Lobbying/Advocacy Techniques

In the past, we have all been confronted with incidents when legislation has been proposed and on some occasions passed without our knowledge. When the legislative activity is almost completed it is too late to build a solid grass roots lobbying campaign and, therefore, we as individuals and/or organizations have responded by attempting to block the legislation at the last minute.

The time has passed when this can be our primary means of influencing legislation. It is important that we begin to assess our real strengths, develop appropriate means for deploying our forces and determine long range plans for what will be in our best interest.
The following guide is presented to assist you in understanding the legislative process and to concretely develop sophisticated grass roots lobbying or advocacy strategies on a regional level.

I. The Basics

It is necessary to know who you represent. Are you an individual, a local or regional organization? You must have a clear sense of your own image and purpose if you are to convey your concerns in a convincing and professional manner.

If you represent an organization, you must know your numbers. How many people do you really represent and do you have a mandate to represent them? Whenever possible, work through a group or coalition. Numbers count.

II. Problem Identification

The next step is to identify the problem and the proponent of the bill.

• Who is behind the legislation being proposed and why?

• Who are the other powers involved (i.e., labor, the bar, the insurance industry, or other professional organizations)?

• Do you have a clear statement as to the intent of the bill?

• Have you identified the specific repercussions of the legislation if passed?

• Have you sought advice from other organizations that may be familiar with similar types of legislation?

• Are you ready to take a position and react in a positive manner?

III. Implementation of Political Action Decision

• You should have available a complete listing of all legislators (parliamentarians, senators, congresspersons) including their committee assignments and the districts they represent.

• Get to know the staff persons for key legislators. Often, due to the busy schedules of legislators, you are more likely to be able to meet with the staff persons than the legislators themselves. Staff persons can be powerful allies. Treat them with respect.

• Each legislator should hear from their own constituents. They will be much more responsive to the concerns of those individuals who actually reside in their legislative district.

• When writing about a specific act/bill, the first paragraph should refer to the number of the bill, and contain a clear statement of your position, either in favor or against the bill.

• Use your own words, avoid the appearance of a form letter and make the letter only one page long.

• If you are responsible for initiating the activity for a large group of concerned individuals, provide each individual with a prototype letter they could refer to along with any other information you may have, including the bill's repercussions.

• A courteous and reasonable letter that requests a response from a legislator is the ideal.

IV. Educate Legislators

Make a list of members that are in key positions and committees and then have your members visit them in their districts. It is important to see them in their district, if at all possible. They will have more time to talk with you, react to your concerns and be more open to actively listening to what you are saying. If you are representing an organization, it is critical that all members contacting legislators take the same position. You should design an outline of information which should be presented at each of these meetings and that outline should be adhered to strictly. It is damaging when different members of the same organization tell legislators different stories. It undermines the credibility of the group as a whole. The easiest out for a legislator is to say that "the people just don't agree; I don't know what they really want"

V. If a Crisis Arises

Call your legislator immediately. This will buy time; for you and your organization until your network of interested parties can become involved.

VI. Enlist Cooperation

Key members of other organizations can help support or defeat legislation that will likewise affect the persons they represent.
When a politically sensitive bill or amendment is introduced, you must know what other parties might support or resist such a change, and, as such, to whom you might look as a potential ally. Once identified, you should also attempt to get on the newsletter mailing list of these various special interest groups.

VII. Appear at All Hearings

Amendments to the proposed bill may crop up; they should be heard and clearly understood. An apparently simple amendment can change the intent and outcome of a bill and therefore change your position on the legislation.

VIII. Prepare Testimony
The legislature can be advised as to your position.

• Survey the literature prior to writing your testimony. Consult others who have expertise on the subject matter. Study the literature and know your subject.

• Write the testimony providing opinions supported by factual data and write in simple English. Stay with the issue.

• Remember that legislators usually do not have the time to do their own research. Try to help by having available objective data relating directly to the proposals at hand. (Supplemental material maybe attached to the testimony).

• After you have finished writing our your statement, put it aside and draft a 2 or 3 page summary-type statement and highlight the most important points. Use this for your actual testimony and submit the other for the record.

• Present your testimony, time allowing, before authorities in the field for their reactions prior to giving testimony. This should allow for constructive criticism, for revisions or for modifications, if necessary. You may want to role play the hearing for practice.

• Time your testimony to insure that you remain within the time allotted for your testimony.

• Know something about the legislators on the committee before which you will appear. By all means, know their names. Also know the functions of the committees.

• A pre-hearing briefing on last minute details should take place prior to testimony to insure all things are in order.

• Give sufficient good quality copies of your testimony to the committee chairperson in advance of your presentation.

IX. Presentation of Testimony

• Be presentable, that is, professional and moderate in appearance and dress.

• Address your comments and attention to committee members and not the audience. Address committee members by name, especially the chairperson.

• In your introduction, identify yourself and your area of expertise and the organization(s) you represent; cite importance of the issue; thank committee for allowing you the opportunity to present your remarks.

• Ask that your written statement, and attached documents, be included in the record.

• Talk, do not read, if at all possible. Speak loud enough to be heard.

• Do not waste time. Why is the proposal good or bad? What does it do? What are the fiscal implications? Where is the money to come from? Go to the heart of the matter at once.

• Be aware of what others have already testified to and do not repeat old data.

• Avoid substantial deviation from the subject unless absolutely unavoidable.

• Do not be antagonistic. Avoid inflammatory comments, criticizing the committee or its members. Avoid holier than thou attitudes.

• Close testimony with a very brief summary and offer to respond to any questions the committee may have.

X. Questions, Debriefing and Follow-up

• Be prepared for questions -- try to anticipate those likely to be asked and prepare accordingly.

• Have a thorough knowledge of the purpose, structure, and services of your organization.

