I saw this post over at Salon.com and was overjoyed:
"Former cop here
And those cops were oafs. They may or may not get away with their unprofessional, excessive behavior, depending on the quality of the investigation, but they handled that situation with a level of incompetence one would usually only expect from a Bush political appointee.
Setting aside for a moment the question of whether the kid should have been taken down in the first place (I think he should have been allowed to rant, myself), skillful, well-trained police officers have methods for dealing with unruly individuals, not the least of which is basic diplomacy..
There is absolutely no reason why that situation should have devolved the way it did except that the officers involved didn't know what they were doing and overreacted. In my former department, that level of incompetence wouldn't be tolerated.
-- Bukk63"
The world needs more active police officers like him. Thank God for this voice of sanity.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
University of Florida student Tasered at John Kerry Forum
Here's the story:
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A University of Florida student was Tasered and arrested Monday when he attempted to speak at a forum with U.S. Sen. John Kerry during a question and answer session, university officials said.
Andrew Meyer, 21, asked Kerry why he did not contest the 2004 presidential election, which he lost to President Bush, and why there had been no moves to impeach Bush.
"He apparently asked several questions — he went on for quite awhile — then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off then he became upset."
While as many as four police officers tried to remove Meyer from the forum, he yelled for help and asked "What did I do?" Minutes after Meyer started speaking, he was Tasered.
Meyer was charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records. No bond had been set. Meyer was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday morning, a jail official said.
Orlando said university police would conduct an internal investigation on the incident.
"The police department does have a standard procedure for when they use force, including when they use a Taser," Orlando said. "That is what the internal investigation would address — whether the proper procedures were followed, whether the officers acted appropriately."
The event was sponsored by the UF student government speaker's bureau, according to a news release. A telephone message left at the speaker's bureau office was not immediately returned Monday evening.
It was not known if Meyer had an attorney.
But the bottom line is that -- if you look at the video -- Andrew wasn't even making a big fuss. He may have been asking uncomfortable questions, but that was it. That's supposed to be America. For the UF police to do what they did was totally nuts. Plus, their own internal review's not going to turn up anything.
Between this action and the way Capital Police treated the minster at last week's Petraus hearing , one has to ask what's going on with the kind of people law enforcement's bring in. They seem to lack proper judgement on when and why to use force, and thus bring shame on the very police departments they're suppose to bring respect to.
We must demand a higher standard. Now.
I also totally disagree with Michelle Makin's take on this, as it seems she's knee-jerk into defending anyone in a uniform just because they're in a uniform. Michelle' s not using her intellect by adopting this lazy thinking, rubber-stamp approach to the analysis of any controversial action in American culture. Her take also shows the limits of dogma, where people are so blinded they can't see injustice before them.
Makin's obviously not aware that college police are developing a pattern of over-the-top behavior, but fortunately Salon.com's got a collection of videos showing this travesty of the American legal system.
Senator John Kerry comes off looking bad. He tells the newspapers he didn't see what happened, and yet on the video we can hear him talking as this is going on and referring to the question. This kind of behavior is why John Kerry lost the election -- he's afraid to take a stand and defend basic American rights because he wants to look good for the cameras. Can't have that hair messed up when you're taking a stand, right Senator Kerry?
And to think I supported him for President in 2004.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Condoning Cheating? - NFL Coaches Unfairly Treating Jets Coach Eric Mangini
Profootballtalk.com and The New York Times report today that several NFL Coaches and executives are working to gang-up on New York Jets Head Coach Eric Mangini for blowing the whistle on New England Coach Bill Belichek for telling NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell that the Pats vidoed defensive signals from opposing teams, a violation of NFL rules.
Selena Roberts of the NY Times writes:
Mangini didn’t just flip on Belichick, costing his former mentor a celebrated image that has been reflected in a shelf-full of Lombardi Trophies, as well as a $500,000 fine and a prime draft pick. He did more. He also humiliated the respected Patriots owner and league power player Robert K. Kraft.
That sin has left Mangini toxic to some team executives. After all, would you trust him? Is there anyone — a player, assistant, general manager, owner or mascot — that he wouldn’t betray in a pinch?
Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com reports:
The reality, however, is that Mangini has likely learned his lesson, and that he knows that he has pulled the trigger on a one-shot pistol. But this doesn't change the fact that no NFL executive could justify taking the risk that Mangini might offer up a sequel.
