You Make the Call: Peter B. Lewis, Philanthropist or Extortionist

Read the following excerpts from an article in today's PD and the definitions I have provided for philantrophy and extortion and decide for yourself which category Peter B. Lewis best fits . . .

Princeton gets gift, Cleveland a knock
Lewis' alma mater given $101 million
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Steven Litt Plain Dealer Reporter

Cleveland philanthropist Peter B. Lewis demonstrated his love for Princeton University on Saturday with a $101 million gift aimed at sharply improving arts education at his alma mater. The donation cheered advocates of the arts and education in Cleveland and raised the perennial hope that Lewis, who has donated tens of millions to local causes in the past, would continue to be generous in his hometown.

But Lewis nearly dismissed the possibility.

In a telephone interview Saturday, he said he is unimpressed by major local projects such as the $258 million expansion and renovation of the Cleveland Museum of Art and Case Western Reserve University's efforts to turn a moribund area of shops and apartments at Euclid Avenue and Mayfield Road into a bustling Arts and Retail District.

* * *

Lewis, chairman of Mayfieldbased Progressive Corp., the nation’s third largest auto insurer, has developed a national reputation for holding charitable organizations to high standards of performance.

He resigned from the board of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York last year to highlight his displeasure over the institution’s direction and management. In Cleveland in 2002, he announced a one-person moratorium against all local charities to protest what he called Case’s mismanagement of design and construction of the Weatherhead School of Management building.

Lewis had donated $37 million for the building, designed by Los Angeles architect Frank Gehry. Lewis resumed donating to local causes a year later with donations of $100,000 each to Cuyahoga Community College and Spaces Gallery.

But he blasted local institutions in November 2004 at the annual meeting of University Circle Inc., the nonprofit development corporation for Cleveland’s cultural and educational district.

* * *

Philanthropist: one who practices Philanthropy.

Philanthropy: goodwill to fellowmen; especially : active effort to promote human welfare

Extortion: The act or practice of extorting.

Extort[ing]: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.

You make the call . . .

Regina Brett does not disappoint . . .

Today's Regina Brett Column falls, most decidely, in the banal banter side of things . . .

Clevelanders Propose Interesting Troop Withdrawal Plan

Paul Schroeder is my neighbor in Old Brooklyn. We live about a block from each other on the same quiet, tree-lined street. We haven't met yet, but I am acquainted with his wife, Rosemary Palmer, who I got to know a bit working out of the Kerry-Edwards '04 office located at 117th & Lorain.

Paul and Rosemary's son, Edward August "Augie" Schroeder, was killed in Iraq last August. If you spend any time at all in Old Brooklyn, you can't miss Augie's robust image in full Marine regalia depicted on posters gracing the front windows of numerous businesses in my neighborhood; a solemn honor of his service to our country.

Paul and Rosemary founded a group called Families of the Fallen for Change. Check out their site. The group brings a refreshing perspective to those who struggle to balance their disagreement with the war (or the manner in which the war is being managed) and their unequivocal support for our troops.

The PD reported today that Families of the Fallen for Change has sent a proposal to key congressional leaders, calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraq. [Link to article.]

This plan merits the serious attention and consideration of our leaders. It links troop reduction to reduced casualties from insurgent attacks in an attempt to create an incentive for insurgent groups opposed to U.S. occupation to decrease their attacks, not increase them.

This plan is not a panacea and its proponents do not claim it is. The most refreshing thing about Families of the Fallen for Change is their recognition that there needs to be an open and free debate regarding change in the way this war is being managed.

In my humble opinion, Families of the Fallen for Change is an example of citizenship at its best. For those of you interested in becoming informed about this issue from a balanced and civil approach, the Families of the Fallen for Change web-site is an excellent place to begin.

If you like what you see, considering supporting their work by making a financial contribution and/or joining as a member in the appropriate membership category.

The REAL Dirty Little Secret of Residency Rules

On 1/20, Regina Brett's PD Column headline ran as "Dirty Little Secret of Residency Rules". My heart jumped. Had someone from MSM really found the kahuna's to publish the dirty secret about Cleveland's residency requirement? I read on with excitement . . .