• Do not be evasive in answering questions. Give direct and brief responses when you can. If you cannot answer, say so. Offer to look into the question and submit a statement at a later date.

• Thank the committee for allowing the presentation of your remarks and indicate that you would be happy to be available for future consultation.

• Bring an adequate supply of your remarks along for distribution to members of the committee.

• After you testify, remain in the hearing room for at least a few minutes so that you may answer any inquires.

• A debriefing session should follow hearings for assessing the impact and effectiveness of the testimony.

• Follow-up activities should be charted. Contact should be maintained with committee staff aides to follow the bill or issue.

Communicating with Legislators

It is estimated that less than ten percent of all voters will write to members of the legislature in their lifetime. Yet as issues become more complex, lawmakers do not have time to seek out the opinions of their constituents on every issue and increasingly value this unsolicited input.

In writing your letter, remember these points:

• Keep it short and to the point. Time is valuable and a concise letter will get better attention.

• Be specific and factual. At the top of the letter, identify your topic: Regarding bill No. ____, sponsor, title.

• Do not be insulting, intimidating or threatening. Don't try to lecture your legislator. Just give him or her the facts and your honest opinion.

• Back your stand with sound reasoning. If you are knowledgeable about an issue, give the legislator the information on which you are basing your opinion. If you have particular insight into a problem, make sure your present it logically.

• Use your own language. Several hundred identical letters can produce a curiously negative effect. The impact comes for the legislator knowing you care.

• Write correctly. Take time to check spelling, punctuation and meaning to the best of your ability. It is often a good idea to let someone else check your letters for typos and mistakes.

• Write or print legibly. A typewriter isn't necessary.

• Don't write on every issue. It may lessen your letter's impact on an important issue.

• Compliment your legislators when they work or vote for a piece of legislation important to you. Remember, they are human and appreciate.

• Address your letter correctly, using appropriate titles. You can close all letters with "respectfully" and your signature.

Practical Considerations in Working with Legislators

Developing your Position

• Involve as many as possible from within your interest group when developing your position or legislative program.

• Seek universal agreement and support from within your ranks. Work to maximize areas of agreement and minimize areas of disagreement.

• Develop concise position papers on your most important issues. Be specific in outlining the nature of the problem and the proposed solution. Document facts when possible and attempt to use third parties and other highly respected sources when citing relevant information. Be sure all of your information is accurate.

• Seek input and agreement from those regional agencies and other bodies which will later be called upon by lawmakers for views and information.

• Build a coalition among organized groups which have reason to share your concerns and views.

• Identify your strengths and express them in the most meaningful terms possible.

• Keep updated on pending legislation which may strengthen or hamper your efforts.

• Create awareness of your position or program among your grass-roots membership and the public via news articles and newsletters.

• Prioritize items on your legislative program.

Communicating your Position

• Develop a mutual acquaintance with your lawmakers.

• Become familiar with the personal interests and concerns of a given lawmaker prior to formal contact.

• Understand the effect and limitations of various means of contact and use the method which best meets the situation (meetings, telephone calls, letters, telegrams, petitions, etc.).

• Develop a timetable for action which recognizes and interfaces with the time-table of the legislature.

• Face-to-face visits with lawmakers in their home districts are very effective.

• Don't expect to have a substantive meeting with a legislator, particularly in the capital, during a legislative session, unless you have an appointment. Even then, understand that they may be delayed by developments beyond their control.

• Identify the reason for your meeting in advance. This will allow the lawmakers and staff an opportunity to be better prepared.

• Avoid asking your lawmakers to meet several times on the same subject with different people from your interest group. Include all those appropriate in a single meeting, but avoid a crowd.

• Identify and use your most knowledgeable and articulate spokespersons.

• Be polite, but firm and avoid confrontations.

• Seek a specific commitment but do not necessarily interpret a lawmaker's unwillingness to make a specific commitment as opposition to your position. A lawmaker may have legitimate reasons for hesitation, none of which may be related to opposition (e.g., the need to discuss the issue with other involved groups).

• Keep the door open for future contact if a particular lawmaker appears to be opposed to your views. A lawmaker may change positions after learning more facts.

• Do not discount the value of meeting with legislative staff, particularly if it is impossible for you to visit with the lawmaker.
Follow-up. Letters of appreciation and/or summarization should follow meetings or other verbal discussions. If you were asked to provide additional information, do so promptly. When you write, be sincere. Say what you want in your own words. Don't copy a form letter and avoid covering several issues in a single letter.

Other

• Study the power structure of the legislature. Recognize the composition, role and powers of the majority and minority parties in the legislature and understand that politics are an integral part of governing.

• Identify legislative leadership which is important to your concerns. When it is necessary or appropriate to communicate with these individuals, your own regional lawmakers should be made aware of your efforts.

• Commend lawmakers for a favorable vote or response. A note or telephone call is effective.

• If indicating displeasure to your lawmakers, be constructive and suggest alternatives. Avoid personal attacks.

• Recognize that compromise is often an essential ingredient of the lawmaking process.

• Understand the role of legislative staff and the functions of central staff versus a lawmaker's personal staff.

• Keep your group's central lobbyist informed of your work and results.

• Personal visits and written communications with lawmakers and staff must be planned as part of a continuing year-long dialogue. Contacts over a period of time are more effective than visiting only when a bill is coming up for a final vote.

Numbers of ICAO Flight Freedom Rights

1 The right to overfly one country en-route to another.

2 The right to land in an other country for a technical stop.

3 The right to carry traffic to a foreign state.

4 The right to carry traffic from a foreign state to the home state.

5 The right to carry traffic to/from third countries en route.

6 The right to carry traffic between two foreign states via the state in which the airline is registered.

7 The right to carry traffic between two foreign states entirely outside the territory of its home state.

8 The right to carry traffic between two points within the territory of a foreign state on a route with origin/destination in its home country (Cabotage).

