I hope I am not simply drinking cool aid, but I believe that the TV show "Shark Tank" is correctly hyped to reflect America's interest in entrepreneurship. Indeed I have read articles in Forbes and Fast Company --and in other publications-- about how the show effectively provides critical lessons to those in the viewing public interested in starting businesses. I am personally addicted to the show because of my own interest in learning about entrepreneurship.
When I first watched the show, my initial instinct was to think that if the show advances the public's interest in entrepreneurship and financial betterment, it would take the public's attention off of civic engagement and issues of public concern. However, upon further though, I have a new perspective: entrepreneurship can advance civic engagement and engagement.
Entrepreneurship is effectively creating and selling a product or service.To do so, one must identify a marketplace for that product or service, which means one must become familiar with the needs and desires of his or her fellow. Then, one must convinced his or her fellow of a creation that addresses that need or desire. This is a critical communication process, and in some sense, may be similar to the communication process of the candidate for electoral office selling his or her ability to address those concerns in the community. An entrepreneur in consumer goods must show how his or her product addresses needs of the consumer, and an entrepreneur in electoral office must show how his or her placement in public office should address the needs of the consumer.
The civic engagement side is two-fold. First, good entrepreneurs learn about their potential customer's needs. They are focused on understanding legitimate ways to make the lives of others easier in an affordable manner. Second, through the process of developing a relationship around the value of particular type of product, valuable interactions occur. From the show, I have the perspective that the most skilled entrepreneurs are not those whose communication about community needs is not exclusively focused on the product and services in hand, but in the course of marketing communications, do indeed communicate about community needs as a whole, thus advancing the social bonds needed for community engagement in a host of arenas.
As an aside, we often don't think about the ways that entrepreneurship advances the goals of democracy, but the pitches on Shark Tank make it quite evident that the interactions that are part of the development of family businesses are the same interactions that connect neighbors to address emergencies. The entrepreneur needs to understand the marketplace and in doing so, needs to understand the legal scheme and in doing so, needs to think about the impact of certain kinds of laws on his or her business.
The proof will be in the pudding. If the show's audience decides to sit at home and watch endless reruns, and then there are spin-offs that focus attention on making fun of bad products and how to screw up in business, the show will be useless. I believe the show will continue to inspire folks to build businesses and interact as a result.
ps: if nothing else, it is great that there is an ability for a show like this to shine, rather than another show making fun of people.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Saturday, December 28, 2013
11th Circuit Confirms A Settlement is a Settlement
On January 23, 2011, I wrote Advisory to the Pro Se Litigant #12: Yes, You Have A Right to Resolve Your Case, in which I wrote that pointed out that one cannot sign an agreement now and reopen a case when new information arises.
Rarely is there a case that highlights the proposition more than the recently decided 11th circuit case of Sherrod v. School Board of Palm Beach County. In this case, Curtis Sherrod settled First Amendment claims against the School Board for $272,425. He has now brought a cause of action claiming that the employer discriminated against him, in violation of 42 USC Sec. 1981, a critical anti-discrimination statute, by entering into a more favorable settlement, namely $490,000, with a white male, Dr. Elfers, who also alleged violations of his First Amendment Rights.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the language of the settlement entered into by the parties and determined that it bars the claims Mr. Sherrod seeks to pursue. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the alleged discriminatory actions of the school board in offering a lower amount for settlement than was offered to a similarly situated individual of a different race, occurred prior to the parties' entering into a settlement agreement, and are therefore implicitly settled. By entering into the agreement, and accepting the benefit of the bargain, Mr. Sherrod is not allowed to reopen litigation because he now doesn't like the terms.
This case offers two important lessons for those settling cases. First, one cannot re-open a case merely because new information comes available later that suggests that settlement is not all that can be achieved.Two, a written settlement agreement of claims often covers any claims that might arise during the negotiations themselves. A party anticipating a need to preserve rights to engage in post-settlement litigation along these lines will need to craft a settlement agreement reflecting these rights--although it is highly unlikely any represented entity would contemplate entering into a settlement agreement giving the plaintiff rights to reopen a case if he is later unhappy with the settlement.