. . . only to be (once again) woefully disappointed by the PD in general and Regina Brett in particular. There was no secret revealed in her column, dirty or otherwise. It was the same old banal banter that litters her column on a regular basis. What I thought was going to be revealed as the "dirty little secret" really isn't a secret at all to anyone who knows anyone who works for the City of Cleveland. What got my heart racing was the anticipation that someone from MSM was actually going to put this "secret" out in the "main stream" public domain, with the impromatur of the PD Editor(s) that Dick Fleagler[sic] so cherishes. But, alas, my Don Quixote like optomism bests the saner part of my brain and I am, once again, the fool.

For those of you still with me, I shall now reveal the dirty little secret . . .

The residency rule in Cleveland is selectively enforced.

Say what? Yes, Virginia, we're talking about political favoritism and retribution in its rawest form. If you are on the "right" side of your department's boss, are politically connected, or (in one specific case I heard of) the girlfriend of the director of the department you work in; and you are in violation of the residency rule and you even manage to get caught by the employee in your department responsible for enforcing the rule; the powers that be will simply look the other way. On the other hand, if you have been on the wrong side of your boss or the administration in power or have not "towed the party line", forrgeddaboudit -- you're getting subjected to disciplinary proceedings for the violation.

I was "for" the residency rule before I learned about the manner in which it is (and sometimes is not) enforced. Now, I am in aggrement (albeit for different reasons) with our hardworking public servants that it should be abandoned, at least in its current form.

I am left to wonder though why the opponents of the residency rule choose to advance the weaker of two legal constitutional arguments in support of their position. The argument that has been advanced is based on equal protection and liberty grounds that non-public workers are free to live where they want regardless of where they work. An additional and, I think, more compelling argument is also based on equal protection concerns; that employees working for the same city under the same rule are not being treated equally under the law.

Auto Insurance Pitfall "BEWARE"

In Ohio, motorists are required to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance in the event they negligently cause property damage or bodily injury to something or someone else.

The minimum amounts are $7,500.00 for property damage and $12,500 per person/$25,000 maximum per incident for bodily injury. There are many drivers out there who carry NO LIABILITY INSURANCE at all.

What does this mean for you?

If you get smashed into by a motorist with no insurance, you will have to pay for the damage to your property and/or your body out of your own pocket; or, if the motorist who smashes into you has the minimum required insurance, that insurance will pay for the first $7,500 of damage to your property and the first $12,500 of damage to your body -- unless . . .

. . . unless you have purchased an insurance product called uninsured/underinsured motorist property damage and/or bodily injury coverage (UM/UIM PD or UM/UIM BI). Yes, indeed, you can insure against the risk that another motorist has not insured againt his or her own risk. [It is highley unlikely that you'll be smashed into a uninsured or minimally insured, extremely weathly person with liquid assets you can collect from directly instread of their insurance -- extremely wealthy people with liquid assets have adequate insurance, for the most part.]

This type of insurance coverage is very important. It is so important, in fact, that until about 2 years ago, insurance companies operating in Ohio were required by law to offer UM/UIM BI coverage with limits equivalent to the liability limits you purchased unless you specifically rejected such coverage in writing. In fact, if you didn't reject a specific detailed offer of this insurance in writing, the coverage was included in your auto insurance policy as a matter of law, whether or not you ever paid a premium for it.

Due to the lobbying efforts of the insurance industry, insurance companies are no longer required to offer UM/UIM BI Coverage in Ohio. Many insurance companies and some, although fewer, agents are not advising their customers to take this insurance in order to make their auto insurance premiums slightly lower (UM/UIM Coverage is extremely cheap -- generally less than 10% of the liability coverage portion of your premium) and thus look more competitive, even though the customer is not realizing that they are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Why is this type of insurance coverage so important?

Suppose you are driving on the road one day with your family in your vehicle and another driver runs a red light or a stop sign and t-bones your car, killing you or one of your family members and causing serious injuries to every one else in the car. If the other driver is uninsured and you have not purchased uninsured motorist coverage -- you and your family will get ZERO for the damage to you and your families' bodies and property damage. If the other driver is insured, but only at the state minimum, and you have not purchased Underinsured Motorist coverage, the most you and your family can recover for your damages is $32,500 -- $25,000 for bodily injuries and $7,500 for property damage.