9 The right to carry traffic within a country by an airline of another country (Stand-Alone cabotage).

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

--Dilbert

Criteria to Commit to War

Probably from Rumsfeld around the time of the 1st Gulf War

Two thousand years ago the Roman poet Horace wrote, "Force without wisdom falls of its own weight." Nothing that I do as the secretary of defense is more important than my role in advising the president on when and how to use military force in this post-Cold War world.
.


Today we no longer face the monolithic threat from the Soviet Union. Today the threats to American interests stem from ethnic conflicts, nuclear proliferation, and humanitarian crises. Responses to these complex and diverse situations require flexibility, hard choices, and sound judgment. In short, they require wisdom..
.


Wise decisions about the use of force have a political, a military, and an ethical element. The political element involves a judgment as to the nature of the interests at stake and whether the use or the threat of use of military force is the most appropriate way to protect those interests..
.


The military element involves a judgment as to the capability of the U.S. military forces to achieve our goal and the probable losses entailed..
.


The ethical element involves a judgment as to whether achieving our goals by military force is in keeping with America's fundamental respect for human life -- the lives of our military personnel and the lives of people of other nations..
.


One of the most profound decisions that a president must make is whether to risk the lives of our people or threaten the lives of the people of another nation. The courage, the loyalty and the willingness of our men and women in uniform to put their lives at risk is a national treasure. That treasure can never be taken for granted, yet neither can it be hoarded like miser's gold..
.


You and your colleagues are in uniform for a purpose -- to defend our nation and its interests against threats here at home and abroad..
.


As the secretary of defense, it is my job to help the president decide when and where military forces should be employed. First of all, by making clear what national interests are at stake. Then, by asking what level of force is necessary to effectively advance those interests. And by asking the ethical question -- should force be used for those purposes? .
.


Over 50 years ago President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt faced this awesome decision. He decided to deploy America's fullest military power to help defeat the forces of tyranny and aggression around the globe. That decision was clear-cut. America's interests were not in question. Indeed, our very survival as a nation was at stake..
.


Historians have debated some decisions about the level of force in the Second World War. President [Harry S.] Truman's decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima was perhaps the most dramatic. The political element of this decision was sharply focused -- namely, to end the war quickly, once and for all. .
.


The ethical element was more complex. By dropping the bomb, as Truman put it, "The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed." But by ending the war quickly the bomb would save tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives who would have died in the ensuing combat. Truman made the decision, the ethical decision and, I believe, the correct decision, to save those lives..
.


Today, unlike during World War II, most of the current and foreseeable threats do not threaten the survival of the United States, so we do not face the level of political and ethical questions about using force that FDR and Truman faced. But the problems we face are still very complex and very dangerous, so they still require us to think clearly about the use of military power..
.


Today I believe there are basically, three different cases in which we may use our armed forces, all of which involve political and ethical questions. .
.


The first category is when our vital national interests are threatened. Our second category is when important, but not vital, national interests are threatened. The third category is when a situation causes us deep humanitarian concern. I want to consider each of these in turn..
.


A threat falls into this first category of vital interest if it threatens the survival of the United States or key allies, if it threatens our critical economic interests or if it poses a danger of a future nuclear threat. If we determine that we face such a threat, we must be prepared to use military force to end that threat, and we must be prepared to risk a military conflict to protect our vital interests. But we also must be prepared to weigh our political aims with our ethical responsibilities and to do that balance with great wisdom..
.


Our confrontations with Iraq these past few years involved our vital national interests. Indeed, they involved all three of the threats, which I mentioned. They were a threat to key allies; they were a threat to critical economic interests; and a future nuclear danger.
In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. It verged on controlling all of the gulf's oil, which amounts to two-thirds of the world's proven reserves. Control of that much oil would allow a hostile state to blackmail the industrial world and threaten the health of the world economy, and the revenues from that much oil would allow Iraq to renew -- and to renew with vigor -- its plans for building a nuclear bomb. So in 1990 we knew that our vital interests were at stake. Our political aim was to blunt the threat to those interests quickly, so we marshaled our forces and sent them to the gulf, but it was six months before we actually used military force. Why did we wait the six months? .
.


First of all, we wanted to prepare our forces so that victory could be assured with a minimal loss of life. Also, we had an ethical responsibility to exhaust all possibilities for a peaceful resolution: to make war the last resort and not the first resort. We did exhaust these possibilities..
.


The decision to start the war was, indeed, a decision of great moment. We as a nation made a political decision that we had to respond, but we also made an ethical decision: that the cost of not stopping Saddam Hussein's aggression outweighed the potential risk to American, allied and, indeed, even Iraqi lives. We also faced a tough ethical decision when victory was near at hand. .
.


President [George] Bush decided, for political and for ethical reasons, not to make Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein the goal. There were many reasons, but the paramount one for the president was that the cost in casualties from all sides would have been too high. He has received much criticism for that decision, but it was the ethical and, I believe, the correct decision..
.


Last October Saddam Hussein posed another threat when Iraqi forces again massed near the Kuwaiti border. We marshaled overwhelming forces in the gulf, deploying troops to augment the troops already there. That decision, I can assure you, was not taken lightly. The president and I fully recognize that sending troops to the gulf under those conditions again risk conflict and risk American lives. But once again the cost of not deterring Iraqi aggression outweighs the potential risk. This time our quick action served as a deterrent, and the Iraqi forces returned to the garrisons without a fight..

.