Meanwhile, Mangini might have problems keeping the job he currently has. As one league insider opined on Tuesday:
"The biggest issue that Mangini faces is that his team absolutely stinks. One of the problems with being a surprise team is that you can't surprise anyone anymore. They won't win more than six games this year. The Ravens tried to hand the game to the Jets after dominating for three quarters and the Jets refused to take it. The offensive line is awful, the defensive line is terrible, the running back is old, the wideouts drop passes, and the secondary is beat up. The Patriots will win that division by five or six games, easy. That, more than anything, is going to put heat on Mangini."
Wait. That's not right. It points to the observation that some NFL execs may have actually known that New England was cheating and kept quiet; indeed, if Mangini himself knew this, and talked, then how many other people knew? It doesn't make the NFL look good at all, and with these latest headlines, sends up more smoke, implying there's a fire burning somewhere in the league.
This matter of punishing Mangini as whistle-blower also opens another question -- at least in my mind. Why does the NFL allow a double-standard to exist, where players transgressions are blurted out to the public with abandon, and there's no threat of backlash by NFL team execs, but when it comes to the matter of an NFL coach like Bill Belichek, this invisible protective shield is thrown up?
It's not right. The Commissioner should release a statement warning the league's execs of punishment if such statements are made in the future. I personally dislike this aspect of how the NFL functions. Yes, Bill Belichek's a great coach, and while he should not have done what he did, and his overall record is somewhat tainted, he's got three Super Bowl trophies, and that didn't come just from hard-to-get videos.
But look at the facts -- the Pats have won some very close games in Super Bowl history. It's fair to ask if the video practice was used prior to each Super Bowl the Pats were in under Belichek. I'm not saying take his awards away, but the way they were gotten is under scrutiny.
That process of investigation must begin. But meanwhile, leave Eric Mangini alone. I'm certain he got tired of being well-prepared for New England only to have his hat handed to him by a too-well-prepared Patriots team, and knowing how they got ready to play, and what they did during the game steamed him.
Enough was enough.
Selena Roberts of the NY Times writes:
Mangini didn’t just flip on Belichick, costing his former mentor a celebrated image that has been reflected in a shelf-full of Lombardi Trophies, as well as a $500,000 fine and a prime draft pick. He did more. He also humiliated the respected Patriots owner and league power player Robert K. Kraft.
That sin has left Mangini toxic to some team executives. After all, would you trust him? Is there anyone — a player, assistant, general manager, owner or mascot — that he wouldn’t betray in a pinch?
Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com reports:
The reality, however, is that Mangini has likely learned his lesson, and that he knows that he has pulled the trigger on a one-shot pistol. But this doesn't change the fact that no NFL executive could justify taking the risk that Mangini might offer up a sequel.
Meanwhile, Mangini might have problems keeping the job he currently has. As one league insider opined on Tuesday:
"The biggest issue that Mangini faces is that his team absolutely stinks. One of the problems with being a surprise team is that you can't surprise anyone anymore. They won't win more than six games this year. The Ravens tried to hand the game to the Jets after dominating for three quarters and the Jets refused to take it. The offensive line is awful, the defensive line is terrible, the running back is old, the wideouts drop passes, and the secondary is beat up. The Patriots will win that division by five or six games, easy. That, more than anything, is going to put heat on Mangini."
Wait. That's not right. It points to the observation that some NFL execs may have actually known that New England was cheating and kept quiet; indeed, if Mangini himself knew this, and talked, then how many other people knew? It doesn't make the NFL look good at all, and with these latest headlines, sends up more smoke, implying there's a fire burning somewhere in the league.
This matter of punishing Mangini as whistle-blower also opens another question -- at least in my mind. Why does the NFL allow a double-standard to exist, where players transgressions are blurted out to the public with abandon, and there's no threat of backlash by NFL team execs, but when it comes to the matter of an NFL coach like Bill Belichek, this invisible protective shield is thrown up?
It's not right. The Commissioner should release a statement warning the league's execs of punishment if such statements are made in the future. I personally dislike this aspect of how the NFL functions. Yes, Bill Belichek's a great coach, and while he should not have done what he did, and his overall record is somewhat tainted, he's got three Super Bowl trophies, and that didn't come just from hard-to-get videos.
But look at the facts -- the Pats have won some very close games in Super Bowl history. It's fair to ask if the video practice was used prior to each Super Bowl the Pats were in under Belichek. I'm not saying take his awards away, but the way they were gotten is under scrutiny.
That process of investigation must begin. But meanwhile, leave Eric Mangini alone. I'm certain he got tired of being well-prepared for New England only to have his hat handed to him by a too-well-prepared Patriots team, and knowing how they got ready to play, and what they did during the game steamed him.