Now, if a death is involved, you certainly can insure against that with life insurance. But if you are seriously injured in an automobile accident and the person who caused it has zero, or minimal insurance, unless you have UM/UIM Coverage, you will not receive any insurance benefits to cover your losses.

I'm not an insurance salesman. But I am an attorney; and I have had many cases come across my desk recently where a client or potential client has suffered significant injuries in motor vehicle crashes that were someone else's fault. These innocent folks lost time from work, incurred significant medical bills, and endured weeks and pain and suffering which they had to pay for out of their own pocket because they (or their insurance agent or company) decided to save as little as $6-10 every six months on their insurance premiums. None of these people thought they made an informed decision, nor the correct one for that matter, to forego UM/UIM coverage in their automobile insurance policies. All of these people assumed they were covered because they had auto insurance coverage.

Don't be one of these people. Talk to your insurance agent or company, review your auto insurance declarations pages, get informed and make an informed decision about purchasing UM/UIM insurance coverage. Thanks to the insurance lobby, the law in Ohio no longer protects you from accidentally making a potentially devastating mistake.

Meet the Bloggers Fundraiser

[From Brewed Fresh Daily]:

In an effort to raise money to pay for interview transcripts, Northeast Ohio bloggers have organized a fundraiser for Meet The Bloggers, to take place Thursday night, January 26, 2006, from 5.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. at the Pearl of the Orient restaurant, located in Beachcliff Market Square, 19300 Detroit Road, Rocky River, OH.
Please distribute this information widely. We’ve got 4 or 5 outstanding transcripts and at least that many interviews scheduled already.
A tremendous thanks to Scott Bakalar for donating his time and arranging this opportunity for us.

Renewed Sense of Community

The other day I was downtown for a meeting. I had taken RTA down and was waiting for ole' #35 to bring me back to the office from Public Square. I was people watching and just taking in the downtown sights as a #22 bus pulled into the stop. As it rattled to a rest, I heard a commotion to my left. Turning my head just in time to see a man with dark glasses and a long white cane with a red tip stumbling into a hot dog vendor's cart, I reflexively winced while sucking air through my teeth and haunching my shoulders in a feeble, long distance attempt to aid the poor man from injuring himself. He was a good 30 yards from me and bus #22. He and the hot dog vendor exchanged words that I could not hear.

What happened next was not remarkable in the sense that it happened, but remarkable in the sense of hope, community, and place it gave me that dreary afternoon.

Turns out, the man in the dark glasses had informed the hot dog vendor that he was running late and needed to catch bus #22. This was overheard by a nice middle-aged woman near the hot dog cart who began shouting and gesticulating rather wildly to no one I could see because it was intended for me. Coming to my senses, I quickly sized up the situation and jogged to the door of #22 and assessed the length of the line to board and made a split second determination that the best course of action was to leave my post and aid the man in the dark glasses getting on the bus.

I approached him, saying "sir, the bus will wait, please take my arm, I will walk you to the door." Which I politely did. He thanked me and boarded #22 to parts unknown.

If you fail to see the remarkableness in this little tableau, it's okay by me. It just means you take for granted one of the unique and precious things about Cleveland...one afternoon on Public Square, a hot dog vendor, a homeless black woman, and a lawyer; each of whom never met or spoke to the others, all conspired in an instant to make sure one blind man made it to his bus safely and on time.

This is one of the many reasons why I "Believe in Cleveland."

"Community happens, one small good deed at a time."
-- Roger Bundy

Hint Regarding Meaning of F.S.G.F.?

I suppose it is time to find out if anyone reading this blog gives a rodent's butt about the hidden meaning of F.S.G.F. My offer still stands and I'll sweeten the pot by giving a clue:

F.S.G.F. are four words that are equivalent to the "etymological meaning" of my full name: Roger Max Bundy

To the first person that posts the correct answer on this blog, I'll make a $100.00 contribution in your honor to the 501(c)(3) charity of your choosing.

Happy Hunting.

Mayor Jackson Strong Arms Council to Reject Firefighter's Contract

Tonight, under pressure from Mayor Jackson, Cleveland City Council voted to reject the Labor Contract negotiated with the Cleveland Fire Fighters under the Campbell Administration.