The political and the ethical questions are difficult when we have vital interests at stake -- as those cases illustrated -- but they're even more difficult in the second category when we have important, but not vital, interests at stake. These cases are more difficult because we have an obligation to weigh the risks against the interests involved and because the threats are not always clear-cut. But we must be willing to consider the use of some level of force commensurate with our interests. We want to influence the outcome in these cases because some outcomes will advance our interests while others can harm them, but our use of force must, therefore, be selected and limited, reflecting the relative importance of the outcome to our interests..
.


We have a range of options here, from using U.S. military assets for logistical operations to using U.S. combat forces. The decision of what to use, whether it's a C-130 transport or an Army combat division, will reflect the costs that we are willing to pay to achieve the outcome that we want..

.

Our military action in Haiti fell into this category. A military dictator overthrew Haiti’s elected government. This threatened important, but not vital, U.S. national interests. It threatened our interest in protecting democracy in this hemisphere, in preventing the flow of refugees and in our deep concern in putting a halt to a cruel systematic reign of terror over the Haitian people. .
.


We could have used military force to protect those interests, but initially the risks outweighed the benefits. Over time, economic conditions and diplomatic efforts failed to resolve the threat, and indeed, the threat to our interests began to increase. So there came a time, a significant moment, when the president decided that the threat to our interests was great enough that we needed to take action. But we were prepared to call off the invasion up to the moment the first paratrooper left the plane, because we had an obligation to prevent the loss of lives if we could..
.


As in Iraq last October, the threat -- just the threat -- of military action was sufficient to avoid the use of military force. However, in this case, the threat only became fully credible after the invasion forces were actually launched. The planes were actually in the air with their paratroopers on the way to Haiti when the Haitian government finally agreed to allow the forces in. So when the military junta finally stepped down, at the 11th hour, we did call off the invasion, and we arrived in Haiti then as friends rather than as invaders..
.


Bosnia is another case where important, but not vital, U.S. interests are threatened. It may be the toughest security question we face today, both from a political and from an ethical standpoint, even though it is clear who the aggressors and who the victims are. Bosnian Serbs are the aggressors. The Bosnian government and its supporters are the victims. .
.


The atrocities perpetrated by the Serbs, in particular the ethnic cleansing, are abhorrent. Therefore, some say that America has an ethical obligation to solve the Bosnian tragedy by entering the war on the side of the Bosnian government. .
.


We have rejected that advice, because America does not have enough at stake to risk the massive American casualties -- and they would be massive -- as well as the casualties to other parties and civilians that would occur if we participated in a wider war. Therefore, that course is unacceptable..
.


At the other end of the spectrum are those who say that America should do nothing -- that Bosnia is a tragedy, but it is not our tragedy. Doing nothing is unacceptable, too. It's not only unacceptable from an ethical point of view, but it's unacceptable from a national security viewpoint as well, because we do have a security interest in preventing the violence from spreading and stimulating a broader European war. We do have a security interest in limiting the violence. We certainly have a humanitarian interest in mitigating the effects of the violence and the human suffering. We have been able to achieve those goals in Bosnia and achieve them at an acceptable risk to Americans..
.


It is a tough ethical decision to stand aside when we perceive that evil is being done, but we have decided to not commit U.S. combat troops to Bosnia to end the war. The cost in American lives, not to mention the cost in Bosnian lives, would be too great, especially when weighed against the limited U.S. interests at stake. But we have decided to commit U.S. military forces to the region to prevent the spread of the war, to limit the violence and to mitigate human suffering..

.

For example, we have placed troops in Macedonia, under U.N. command, to help prevent the spread of the violence. We are enforcing the no-fly zone, which keeps the Serbs from bombarding cities in Bosnia. We are supporting the heavy weapons exclusion zones around cities. We're airlifting food and medical supplies for humanitarian purposes. These actions have been effective.
To date the violence has been contained to Bosnia. We have seen civilian casualties drop from 130,000 in 1992 to around 2,500 in 1994, and thus far in '95 there have been fewer than 100 civilian casualties. That is not to say that we are happy or satisfied with 100 civilian casualties, but it is an enormous difference from the over 100,000 that occurred there in 1992..
.


We are engaged in the longest humanitarian airlift in history -- three years long, 15,000 sorties, longer than the Berlin airlift. In spite of these efforts, nobody can feel satisfied from an ethical standpoint about Bosnia. The cases where we weigh our interests against our risks are, by their very nature, ethically unsatisfying..
.


Ironically, this also holds true when America is faced with a call to respond to humanitarian crises, and we in the Defense Department get those calls about once a month. On the surface, deciding whether to respond to earthquakes, starvation, disease or civil wars may seem easy, but it is not, because our forces cannot, and should not, be sent to resolve every humanitarian crisis in the world. .
.


Generally the military is not the right tool to meet humanitarian concerns. There are other organizations -- government and private -- that exist to do this work. We field an army, not a Salvation Army. But under certain conditions the use of our armed forces is appropriate, and in other conditions it is not appropriate. I'd like to give you a criterion for when we use them and when we don't.
Let me go to Rwanda as a classic example. The civil war in Rwanda was a human catastrophe of massive proportions, yet intervention of U.S. forces would not necessarily have been effective, but certainly would have involved very large casualties. Like many other nations, we decided to concentrate on using diplomatic tools until the military and civil contact exhausted itself. Those diplomatic tools proved to be ineffective. That conflict and the resulting exodus of the more than 2 million refugees created a human tragedy of biblical proportions. The starvation, the disease and the death dwarfed the ability of the normal relief agencies to cope, and the need for relief was urgent..
.


At that point and under unique conditions we were able to act. In the entire world only the United States military had the capability to jump-start a relief effort and begin saving lives in the short term. Only the U.S. military could conduct a massive airlift over long distances on short notice to bring in the specialized equipment needed to relieve its suffering. And we did..
.