Enough was enough.
2008 Presidential Race - Zennie Questions Fayetteville, GA
I recently took my trusty Sony camcorder to visit my Mom in Fayetteville, GA and in the process ask some of the locals two questions: first, what they thought of the 2008 Presidential Race, and second who they planned to vote for. I received some interesting responses.
Now, it must be reported that I did not go up to every person I encountered. I randomly picked my spots and let's face it, most people will not speak before a camera. Yeah, someone may give this great opinion but the minute I say "Hey, can I get that on camera?" they will say "No, not on camera." The very act of coaxing them is so time consuming that I'd rather not be bothered. But then there are people who do speak, and they offer a great opening to be interviewed.
Also, I knew I was going to make a five-minute video -- ok, almost six -- and so didn't focus on talking to a lot of people. I wanted to have full unedited responses, and that's what I got.
I also didn't try to get some kind of ethnic balance. To be frank, Fayetteville, GA offers a pretty fair variety of people. The 2000 census, which really reflects the mid-1990s when you think about it, is just plain wrong about Fayetteville, Georgia in 2007. This Atlanta suburb is now seemlingly half-African American, if not majority Black. Regardless, my experience confirms my assertion that our American Census and the country's overall perception of itself on a regional basis is way out of whack with reality.
The true picture I get is of an America more diverse and mixed in thought and in human color than we are led to think by the mainstream media, which itself needs an overhaul because it's so behind the times in how it covers American Culture -- fact is replaced by bias dressed as fact all too often.
But I digress.
What I learned in my little bitty video survey is that people have made of their minds -- sort of. The responses you hear all come with the causionary sentence "For now", or "At this time." Which means they could switch or shift for some unknown reasons.
To me this is shaping up as the most volitile and unpredictable election in American History. I think Bill Kristol nailed it when he said the 2008 Presidential Race will break all the rules. There are so many elements that are a part of today's culture that were not even evident in 2004, when President Bush was reelected -- YouTube, cell-phone-only-homes, to name a few of them. Plus, the standard methods of surveying our society's preferences doens't even capture this, and yet the results are reported on CNN and other news networks and without introspection.
Wow.
This is the election where America will learn how wrong it is about itself.
O.J. Simpson Jailed On Trumped-Up Charges
Ok. I've tried to avoid the O.J. Simpson matter because I thought it would go away and the Las Vegas law authorities would figure that it was a set-up -- it has all the signs of that. But they've not done so, thus, I'm going to weigh in.
My view is that O.J. was set up by some totally loser characters that are involved in selling sports items of value, and who most likely stole the items from O.J. What really is bothersome is that the Las Vegas District Attorney's not really intelligent enough to see this matter for what it is, and avoid heaping on silly charges, but that's what's going on.
On top of that, many media outlets, including CNN, feel it's the story to cover -- at first I disagreed, but the actions of the Las Vegas District Attorney's Office have caused me to think this is now a story. O.J.'s past is being used against him without the actual admission of the Las Vegas authorities. It makes me wonder if there's really such a thing as justice in a post 9/11 America.
Now, the other person at fault in this whole deal is O.J, but it's not for any one of the 10 felony charges he's been hit with. It's for not calling the FBI if he thought there was a problem, and for hanging around the wrong people. Post the murder issue, it's hard to understand why O.J. would allow himself to wade back into the cesspool of public opinion, which is like mob rule in O.J.'s case.
I don't know what got into his head that he had to do an interview on that aspect of his past, as opposed to, say, his exploits as a record-setting running back with USC and in the NFL. It seems like spritually wading into those waters led to this punishment -- I do belive it's a weird act of God O.J.'s dealing with. Regardless of his guilt or innocence he should have left the whole matter alone.
Now, he's got a new set of issues. But if he believes and prays, he will prevail. I don't think he did anything wrong -- but I do think he's being thrown into a spritual test.
I agree with "A Girl In Shorts" -- I'm rooting for O.J. And since we both are, it blows all to hell the equally racist main stream media bent on asking if there's a racial divide -- the answer's no.
GO JUICE!
Let's see how he does.
At Rally, Hillary Clinton Refuses Autograph - Video
For some reason - and she's shown here doing it -- Senator Hillary Clinton passed on signing an autograph, saying, why don't I just shake your hand? And then proceeds, seemingly a bit piturbed over the whole deal, but still shaking hands. I've got to say that this is in direct contrast to Senator Obama, who signs books and papers given to him, though not on the spot. What the campaign does is instruct people to give them the books and they give them back after his walk.
