were an election campaign in the US, he would be shamed into withdrawing because of the censure threatened by at least 12 of his colleagues in the Senate.

He is also lucky because a censure might be the worst thing the Senate will do to him. In fact, if the erstwhile champion of good government, Alan Peter Cayetano, were to have his way, there won’t even be a censure and the damning findings of the Senate President himself, Juan Ponce Enrile, would be treated like a worthless piece of paper.

Cayetano, who would have us believe he was a crusader against the corrupt Arroyo government, apparently hasn’t heard about what Manuel Luis Quezon had to say about loyalty to his party ending where loyalty to the country begins. Cayetano sees things in reverse.

If Villar were a US senator and were to be accused and “found guilty” by his Senate colleagues, the way Ponce Enrile’s findings indicate, a mere censure would cause an uproar across America. That would be like a mere slap on the knuckles and Capitol Hill would not hear the end of it from the media and from the citizenry.

In America, the Justice Department would step into the picture or an independent counsel would be appointed. The FBI would quarantine Villar’s financial records, go over his transactions with a fine tooth comb, interview dozens of potential witnesses and make a viable presidential campaign impossible to run. And fat chance the voters will even entertain the idea of Villar becoming president.

Consider what Bill and Hillary Clinton, as president and first lady of the United States, had to go through as a result of allegations of unethical conduct in connection with their real estate investments while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. The Clintons were subsequently cleared in the Whitewater scandal but not their associates Jim and Susan McDougal who were both convicted, along with Clinton’s successor, Governor Jim Tucker. If enough evidence had been built against the Clintons, they would have been ejected from the White House.

And yet, what the Clintons were accused of could pass for a small case of official misbehavior compared to what Villar has been accused of by his colleagues in the Senate.

Consider what Gary Hart and John Edwards, both US presidential hopeless had to suffer when the former was shown with a “bimbo” on his lap in a yatch and the latter was exposed concerning his extramarital affair. Hart had to forget about his presidential ambitions and Edwards had to end his promising presidential campaign.

Would Villar entertain such a thought? Not on anyone's life. He has invested so much in his campaign, he won't withdraw even if every member of Congress were to turn blue in the face censuring him.

Indeed, the findings of the Senate Committee should be enough to kick off the kind of exhaustive investigation that will get to the bottom of this scandal and either exonerate Villar or get him indicted and jailed. But don't count on the Senate demanding that Villar should withdraw. The Senate is still an Old Boys’ Club and, at most, will rap Villar on the knuckles and leave him free to run for the highest office in the land.

Villar has been accused of having “made the Filipino suffer the total amount of P6.22 billion” because of the alleged realignment of the C5 highway through subdivisions in which he has substantial holdings. On top of that, he has been accused of directly benefiting from the realignment because of the increased value of his property and allegations of overpricing in the right-of-way payments, on top of which he reportedly was first in line to collect payments from the government.

Twelve senators have already signed the draft report and are endorsing it to a plenary session of the Senate. That very act would mean the end of Villar's presidency aspirations, if this scandal had exploded in America or Korea or Japan or Europe. In such a case,Villar would have to put up a determined defense to defend his honor and uphold his reputation.

But this is happening in the Philippines. Therefore, Villar may not even feel constrained to speak out in his defense but will simply leave it to his spokesmen, apologists and publicists to cry “political vendetta” and claim martyrdom.

And don’t be surprised if this furor will not even affect his standing in the surveys. In this country of bleeding hearts, blind loyalties, votes for sale and media practitioners moonlighting as apologists, Villar is not likely to lose any support. Dolphy will continue to extol him as an outstanding Son of Tondo. Willie Revillame will continue to sing praises to him in his TV show. Loren Legarda will hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil and, at most, will find a proper euphemism to justify her continuing support for her presidential teammate.

This is truly sad. This presidential election is supposed to offer a ray of hope to the long suffering people of the Philippines. After over a decade of Arroyo misrule, this is supposed to be the chance to turn things around, to field candidates who are the opposite of the present Malacanang occupant.

But what do we have? Erap Estrada, after having been ejected from the presidency and convicted of plunder, is running again for president and is ranking third in the surveys. Gilbert Teodoro, who believes that loyalty to his patron, Arroyo, is more importnt than loyalty to the country (another individual who hasn’t heard of Manuel Quezon) is the official candidate of the administration. And Manny Villar, accused of using his Senate position to benefit his business empire and threatened with a censure by his Senate peers, is still gaining on Noynoy Aquino and leaving Dick Gordon far behind in the polls.