The joint task force quickly set up an airlift hub at Entebbe [Uganda], and the 24-hour airlift operations at Goma [Zaire] and Kigali [Rwanda], and the relief flights surged. American planes delivered nearly 15,000 tons of food, medicine and supplies to the refugees. U.S. troops were called from Europe. At one time we had almost 2,000 troops in Rwanda. Before two nights passed they began making clean water for the refugees at Goma. What had been a cholera epidemic that was taking 5,000 lives a day was stopped overnight..
.


The lesson learned from Rwanda is that there are times when we can, and we should, intervene in humanitarian crises. But Rwanda also gave us a set of criteria that we use for looking at future humanitarian issues. The first of those is if we face a natural or manmade catastrophe that dwarfs the ability of normal relief agencies to respond. ... The second test is if the need for relief is urgent and only the military has the ability to jump-start the effort. Third, if the response requires resources unique to the military. And finally, if there is minimal risk to lives of the American troops. .
.


Rwanda met all of those tests, and so I recommended to the president -- and the president accepted the recommendation -- that we would go in there with humanitarian efforts. We did. We saved probably 50,000 to 100,000 lives with that relief effort. We finished it in three or four weeks, then we pulled out and came home again -- turning the water purification equipment we'd taken in over to the relief agencies..
.


Choosing the right thing to do in a chaotic world is not as simple as some may think, particularly when it comes to using military force. It's not merely a matter of asking our heart. We also have to ask our head. We have to ask, "Can American interests be protected without resorting to using military force?" We have to ask, "Is it truly worth it to risk the lives of our men and women in uniform?" .
.


There's a painting that hangs outside my wall in the Pentagon. It depicts a poignant scene of a serviceman with his family in church. Clearly he is praying before deployment and a long separation. Below the painting is a wonderful quote from Isaiah in which God says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" And Isaiah replies, "Here am I. Send me.".
.


When we talk about using military force, we are talking about risking the lives of people who say, "Here am I. Send me." Many times in history we have accepted that offer. We will have to accept it again. But we must never, never misuse it..
.


Thank you

A History of Teaching Math

Teaching Math in 1950:


A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.

The cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is the profit?


Teaching Math in 1960:


A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.

The cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is the profit?


Teaching Math in 1970:


A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money.

The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar.

Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M."

The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M."

Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?


Teaching Math in 1980:



A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.

Cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20.

Your assignment: Underline the number 20.


Teaching Math in 1990:


By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20.

What do you think of this way of making a living?

Topic for class participation after answering the question:

How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees?

There are no wrong answers.


Teaching Math in 2000:


A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.

Cost of production is $120.

How does the accounting firm Arthur Andersen determine that the profit is $60?

Breaking and Entering

How to dissect an organization

Eric Nalder

Seattle Times

1120 John Street

Seattle, Wa. 98109

Phone: (206) 464-2056

Email: enal-new@seatimes.com
In our bellicose jargon, we refer to them as targets . . . as in "the target of my investigation." Perhaps that's because they pop up like shooting gallery icons in the course of a newspaper reporter's life.

One day a tipster introduced me to the fascinating world of nuclear weapons plants, and then a faulty o-ring sent me packing to a Utah rocket plant. The errant crew of the Exxon Valdez redirected my attention to tanker companies and from there - to mention a few - it was the University of Washington football team, the Seattle Fire Department, a bunch of crime labs and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

If our best stories are told through people, our toughest reporting tasks often involve cracking the associations they form. The challenges are myriad since the 265 million people in this country have created - so far - 6.5 million businesses, 220,000 non-profit organizations and 85,000 state and local governments. Each has its own culture, and more are being formed every day.

Ergo, the first rule for investigating organizations is to be flexible.

The second rule is that you must stop thinking of them as targets. After all, you are not going to shoot the organization. You will lift off the lid, pull out the parts, read the operating instructions and discover how it works.

Then you may expose its flaws, and in the process write some meaningful poetry.

First, though, you must lift off the lid.

The manual for dissecting an organization starts with basic questions:

Who are the players?

Who is in charge?

Who are the regulators?

What are the rules?

How are things done?

Where are the mistakes recorded?

Where is the spending recorded?

Who knows the story and how can I get it?

To answer these questions, here are some suggestions:

WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?
Lists: Every organization and government agency has payroll lists and phone books, which are frequently available on computer disc. For the government agencies you cover, routinely make FOIA or state public disclosure requests for these documents, as well as the job application resumes and personnel files. At private companies, cultivate helpful employees to provide the same. Be sure to ask for outdated payrolls rosters and phone books to get the names of former employees.

Newsletters: Most organizations publish internal newsletters that contain employee names, and other bonus information. Writing about a secretive Army Ranger battalion which had a classified roster - I gleaned a third of the names from a year's worth of the post newspapers at the Ft. Lewis library, just because the Rangers were frequently mentioned as accomplished athletes.

Associations: Contact the professional associations since they sometimes give out rosters, and they publish newsletters. They also hold annual conventions where you can meet lots of potential sources. Books on file in the library have lists of professional associations.

Courts: Check the local courts for lawsuits that might list employees, and keep in mind that disgruntled workers who have sued the firm or agency are sometimes good sources of information. Even an innocuous suit involving a land dispute might contain helpful names. Be on the lookout for depositions.

Whistleblowers: State personnel boards and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board in Washington, DC have on public file the names of government employees who have appealed disciplinary actions. Some cases involve whistleblowing. For towns and counties, check the local civil service commission. To contact people who have submitted confidential environmental and or safety complaints to state and federal agencies, try getting around the confidentiality requirements by asking the regulatory agency to forward a letter from you to the complainants.

Licenses and Permits: State licensing bureaus provide lists of a wide variety of professionals who have state permits, including real estate agents, surveyors, undertakers, manicurists, architects, and nurses. You can frequently search for them by company name. The FAA has the names of pilots employed at an airline. The Coast Guard registers crew members on U.S. flagged merchant ships (and don't overlook the Liberian Services in Reston, Va. for licenses on Liberian flagged vessels, and the Panamanians, etc.) At each agency, some biographical and disciplinary information is usually available.