Commissioner Goodell -- Remarks Before The Senate Commerce Committee
Commissioner Goodell -- Remarks Before The Senate Commerce Committee
09/18/2007
TESTIMONY OF ROGER GOODELL
COMMISSIONER
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
September 18, 2007
Chairman Dorgan, Chairman Inouye, Vice-Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee:
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to appear today and testify on this important subject. I do not believe that this subject is, or should be, immune from Congressional scrutiny. To the contrary, the National Football League has always strived to conduct itself in the public interest, and to do everything in a first-class way. We can only benefit from objective, thoughtful reviews of our policies and programs. And so I welcome the opportunity to be with you today.
I am joined here today by Harold Henderson, our Executive Vice President of Player Programs, and Dennis Curran, our Senior Vice President and labor relations counsel. Both Mr. Henderson and Mr. Curran have been deeply involved for the past two decades in collective bargaining, including on player benefits, and in the administration of these benefit programs by the joint NFL-NFL Players Association Retirement Board.
I recently completed my first year as Commissioner of the NFL. During that year, I have spent a considerable amount of time with retired players and on the concerns raised by a number of them. And while I would candidly acknowledge that we have more work to do, I want to outline both the steps taken thus far, and the framework within which we are approaching this issue going forward.
In that context I should add that I cannot comment on the specifics of any individual case. In my role as Commissioner, I have not read the disability claims files, and I am not qualified to speak to the medical and legal issues raised in any individual case. Although I appoint one half of the Trustees on the Retirement Board, those Trustees act in a fiduciary capacity and I never discuss pending cases with them. Insofar as you may have questions regarding individual cases, I am certain that Mr. Henderson or Mr. Curran, or one of Mr. Upshaw’s colleagues, could respond better than I can today.
In considering the subject of benefits for retired players, I begin from a premise which I think no one seriously disputes – the men who played professional football decades ago deserve our respect and recognition, and their contributions to our game must never be overlooked. I honor them and their achievements and neither I nor the NFL clubs will turn our backs on them.
Second, while it might be tempting to say – as some have – that this is Gene Upshaw’s problem to solve, that is neither fair nor accurate. The responsibility for addressing the needs of retired players belongs to all of us. The retired players, the current players, the clubs, Gene as head of the Union, and I as the Commissioner – all of us have a role to play. We will continue to address this issue in a way that is compassionate, creative, and realistic.
Third, just as it would be wrong to say this is Gene Upshaw’s problem to solve, it would be wrong to say that the NFL can or should solve the problem by itself. While some may not believe this, the fact is that we cannot solve every problem of every type that has been identified, and certainly not in a way that will satisfy everyone. NFL clubs currently spend close to 60 percent of their gross revenues on player benefits and salaries. Our clubs contributed almost $150 million last year to finance medical, disability, and retirement benefits for former players, and during the term of our current collective bargaining agreement, we project that our clubs will spend more than $700 million to fund just this package of player benefits. Owners are responsibly addressing these concerns, but they are simply not in a position to absorb significant incremental costs.
In meetings with Committee and personal staff, our office and the NFLPA have provided you with a comprehensive summary of the benefits provided to retired players. Those benefits have steadily improved over time, and among the benefits available to a player who retires from the NFL today are all of the following:
n A defined benefit pension plan with a benefit that is geared only to years of service, not to the player’s earnings. If a player with ten years of service begins to receive his pension at age 55, he receives $56,000 per year; if he waits until age 65, he receives $147,000 per year. These amounts have grown steadily, and pension benefits have been increased in each new collective bargaining agreement over the past 15 years. For example, a player who retired 25 years ago – in 1982 – and who begins to receive his pension at age 55 has seen his pension benefit credit more than double since he retired as a result of increases agreed to in collective bargaining.
At a time when companies all over America – many of which are considerably larger than the NFL – have terminated their pension plans or turned them over to the federal pension guaranty board, we have both negotiated steady increases in our benefits, and agreed to apply those increases on a retroactive basis. In our most recent agreement in 2006, we agreed to increase pension obligations by more than $200 million. In the last ten years, we have increased those obligations by roughly $400 million – virtually all of which has been for the benefit of retired players. I think everyone would agree that this is a substantial additional commitment by our member clubs to former and current players.
n We also offer a 401(k) plan, in which player contributions are matched on a 2:1 basis by the clubs up to $20,000 per year. Players have access to these funds as early as age 45.
n A player annuity plan, under which eligible players receive an NFL contribution of $65,000 per year to provide transition income to players. They have access to these funds as early as age 35.
n Five years of post-career medical care and a health reimbursement account of up to $300,000 for use later in life.
n A lump sum severance benefit paid upon retirement from the NFL based on the number of seasons played.