I mention Aquino and Gordon because of the irony that these two candidates present. One is accused of having “done nothing” to deserve the presidency except to be the son of his father and mother, while the other has an impressive public service record that fails to impress the masses.

One will likely lose, despite being qualified to be president. The other one brings real hope for a new era of honesty and integrity in public service but has to confront the harsh prospect of a tight race against someone who could bring a repeat of the very plague of corruption that this election seeks to erase.
Can you imagine a President Manny VILLARROYO????!!!
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)

Mental dishonesty

By Greg Macabenta

As surely as night follows day, every single presidential candidate in the 2010 elections will vow to end corruption and dishonesty in government and will swear to uphold the law “without fear or favor” or, in the words of Erap Estrada, in his inaugural speech, “Walang kaikaibigan, walang kama-kamaganak.”

And while they’re saying this, every single one of these would-be candidates has been merrily running circles around the law. Not really breaking it. Just bending it and making a mockery of it.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, turn on your TV sets and watch those “non-campaign” commercials that sure as hell look, sound and smell like political campaign pitches.
Sure, sure, none of those spots is saying outright, “Vote for me!” but it shouldn’t take a genius to guess what these spots are saying. Even an idiot can tell.

Of course, we know why our moral, crusading, honest, incorruptible, pure as driven snow presidential wannabes are doing this. They think that the Comelec rules on election campaigning are unreasonable. They think the gag on delivering messages about the qualities of candidates doesn’t make sense.

So what do they do? Instead of amending the law through the logical congressional process, they simply use the great Pinoy talent of “palusot.” Finding a loophole and getting away with it.
At least, Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin is realistic enough to acknowledge the idiocy of the rules although he is careful not to knock those who have been bending them (I wouldn’t be surprised if he has bent the rules himself). He has filed a bill in Congress that would make the rules on early campaigning more reasonable and logical.

But to go back to this penchant for bending or running circles around the law. It has become such a national habit that nobody notices it anymore. Besides, it’s so easy to rationalize breaking or bending the law, especially when you see national leaders, from the president to the members of Congress to the sages in the Supreme Court, conveniently justifying the means to their ends.
Having seen these presidential candidates start their campaigns with such mental dishonesty, is there any reason to believe that they will change their ways when they assume office?
I frankly doubt it.

I think we will all have to resign ourselves to the harsh reality that we will be electing to the presidency and the vice-presidency people who have no compunctions about bending the law to suit their objectives. Oh yes, they may even do that “for the greater good of country and people.”
The only question is, who will do it less often. Or, putting it another way: Who will be doing MORE GOOD, while breaking or bending the law.

This brings me to the choices that are left to the electorate, based on the current list of would-be presidential and vice-presidential candidates: Aquino-Roxas, Estrada-Binay, Teodoro-Manzano and Villar-Legarda.

You may ask: What is it that qualifies these individuals for the highest offices in the land?
Frankly, that may not be the question to ask, but, rather, “Who shouldn’t be elected to the highest offices in the land?”

Apparently, the Philippine electorate has a better idea of what they do not want in the next president, rather than in the qualities that the ideal candidate should possess.
From talking to prospective voters and pundits in Manila and in the US, it is clear that the first thing they don’t want to see occupying the presidency is anyone answering to the name of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. By extension, they don’t want anyone who is associated with her.

This is the monkey on the back of Gilbert Teodoro. It is doubtful that the charms of Edu Manzano, as vice-presidential running mate, can effectively lighten that burden for him.
If it is a truism that Pinoys have a penchnt for “palusot,” it is even more true that quic pro quo is the rule in politics and every politician is a wheeler-dealer. The only difference is the degree of wheeling and dealing. On that score, it is likely that that Teodoro has made a commitment to protect the interests of Arroyo if he should become president.

He can attempt to deny this in private conversations, but it is doubtful that he will ever distance himself from his patron. .Of course, that’s not necessarily the kiss of death for his presidential ambitions. Anybody who thinks that the administration party will not try to do a Garci II is a simpleton. And when that happens, Teodoro could be the next president of the Philippines.
Stung by the many scams and cases of plunder in government, the voters also don’t want someone who is perceived to be corrupt or who is suspected to have made his fortune under dubious circumstances.

If one were to look at the credentials of Manny Villar, he certainly appears better prepared to manage the affairs of the country than either Teodoro, Estrada or Aquino. His success as an entrepreneur is testament to his brilliance as a businessman. But it may also be a testament to his genius as a backroom manipulator.