Contracts: Contracts with government agencies frequently include the names of the employees who work for contractors. For example, a housing authority applying for a HUD grant often includes resumes of key employees and officers.

Bankruptcy: Federal bankruptcy court records are a goldmine, since they contain, among other things, the names of employees who were stiffed for their wages.

Newspaper morgue: The business section of your own newspaper lists employees who were promoted or reassigned.

Old city directories: Newspaper and public libraries have old copies of the city directories that list the place of employment of local residents.

Outside contacts: You can get information on employees from a company's customers, suppliers and competitors. And remember, too, the unions. Companies have lawyers and accountants, and sometimes they have ex lawyers and ex accountants. Ex wives of company bosses can also be helpful. And don't assume that a banker won't tell you anything.

Gripes: Try the people who register their gripes with the Better Business Bureau, or the city licensing agency, or the licensing department, or in letters to the editor.

Hangouts: To meet sources, hang out at the restaurants, bars and cafes located near the company office. Or maybe there's a gym where the troops play basketball.

Tour: Take a tour of the agency. Meet people. Take note of the names you see on desktops and on those little magnetized ''in" and ''out" signs that are frequently located at the receptionist's desk.

Interviews: The best sources, of course, are the employees themselves. When you interview them, ask each one to tell you what they know about the others. You can quickly build a roster this way. Ultimately you want to know how people interact, and who is the best source for each type of type of information. If you already have a payroll list or phone book, read out the names to prompt your interview subject's memory. During one recent investigation, had each interview subject to through a roster and by doing so I developed very useful dossiers.

When an employee tells you something important, always follow up with the question: ''How do you know that?" The answer will frequently include the names of other players.

WHO IS IN CHARGE?

Government: It's relatively easy to obtain a roster of bosses at government agencies. Resumes should be available and much of the personnel file should be open for your perusal. Pay attention to the place where the bosses formerly worked, because you can learn a lot about them there. Verify what they have said on their resume.

Disclosure: Elected officials, of course, file documents disclosing their finances and campaign contributions, but keep in mind that the top appointed officials at the federal and local level must frequently do the same.

The unofficial hierarchy: Learn about the shadow bosses. Sometimes a member of the city council runs the show at city hall more than the mayor, or a particular contractor has more power within a state agency than the director. Ask employees about this. Request the desk calendars of the bosses to learn who they meet with regularly, and get travel records along with an itinerary.

Private companies: One of the best resources is Dunn and Bradstreet. The free version of a Dunn and Bradstreet report has bare bones information, but the $l00 version is much better. Another source of the names is your state's corporations office. In addition, the county recorder keeps records regarding limited partnerships. Loan documents on file at your state's Uniform Commercial Code office frequently contain names. Credit reports are available on line. The local Chamber of Commerce might have information as well. Of course, the company phone book is a key. Service club directories contain names of company leaders. Bankruptcy records point fingers of blame when a company gets into financial trouble. Keep in mind as well that employees, suppliers and customers can provide additional information on informal hierarchies. Who does it/he/she contribute to? How much? Why? What do the politicians who received donations say about your subject? Does the business have it's own PAC? Many large companies, including privately held ones do. And if they've got a PAC, they've got to file with the FEC and, often, with state and municipal authorities as well (often there'll be two PACS, one for federal elections, one for state). If a company has its own PAC take a close look at who contributes to it. You'll most likely find key company officers and, perhaps, friends or business associates who can offer other avenues for reporting. A particularly good web site for FEC data is:
http://www.tray.com/fec.info

Publicly traded companies: The Edgar site operated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (www.sec.gov/edgarhp.htm) provides valuable documents such as the 10K and the proxy (known as Def 14A). These have names of executive officers including their wages and perks, age, title, time with the company, familial relationships and a brief biographical description. Annual reports, available from the company's investor relations office, contain more puffery but have additional valuable information. Ask the relations office for resumes on company officers Stock analysts are a great source of information on company bosses and on the informal hierarchy. Lists of stock analysts are available in Nelson's Directory of Investment Research and Bloomberg News. Be aware of possible bias if the analyst works for a brokerage house that serves as the company's investment banker.

Non profits: The IRS 990 form contains the names you want plus financial information. Non profit organizations are required to release the 990 if ask for the document at the office during normal business hours. You can also fax your request to the IRS. The proper address in our region is the office of Return and Income Verification Services, Ogden (Utah) Service Center, 801 620 6671. The reply should take 30 days. Dan Langan of the National Charities Information Bureau says you'll get quicker service from the IRS if you cite the IRS CODE and DO NOT cite FOIA. Keep in mind that some 30 states require charities to keep their 990s on file with the state, and you will frequently get quicker service there. The agency in Washington is the Charities Division of the Secretary of State.

Other sources: Nothing is more valuable than the contacts you make with secretaries and clerks. Take a tour of the company. Sometimes these are offered to the general public. Talk to competitors, suppliers and customers. Check court files and interview the litigants. Talk to the boss' neighbors and his buddies at the golf and country club.

WHO ARE THE REGULATORS?
Federal government: The inspector general offices for each federal agency have web sites, and a directory for them is located on Ignet at www.sba.gov/ignet You can search inspector general reports by key word or topic. The General Accounting Office is a good resource, as are the internal audit agencies (i.e., the Army Audit Agency, etc.). Cultivate sources at the audit agencies. Staff members from congressional committees are sometimes helpful, and there are directories that can help you locate them. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel receive complaints on personnel issues. Check the court files and the Federal Election Commission.