We also, as the Committee knows, have a disability plan which offers a range of benefits, including Total & Permanent, Football degenerative, and “Line of Duty” benefits. We recently added another benefit, known as the “88 Plan,” which provides up to $88,000 per year for former players suffering from dementia, without requiring proof that the dementia is football related. For other categories of disability, the benefits range from $18,000 per year to $224,000 per year, depending on the nature and severity of the disability. These benefits are in addition to any state workers’ compensation. In addition, not all disability benefits are based on a complete inability to work.
Benefits available under the disability plan have also grown substantially over the past 15 years. An active player who qualifies for football-related Total & Permanent disability has seen his annual benefit increase from $48,000 in 1993 to $224,000 today. An active player whose Total & Permanent disability is not related to football has seen his annual benefit grow to $134,000. And former players with football-related “degenerative” disabilities have seen their annual benefit grow from $75,000 in 1993 to $110,000 today, without regard to whether they are able to work. These are annual amounts paid to the player as long as he remains disabled.
Our disability plan has a number of features that make it unique and superior to many other plans. I am told that most American workers have no employer-provided disability benefits. A report released last month by the Labor Department showed that barely 3 out of every 10 workers in the private sector have access to long term disability coverage. In certain sectors of the economy that might be perceived as higher risk, the rate of coverage is ever lower.
The NFL Plan covers all players with at least three seasons of experience (four years for players retiring before 1993) and provides for benefits even if the disability is not football-related. With as few as three years of NFL experience, a former player can receive benefits from the NFL disability plan even if his disability results from a car accident, a fall at home, or some other everyday cause. Moreover, eligible players can still apply for football degenerative benefits for up to 15 years after they retire from the NFL.
The NFL Plan provides for payment of disability benefits on a retroactive basis, so players are not prejudiced by delays in the application and administration process. A player who is approved will receive benefits retroactive to his date of application. If the disability precedes the application, the player can receive up to 42 months of benefits on a retroactive basis. And, finally, NFL disability benefits are not offset by medical or workers’ compensation payments, or any other NFL benefits, such as injury protection or severance pay. As the Committee knows, the workers’ compensation system provides lifetime medical and other benefits to players. NFL disability benefits are in addition to any payments received from those systems.
We believe these features, far from being exclusionary, demonstrate our commitment to providing fair and generous benefits to players and their families. And the record bears that out – since 2000, we have paid more than $110 million to players from the 1960s to the present who qualified for disability benefits.
Like you, I have heard concerns expressed about “red tape” and the complexity of the application process. We have taken recent steps to address that problem, and I think there is more we can do. One area of frustration is the Plan’s “Initial Claims Committee.” This arises out of new regulations adopted by the Labor Department in 2002. At the time these regulations were being considered, we filed comments with the Department noting that these regulations would likely have the effect of slowing down decisions on disability claims, and urged that they not be adopted. As we said at the time, because of the sometimes complex nature of disability decisions, including the need to have medical examinations completed by neutral physicians, and the reports analyzed within 45 days, the new rules “will only force faster denials.” The requirements imposed by the Labor Department have had the unintended consequence of making the application process longer and more complex, as our people feared at the time they were proposed.
In the future, we can look more closely at how we decide which cases need to be reconsidered. The statistics show that an overwhelming number of recipients are approved to continue their benefits, which rather strongly suggests that we may not need to review and reconsider cases as often as we have in the past. We have begun that process by reducing the frequency of medical re-evaluations from annually to once every three years for players receiving Total & Permanent disability payments.
When decisions need to be reconsidered at the Board level, we will begin making decisions outside of the Retirement Board’s quarterly meetings. Thus once an application is complete, or additional medical evaluations have been received, the Board can consider and vote on the application by fax or email. This simple change will allow more expedited processing of applications.