Does this spell trouble for our safety forces? Is this retribution for the Cleveland Fire Fighter's support of Mr. Jackson's opponent, Jane Campbell, in the election? Only time will tell what revenge Mr. Jackson will exact from our firefighters in a new round of labor talks.

According to Firefighters Union President, Bob Fisher, the City stood to save over a million dollars per year in overtime under this new contract. That's more than enough dough to staff an additional Ladder Company. (See Gloria Ferris' well thought out and researched post regarding Ladder 42 in Old Brooklyn.)

One thing is certain, even though Mr. Jackson is putting a nice face on his administration, with free parties and all that aw-shucks stuff; behind the scenes it's business as usual in Cleveland City politics and the gamesmanship is just beginning.

Be vigilant, my friends, the games have just begun.

Jennifer Brunner met the Bloggers

I attended my first Meet the Bloggers interview this morning at Talkies. What a special treat it was to see these bloggers in action, in person.

Ms. Brunner is a Democratic Candidate for Ohio Secretary of State.

I was impressed with Ms. Brunner's depth of understanding and experience regarding elections, election law, and the like. The conversation focused a great deal on H.B. 3, which you'll see from the interview, is not only an extremely scary piece of legislation, but is about as UN-American (not to mention unconstitutional) as you can get.

I am convinced that she would be a much better Secretary of State than Ken Blackwell, who continues to be an almost comical figure. Of course, that, in itself, isn't saying a whole lot about Ms. Brunner.

You can find out more about Jennifer Brunner at her campaign web-site. I like her. I like her ideas, her passion, and her experience. But....

Unlike the Paul Hackett meet the bloggers interview, there was very little talk this morning regarding how Ms. Brunner will win a statewide election as a Democrat. I was somewhat disappointed by that and I even made an attempt to steer the discussion in that direction by asking what her opponents position was on H.B. 3. Next time, I'll be more direct on that issue.

Yes, ideas and specifics are important; however, the candidate with good ideas and specifics also has to win the election in order to implement them. Bob Triozzi, recent candidate for Cleveland Mayor, had a superb campaign of ideas; however Bob's now working for Frank Jackson as Law Director and Frank Jackson offered scant ideas in the mayoral campaign and virtually no specifics.

If you only have ideas and no strategy to win, you might as well work for the candidate who will win because he or she does have that strategy. As of now, Ms. Brunner is an un-opposed Democrat. If she doesn't have a strategy to win, it's not likely that the next Republican Secretary of State will hire her for her ideas.

Tort Reform Myth #1

One of the main arguments for tort reform is that, without it, doctors will be forced to leave the area due to high malpractice insurance rates caused by "frivolous lawsuits" and "runaway jury verdicts."

In my capacity as a seeker of truth, I will endeavor to, from time to time, debunk the Tort Reform Myths that have been promulgated by many politicians at all levels of our government; primarily, but not exclusively, Republicans.

A recent article in the ABJ helps debunks the justification that doctors will leave Ohio if medical malpractice tort reform is not enacted.

Medical malpractice Tort Reform was enacted by the General Assembly and became effective in April of 2005.

Medical Malpractice Tort Reform has not significantly reduced medical malpractice insurance rates in Ohio for the reason that malpractice lawsuits and malpractice insurance rates are, in the aggregate, not necessarily casually related. While intuition leads one to conclude that they are, this is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc.

So then, why are (were) medical malpractice insurance rates increasing so dramatically? Simple, for the same reason that most (non-auto) insurance rates were escalating at the same time -- During the late 1990's insurance companies took advantage of their unusually high returns from a booming stock market and convinced insurance regulators to allow them issue policies at an underwriting loss based on the premium charged, because the insurer could more than make up the difference in the Stock Market.

When the bubble burst on Wall Street, insurers faced an underwriting shortfall and had to make up the loss in higher insurance premiums. In essence, policyholders got an artificial discount in the second half of the 1990's that had to be made up in in the first half of the new millennium. Coupled with this, insurers could no longer offer the artificial discount for current year ratings; thus policyholders' premiums increased significantly, in some cases more than doubling.

In future posts, I will provide web-links and other documentation to support my argument. As time passes, more and more evidence debunking the Tort Reform Myths will come out and I will try my best to share it with you on this blog.

Happy New Year!!!