State and local governments: The state auditor's office is a good starting place, but don't forget legislative committees and the city council staffers, as well as the various offices of internal audit. The state attorney general's office and the state police conduct investigations at state agencies. Each government agency has an office that answers complaints and claims. Remember the personnel office, the unions and OSHA. For police, there is the office of internal investigations and frequently there is an ombudsperson.

Private companies: You might locate some government audits if the company has a government contract. The GAO and the IG might also get involved. The SEC acts as a regulator for publicly traded companies and, in an ad hoc way, so do the various stock analysts. What kind of business is your company engaged in? If it is involved in a regulated business as most are then you can get information from a variety of sources; i.e., for transportation companies you can get reports from, among others, the FAA, ICC, NTSB, local state highway police and (if waterborne) the U.S. Coast Guard. The city business registrar will have some basic information. The city engineering and building departments, and the county assessor, will have data on the structures that the company owns. As mentioned before, the state licensing department might have complaints filed against licensed professionals. The Uniform Commercial Code Office keeps a record of loans. The state revenue department will have some releasable information. OSHA and your state labor office will supply reports on safety and wage and hour complaints. It might even be relevant to ask the police and fire departments for records on emergency calls to the business location. Check the court files for lawsuits, of course, and the Better Business Bureau for complaints. (Council of Better Business Bureaus has information on businesses and charities at http://www.bbb.org)

Non profit: While the IRS 990 form is one good source of information, an even better one is the audited financial statement. Under some circumstances, charities are required to release their financial statements. Langan gives the example of public TV and radio stations which are required by agreement with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to make their financial statements publicly available. In some cases, charities file the theirs audited financial statements with the state. Or you can always ask the people at the non profit agency to give you a copy. If they don't, ask them why they are not willing to release it.

Watchdogs on the perimeter: Organizations like the Government Accountability Project receive whistleblower complaints, while environmental organizations take care of the dirty discharges and poisonous products. The National Charities Information Bureau, based in New York, keeps an eye on charities (http://www.give.org). Some state agencies also oversee charities, but keep in mind that they say most of their leads come from the media. Your library will have a list of private organizations that watchdog various businesses. Lawyers who have sued the company might also be aware of organizations, and or groups of complainants. Canvass the neighborhoods surrounding a company for activists who might keep an eye on the place, and cruise the internet. Think about the work that the company performs, and imagine what kind of people might come in contact with that work. I found information about tanker companies among the ship pilots, tugboat drivers and oil terminal operators. Use your imagination.

WHAT ARE THE RULES?
Government agencies: You'll be buried for too long if you try to read every law and regulation that affects your agency. Learn to use the indices in the federal law, and the code of federal regulations, to more precisely locate the sections that apply to your subject. For a shortcut, watchdog agencies and organizations can point you to the relevant language. You can get a government agency to do the work for you by filing a FOIA request asking for any and all laws, regulations or internal policies that apply to whatever you are writing about.

Private companies: Use the same process, but in this case go to the government regulators who oversee the business. Find the laws and regulations that they are empowered to enforce. Remember, too, that there are general laws governing the operation of a company - taxes, unfair consumer and labor practices, wages, etc. - that might be relevant. Various agencies, like the Labor Department, administer those laws and they can help you with the details.

Internal regulations: Agencies, non profit organizations and companies all have their own internal policies and regulations. Request them from government agencies and get someone inside the private organization to provide you with the rulebook.

The history: When you find the rules and regs you are looking for, read the legislative history and interview the experts to learn how the law or regulation into being. You might find that the old problems that were supposed to be fixed by the new law haven't gone away. Or you might find that new problems have arisen as an unintended consequence of the law. You can also locate the people who spurred the change in regulations, and get their perspective on current events.

HOW ARE THINGS DONE?
Tactical plan: Once you have a grasp of your subject, sketch out a plan for figuring out the way the organization works. As a general rule, you should file your FOIA requests to the government agencies early in the process. While the agency is deciding whether to honor your request, you will be getting to know some employees who will leak the documents to you.

People trail: Decide who are you going to interview and in what order. Sometimes you must catch certain people quickly before they are scared off. Other times you must circle them, talking to their friends and associates. Also decide where you are going to interview people. It is frequently best to talk with them at the place where they are doing the thing you are writing about. But sometimes you might want to surprise them at home, where they are likely to be more candid. Talk over the plan with your editor and your fellow reporters.

Getting the inside story: Once you have your roster of players, you'll need an insider to guide you to the players who are most likely to talk freely about the hidden stuff. Find the home addresses for those people and visit them at a convenient and non threatening time (7 p.m. is often a good). Tell them you are working on a story and you could really use their help. Offer a brief rundown of the story you are working on because, sometimes, their curiosity about your story will get you in the door. And telling them something about your story is a good way to prompt them to give you more information. If that doesn't work, apologize for the intrusion and appear as though you are backing off. Get the person to talk about something else. Anything else. Maybe you noticed an unusual plant next to the walkway, or the family dog, or something on the wall that indicates a hobby. Say something about it. As a general rule, if you can get people talking about anything, you can gently move them back to the subject you are interested in. As you move back to the subject that interests you, start with non threatening questions. Ask the person about the work that they do, and then ask what they know the person or the problem you are interested in. If the interview subject balks, reassure them that they are not the only person you are talking with and "it's really no big deal." You explain that what you need as a reporter is a little help. Be honest. (See my interviewing handout Loosening Lips (below) for other techniques.) As you get to the most important stuff, it's important for you to organize your approach. Follow a chronology. When the person says something significant, always ask ''How do you know that?" That question is a perfect door opener to other sources, and for some reason it usually gets people to say more. Also ask for examples. When a person tells you that the bosses are unfair, ask for an example. And always ask people to suggest other ways of getting the information you need, and other sources. ''If you were working on this story, how would you do it?"