Despite the efforts of several of his colleagues in the Senate to give him a clean bill of health in the face of the accusations hurled against him by Ping Lacson, Villar continues to carry a monkey on his back in connection with his real estate fortune.By avoiding the accusations and brushing them off as political vendetta, Villar leaves himself wide-open to doubts about his integrity.
Can someone whose wealth is under a cloud and is spending billions on his campaign be expected to keep his hands clean if he ever becomes president?

If Villar were running for president in America, you can bet that he would be roasted over live coal for this. He is lucky to be campaigning in the Philippines where the media depend mainly on press releases and innuendo.

Then there’s Erap Estrada. Assuming he overcomes the legal impediment to his candidacy, what can we reasonably expect from someone who has already shown us what he is capable – and incapable – of doing as president? Isn’t this like watching one of his old movies where we already know the ending?

This brings us to Noynoy Aquino and Mar Roxas. No monkeys on their backs, except perhaps for the unresolved problem of Hacienda Luisita for the former.

Do they deserve to be president and vice-president? I guess we’re talking here of the lesser evil. Because they too are guilty of mental dishonesty with their non-campaign political campaigns.
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)

FROM THE CAPITOL: Save the UC

By Senator Leland Yee

Despite pleas and protests from students, the University Of California Board of Regents yet again voted to dramatically increase student fees. The 32 percent fee hike comes just two months after the Regents raised student fees 30 percent and handed out exorbitant pay raises to several top administrators.

The move also comes one month after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed several bills to protect public funds at the university. SB 86 would have prohibited executive pay raises during bad budget years at the UC and the California State University. SB 218 would have brought greater financial accountability to UC and CSU campus auxiliary organizations by subjecting them to the California Public Records Act. SB 219 would have helped rein in waste, fraud and abuse by providing university employees with the same whistleblower protections as other state employees.

Governor Schwarzenegger and Board of Regents are allowing top executives to live high on the hog while students suffer. It is unconscionable for the Governor to cut funds to higher education while allowing the UC administration to act like AIG. In 2009 alone, the UC Regents have approved approximately $9 million in executive compensation increases. Yet, the UC administration only points to the state budget for the need to raise student fees.

Certainly the state needs to prioritize funding for education and that is why I voted against all such budget cuts and will continue to do so. However, it is intellectually dishonest for the Regents to simply blame the state budget for student fee hikes while they are lining the pockets of executives. Executive pay should be the first thing on the chopping block, not students.

In a September interview with the New York Times, UC President Mark Yudof, who receives nearly $1 million in salary and perks was asked, “What do you think of the idea that no administrator at a state university needs to earn more than the President of the United States, $400,000?” Yudof responded, “Will you throw in Air Force One and the White House?”
Unfortunately, this is the type of arrogance and cavalier attitude that plagues the university. California deserves better from their public university leadership.

Russell Gould, chairman of the Regents, today told the Sacramento Bee that student objections do not influence his decision-making and that student fees must be increased. However, students and workers have long called on the Regents and Yudof to use other options rather than student fee hikes. Such suggested options include dipping into the $7.2 billion Short Term Investment Pool; redirecting some of the $1.6 billion that UC received last year in gifts and donations; cutting the salaries of the thousands of UC executives and top administrators earning 6-figures; cutting the $350 million in bonuses given to employees making more than $200,000 annually; or freezing new positions such as “Vice Chancellor of Research” and “Chief Quality Officer” that pay upwards of $420,000 per year.

“UC has reserves in the billions of dollars that could be tapped, or UC could redirect its fundraising abilities, or use other sources of income such as the highly profitable medical centers, or call for a mild pay cut for the thousands of six-figure administrators,” said Jelger Kalmijn, President of the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE-CWA 9119).

“UC is sounding the alarm bells of financial ruin and rushing to push the economic crisis on the backs of UC students, patients and workers” says Lakesha Harrison, President of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME 3299), which represents patient care and services workers. “But to many of us, this is another example of UC administrators’ misplaced priorities and lack of accountability to the public.”

In a time when many are going through economic hardships, increasing student fees becomes just another burden for many students. While maintaining a full-time schedule in school, many are also forced to take one, sometimes two or three, part-time jobs in order to support themselves and pay for their education. We must continue to let our voices be heard and let the Regents know that these actions are not okay and unfair for students.