PS: As an aside, note that this case does not deal with the case where a settlement is achieved through fraud or unlawful coercion. In this case, the 11th circuit recorded no allegation that the School Board engaged in either of these wrongs in order to get Mr. Sherrod to settle his case. If the School Board had, I am certain the result of the case would have been entirely different.
Rarely is there a case that highlights the proposition more than the recently decided 11th circuit case of Sherrod v. School Board of Palm Beach County. In this case, Curtis Sherrod settled First Amendment claims against the School Board for $272,425. He has now brought a cause of action claiming that the employer discriminated against him, in violation of 42 USC Sec. 1981, a critical anti-discrimination statute, by entering into a more favorable settlement, namely $490,000, with a white male, Dr. Elfers, who also alleged violations of his First Amendment Rights.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the language of the settlement entered into by the parties and determined that it bars the claims Mr. Sherrod seeks to pursue. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the alleged discriminatory actions of the school board in offering a lower amount for settlement than was offered to a similarly situated individual of a different race, occurred prior to the parties' entering into a settlement agreement, and are therefore implicitly settled. By entering into the agreement, and accepting the benefit of the bargain, Mr. Sherrod is not allowed to reopen litigation because he now doesn't like the terms.
This case offers two important lessons for those settling cases. First, one cannot re-open a case merely because new information comes available later that suggests that settlement is not all that can be achieved.Two, a written settlement agreement of claims often covers any claims that might arise during the negotiations themselves. A party anticipating a need to preserve rights to engage in post-settlement litigation along these lines will need to craft a settlement agreement reflecting these rights--although it is highly unlikely any represented entity would contemplate entering into a settlement agreement giving the plaintiff rights to reopen a case if he is later unhappy with the settlement.
PS: As an aside, note that this case does not deal with the case where a settlement is achieved through fraud or unlawful coercion. In this case, the 11th circuit recorded no allegation that the School Board engaged in either of these wrongs in order to get Mr. Sherrod to settle his case. If the School Board had, I am certain the result of the case would have been entirely different.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Response to Delaware Governor Markell Civic Engagement Message:Its Engagement, not Just Elections
This week Delaware Governor Markell's weekly weekly message relates to civic engagement. He is specifically concerned about " attracting a new generation of our best and brightest to be involved in public service and engaged in shaping public policy." He said that in his recent visits to schools, he has " emphasized that civic engagement is one of the most powerful ways to give back to your community."
This address mirrors comments I have heard from a number of politicians, including from President Obama and Vice President Biden, namely encouraging young folks to appreciate the value of running for office.and pursuing political careers.
I think politicians feel the need to motivate folks to engage in electoral politics because so many bright young people are scared off due what appears to be a very bitter partisan nasty environment. I, for instance, always envisioned myself running for office. However, the notion that an opponent would devote immense energy examining my experiences looking for contradictions or something with which to embarrass me is almost enough to make me run in a cave. Indeed, many don't want the scrutiny.
However, having floated in an out of political arenas for the past twenty years, usually in the context of some sort of involvement in a campaign or advocacy for legislation or other government action, I have not found much need to worry that we lack members of the public motivated to serve in public service roles. My observation is that even school board elections remain competitive races.
Our state and federal Constitutions (structure of governing bodies) function properly only when the constitution of our body politic involves citizen involvement.
The term "civic engagement" embraces a number of activities. If I recall his work correctly, Robert Putnam's famous "Bowling Alone" argues that true civic engagement comes when members of society are actively involved with their neighbors discussing issues of public concerns and, when necessary, collectively organizing on issues of common concern.
Many, including Fareed Zakaria in The Future of Freedom have pointed out that the term democracy is often used to refer only to whether members of society vote for their political leaders, such that a government could conceivably be a democracy (at least technically) while also being repressive.
The American constitution, however, does not limit the citizens' role to voting. The First Amendment promises us the freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. Technically a country could be a democracy without these freedoms, but not our type of democracy.