More on the paper trail: Whether you are using FOIA with a government agency, or a mole at a private company, get your hands on the memo traffic. If the agency is in trouble, or if rules are being violated, there will be plenty of memos. Make sure you follow the memo trail to the end. Audits, of course, are helpful, as are pieces of outside correspondence. Travel records and desk calendars are good sources of information. It is very important, at some point, that you visit the department that keeps the records and meet the record keepers. Drop in unannounced, if that's possible, and do so in a friendly and casual manner. Ask for a tour. Your goal will be a detailed explanation of the records system in the agency or company. An alternative is the midnight visit. If a source works the graveyard shift, ask if they can bring you to work one day and give you a tour (as long as it is legal).

WHERE ARE THE MISTAKES RECORDED?
Anecdotal: As you meet with sources, ask people to tell you where the mistakes are written down. Every company and government agency has a system. Sometimes there is more than one place where the mistakes are recorded. At Department of Energy nuclear weapons plants, for example, some screw ups were described in ''Unusual Occurrence Reports" and others were memorialized in ''Off Normal Reports." There were also audits, internal memos, internal letters and surveillance reports.

Paper trail: Government agencies are required to release lists of relevant documents. With private companies, you've got to ask people to describe the system (more on that later).

WHERE IS THE SPENDING RECORDED?
Anecdotal: Besides the obvious internal sources, you might find yourself a friendly private auditor who has dealt with company or agency you are examining. Be wary of organizations that keep two sets of books. It does happen. If necessary, try to find a mole within the bookkeepers office by visiting people at home.

Paper trail: Reading a balance sheet is never easy. Find yourself an expert, maybe an inside source or perhaps someone from the accounting office in your own newspaper. Remember that a balance sheets shows you how the money was spent, and a budget shows you how they planned to spend the money. You'll want both. Be sure to follow the budget trail. Get the budget proposal made by the agency head to the agency chief executive, and the one submitted by the CEO to the council or legislature. Look for stuff that gets lopped off or added, and read the narrative to learn more about the agency's needs.

WHO KNOWS THE STORY AND HOW CAN I GET IT?
After you have made your document requests, and toured the plant, you need an excuse to move in. Sometimes the best excuse is the simple act of copying documents.

Whether you have made a FOIA request of a government agency, or talked a company into sharing some of its records with you, you can win friends by offering to help with the copying. Once you get there, get yourself assigned to a table, and ask directions to the restroom and the soft drink machine. Be courteous and don't get in the way. Meet people. Chat. Listen to conversations. Basically, you want to become a part of the operation. Doing so, you will witness stuff you would never see in the annual report.

Come up with an excuse to return several times. Move around with confidence. Act like you belong. Act like they are lucky to have you there.

Ask people to retrieve records for you, and accompany them to the file cabinets. Learn how the filing system works, and offer to pull out the stuff yourself. Pretty soon you'll get direct access to the records.

Drop in on the bosses several times. Have valid questions, don't be a pest, but get them accustomed to talking with you several times. Ease them into informal conversations.

If something important happens - a critical meeting, an accident or a major incident - be there. Instruct your sources to inform you whenever they expect a significant event. If necessary, ask sources to keep diaries for you on what goes on in the office.

If your story involves a factory, get down on the floor and learn how to operate the machinery. Don the protective clothing that the workers wear, and handle the same tools. If you are writing about crooked cops, hang out with the cops. It pays to be on the scene. The best interviews are conducted with the eyes, as well as the voice and ears. Be there, and you will be aware.

If people are nervous about giving you access, explain to them that you can write more accurately about their operation if you have firsthand knowledge.

As you collect information, organize it into two major files. One is a chronology and the other is something I call an aspects list (aspects of a story).

The information I put into the aspects list is labeled by category. For oil tankers, for instance, I set up categories like ''crew training, double hulls, enforcement of rules, engines" . . . and so on. While I read clippings, examine documents and review interview notes, I enter, under the proper category, any quote, fact or idea that seems useful. To properly identify each item, I label them with an asterisk followed by a key word that designates which category it falls under. (i.e. *training for crew training, *double for double hulls and so on). By using an asterisk, I have created a very handy search word. (I do this in the body of my interview notes as well). That way I can search very quickly for the entries that relate to each category of my aspects list. At the end of each entry, I note for myself where I can find the original document or my raw notes in my paper files or in my computer database.

An aspects list and a chronology will help you better understand your subject, and, more importantly, it is tremendous guide while you write.

Before you write, decide what the story is. A poorly written investigative piece is usually the work of a disorganized reporter who is not sure of the point.

If you cannot write with authority, then you are not ready to write. Do more reporting.

Thanks to the following people for their help: Duff Wilson, Stanley Holmes, Tom Boyer, Tom Brown, Dan Langan, Deborah Nelson, Greg Heberlein and David Boardman.

Brain Teaser from My Grandfather

Saville Der Dago
Toussin Buses inaro
Nojo demis trux
Summit cousin
Summit dux

Overtime

I will be retiring from my current job in about one year. I recently held discussions with my Director on the training of a replacement. During the discussion, she mentioned that she was looking for someone who was willing to put in substainial free overtime.
This is a faulty view for several reasons:
1. The proper metric is output, not input; especially for salaried employees.
2. Working two hours per day overtime is a 25% wage rate cut. Employees are, in fact, in business for themselves, selling their labor to the company.
3. It is the responsibility of management to provide sufficient resources to get the job done. If their people have to work overtime, they should either be paid for it at a higher rate or additional resources should be provided. "Bad planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

What will happen in Iraq?

See this link.

Thermal Depolymerization Process

Here is a technology that could revolutionize the world: Thermal Depolymerization Process.

Look it up. Discover magazine has an article in the May issue.