About Richard Keyt

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Richard Keyt has created 75 blog entries.

Arizona Teachers Union Suing State Because It Wants To Decide on Spending Rather than the Legislators Elected by the People

The Arizona Education Association sued the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer again because it believes that the AEA should determine how Arizona should spend money on education rather than the Arizona legislature.  Last year the AEA sued the State of Arizona by filing a complaint directly with the Arizona Supreme Court, but the court threw the case out.  Once again, believing it is special, the AEA filed its lawsuit with the Arizona Supreme Court rather than first filing it in the Superior Court, which is where the little people file lawsuits. A press release on the AEA’s website says:

policy changes made in the 3rd special session of the Arizona State Legislature aimed at teachers and other school employees.  The policy changes allow arbitrary reductions in salary, prohibit seniority as a criterion for reduction in force, eliminate deadlines for issuing contracts, and limit employee rights to engage in professional association activities.

It’s just another battle in the never-ending war over who will run public schools, the teachers or somebody else?  The AEA is particularly bent out of shape because of a new Arizona law that “prohibit

[s] seniority as a criterion for reduction in force” as it likes to say.  Translation:  the AEA does not want teachers judged or paid on the basis of merit.  The Goldwater Institute said this about this new law and the novel concept embodied in it:

Under the new law, the balance of power has shifted.  Now, teacher quality takes precedence over teacher seniority.  What a concept. Inadequate teachers must now show improvement within 60 days of being informed of their sub-par performance.  Gone is the 85 day (17 weeks or 4 months) improvement plan that used to be in place.  Now, under-performing teachers can have their pay reduced without affecting the pay of better teachers. (We needed a law for this?)

That last statement deserves repeating.  We needed a law for this? Unfortunately the answer is yes.  The teachers’ union is adamantly opposed to anything that rates or rewards teachers based on teaching ability and success in the classroom.  If Arizona is going to have an education system that works, i.e., that educates its children, the teachers and the teachers’ unions cannot control the system.  Let’s not let the Arizona teachers remake Arizona education into the models of the New York City schools or the Los Angeles Unified School District.  For more about the nightmares these systems have become see:

See the Goldwater Institute‘s “Union trying to bully Legislators into changing law” and a story in the Arizona Republic: “Arizona law changes way teachers contract with districts” and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s “Because Policy Matters.”

Blimpie Sued for Not Having Double Meat in Its Sandwiches

Forget all the problems in the United States and the world, two crusaders who love to attack windmills are fighting our battles for us.  See the story in Above the Law.  The two plaintiffs sued Blimpie in a class action lawsuit for allegedly skimping on meat in Blimpie sandwiches.  The plaintiffs claim that a 12 inch sandwich contains 50 grams of protein, but the double your meat version of the sandwich contains only 73 grams of protein.  Holy false advertising Batman!  Here’s the part of the complaint that really ticks me off:

They also claim that other Super Stacked sandwiches should not be called that because there are no regular-size sandwiches to which to compare them.

Dude, doesn’t Blimpie have any shame?  Surely the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration or the Consumer Products Safety Commission will  assign 20 or 30 staff to investigate and spend millions of dollars of our tax money prosecuting this travesty of justice and force Blimpie to get its sandwich names in line with applicable federal and state law and nail Blimpie for a massive fine to teach it a lesson.  Where is the Food Police when you need them?  Whoops.  I forgot.  The Food Police are  busy busting bake sales in New York City Schools and going after dangerous hot dogs.

Fiddle Shortage Prompts California Assembly to Pass No Cussing Bill

Because the California legislature did not have the funds to purchase a fiddle for every legislator to play while California spirals down the economic death hole, the members of the Assembly spent their time considering and passing a new law intended to solve California’s financial woes by asking citizens to swear off swearing for a week.  Finally recognizing that their intellect was not up to the monumental task of passing important legislation that might fix the broken state, the Assembly simply punted and tackled a subject well know to all of them – cursing.  Now the Senate must consider the bill.  Next up for the Assembly, a bill giving Paris Hilton a key to the Golden State for her hard work in promoting Los Angeles as a playground for air-headed trust babies.

Plaintiff Wins $1,791 in 1st Amendment Case, County’s Legal Fees Were $464,242

The Denver Post has a story about a lawsuit won by Mike Zinna against Jefferson County, Colorado, that illustrates the high cost of litigation and the incredible amounts government spends defending itself.  The lawsuit arose after Jefferson County Commissioner Jim Congrove denied Zinna access to public records and prevented him from speaking at public meetings.  Zinna claimed the County violated his first amendment rights.  The court agreed and awarded Zinna damages of $1,791, which seems like a victory for Jefferson County.  Not!

Jefferson County paid $464,242 to “win” the lawsuit.  It may also be liable to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees, which could approach $500,000.  The bottom line is Jefferson County taxpayers lose almost $1,000,000 in scarce government resources in these financially difficult times because a long-gone elected official prevented some guy from speaking at a public meeting.  The justice system is completely out of balance.

Man Injured by Flying Hot Dog Sues Kansas City Royals

The Associated Press reports that a man sued the Kansas City Royals baseball team claiming that he was injured when the team’s mascot, Sluggerrr, threw a hot dog into the stands that hit him in the eye.  The plaintiff is asking for damages exceeding $25,000.  Clearly Sluggerrr should have cut the hot dog into pea-sized pieces before throwing it into the stands, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends.  See “Food Police’s Next Target – Hot Dogs.”  See also “Dog-Flinging Mascot Blamed for Eye Injury.”  Here’s the plaintiff’s complaint.  I am sure there are some people who would say that Sluggerrr would not have throw the dangerous missile and the injury would not have occurred if the hot dog had a warning label on it that said, “do not throw hot dog at fans at a baseball game – could cause injury.”

Go to Top