Supreme Court precedent involves a plethora of disputes surrounding how to interpret these freedoms and their limits. In other words, we wouldn't be America if citizens weren't actively engaged in exercising these rights.
In America's Civic Health Index of 2006, drafted by the National Conference on Citizenship, only 26.7 of Delaware residents engaged in volunteering regularly, and voter turnout was 43% in 2002 and 62% in 2004. These are not good numbers.
In 2012, the Corporation for National and Community Service released revised numbers, finding 24.8% of residents engaged in volunteer service and only 8.9% of residents attended public meetings.
These findings tell me that Governor Markell should be less concerned about whether his citizens will run for his job when he retires, and more concerned about strengthening the democracy and democractic republican character of his population.
In no way is this article directed solely at Governor Markell. As I have said, advocacy towards encouraging young folks towards government service has been made by the likes of Presidents Clinton and Obama as well. And indeed, I don't mean to dismiss the remarks of these politicians, as they are often comments following questions about young folks being scared off by the rough political climate. However, I believe strongly that the a legitimate reversal of the Bowling Alone phenomenon will inherently lead to further interest in government service, and indeed may expand the interest in those positions among individuals of a whole variety of political perspectives.
This address mirrors comments I have heard from a number of politicians, including from President Obama and Vice President Biden, namely encouraging young folks to appreciate the value of running for office.and pursuing political careers.
I think politicians feel the need to motivate folks to engage in electoral politics because so many bright young people are scared off due what appears to be a very bitter partisan nasty environment. I, for instance, always envisioned myself running for office. However, the notion that an opponent would devote immense energy examining my experiences looking for contradictions or something with which to embarrass me is almost enough to make me run in a cave. Indeed, many don't want the scrutiny.
However, having floated in an out of political arenas for the past twenty years, usually in the context of some sort of involvement in a campaign or advocacy for legislation or other government action, I have not found much need to worry that we lack members of the public motivated to serve in public service roles. My observation is that even school board elections remain competitive races.
Our state and federal Constitutions (structure of governing bodies) function properly only when the constitution of our body politic involves citizen involvement.
The term "civic engagement" embraces a number of activities. If I recall his work correctly, Robert Putnam's famous "Bowling Alone" argues that true civic engagement comes when members of society are actively involved with their neighbors discussing issues of public concerns and, when necessary, collectively organizing on issues of common concern.
Many, including Fareed Zakaria in The Future of Freedom have pointed out that the term democracy is often used to refer only to whether members of society vote for their political leaders, such that a government could conceivably be a democracy (at least technically) while also being repressive.
The American constitution, however, does not limit the citizens' role to voting. The First Amendment promises us the freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. Technically a country could be a democracy without these freedoms, but not our type of democracy.
Supreme Court precedent involves a plethora of disputes surrounding how to interpret these freedoms and their limits. In other words, we wouldn't be America if citizens weren't actively engaged in exercising these rights.
In America's Civic Health Index of 2006, drafted by the National Conference on Citizenship, only 26.7 of Delaware residents engaged in volunteering regularly, and voter turnout was 43% in 2002 and 62% in 2004. These are not good numbers.
In 2012, the Corporation for National and Community Service released revised numbers, finding 24.8% of residents engaged in volunteer service and only 8.9% of residents attended public meetings.
These findings tell me that Governor Markell should be less concerned about whether his citizens will run for his job when he retires, and more concerned about strengthening the democracy and democractic republican character of his population.
In no way is this article directed solely at Governor Markell. As I have said, advocacy towards encouraging young folks towards government service has been made by the likes of Presidents Clinton and Obama as well. And indeed, I don't mean to dismiss the remarks of these politicians, as they are often comments following questions about young folks being scared off by the rough political climate. However, I believe strongly that the a legitimate reversal of the Bowling Alone phenomenon will inherently lead to further interest in government service, and indeed may expand the interest in those positions among individuals of a whole variety of political perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)