Finally, we have tried to ensure that the standards by which disability claims are evaluated are clear and understandable, and therefore more easily applied. As one example, decisions regarding “Line of Duty” disability, which is a partial disability arising from football, are based on standards developed by the American Medical Association. We also recently agreed to expand the standards for determining Total & Permanent disability by incorporating the medical findings of the Social Security Administration. If a player has been determined to be eligible for disability benefits by Social Security, no separate medical assessments will be needed. Instead, the determination of the Social Security Administration will govern the former player’s medical eligibility for NFL disability benefits. Our retirees have my personal commitment to continue the effort to identify and implement any reasonable procedural changes that would allow disability determinations to be made more quickly and reliably. To that end, we have enlisted the assistance of independent counsel and benefit consultants to advise us on best practices with respect to disability plans and to recommend steps we can take to improve the administration of the Plan.
This does not mean that every person who seeks disability benefits will, or should, receive them. That needs to be understood by all parties. Disability benefits are meant to assist people who cannot work, not simply that they can no longer play professional football. No disability plan, whether sponsored by a private insurer, by an employer, or by the Federal government, provides benefits to anyone who applies. And it does not mean that, even if approved, every applicant will receive the amount he requests. But we will continue to strive to do better, and to be seen as doing better.
I now want to address certain allegations about the manner in which decisions are made on disability applications. The administration of the disability plan is governed by federal law and by regulations established by federal agencies. The Plan operates as required under those regulations, including the use of an Initial Claims Committee, neutral physicians, and the associated time limits. The people who make decisions act as fiduciaries, who are obligated to follow the law and the terms of the Plan.
There are those who claim that disability applications are nonetheless denied as a result of some sort of grand labor-management conspiracy. This claim assumes that an extraordinary number of people – myself, my predecessor, Gene Upshaw, the Trustees, the Plan Administrator, the neutral doctors, Plan counsel, and their various staffs – have all agreed to deny benefits without regard to whether an applicant actually qualifies.
Those who adhere to this theory also dismiss that federal courts throughout the country have upheld the Retirement Board’s decisions in 24 of the 25 cases that have been litigated. The critics explain that away by saying that the standard of review is too deferential, ignoring that the standard is set by federal law, not by the NFL, and is consistently applied in reviewing decisions by benefit plan administrators and fiduciaries in all sectors of the American life.
But no matter how deferential the standard of review may be, no court would defer to a decision tainted by collusion or conspiracy. The simple reality is that no such claim has ever been proved and no court has ever made such a finding. These charges are as cynical as they are unfounded, and the Committee should not dignify them here.
There is one other myth about decision-making that should be dispelled – that being that many players are either denied benefits altogether, or forced to endure extraordinary delay, because the Union and management trustees routinely divide 3-3 on applications. There is no basis whatsoever for this suggestion. In fact, since the Initial Claims Committee was put into place in 2002, it has deadlocked on only six claims in a line-of-duty disability and only 32 cases of Total & Permanent Disability. Every other claim filed – almost 600 claims – was decided unanimously, one way or another.
Where claims are appealed to the Retirement Board, the same is true. The Board seldom splits in its votes. And even if there is a split in the Retirement Board, the case is referred to a neutral physician, called the Medical Advisory Physician. That doctor’s report is final and binding. That report decides the case – not the Union trustees or the Management Trustees.
Apart from addressing the workings of the disability plan, we have recently
taken some additional steps to address specific needs of former players.
Earlier this year, we joined with the NFL Players’ Association, the NFL Alumni Association, and the Pro Football Hall of Fame to establish an “Alliance” to bring together the different groups seeking to help retired players. As a first step, we have agreed to create a fund, set initially at $7 million, to fund two specific medical initiatives.
First, to provide full or partial funding of hip, knee or shoulder replacement surgery and related rehabilitation for former players at a network of leading hospitals throughout the country.
Second, to provide an expanded national program of cardiovascular risk screening, and education for former players.
Apart from these two programs, we are also exploring ways of providing support for players in need of assisted living arrangements, and other specific medical needs.
Finally, we are expanding our outreach efforts to better identify former players with special needs, so that our Alliance can provide financial assistance to those proud former players and their families who are sometimes hesitant to ask for assistance.
We recognize that this is not a short-term problem. Some of the leaders addressing this issue – former players like Jerry Kramer or Hall of Famers Willie Lanier and Merlin Olsen – have met with us and continue to do so. I am sure that together we have the resources, creativity and determination to make a real difference in the lives of our former players.
There are today approximately 8000 active and retired NFL Players. Like many groups of 8000 people, their circumstances vary widely. We are proud of the comprehensive and improving package of benefits provided to players, and we will continue working to do as much as possible to help those in need.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Committee today.
09/18/2007
TESTIMONY OF ROGER GOODELL
COMMISSIONER
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
September 18, 2007
Chairman Dorgan, Chairman Inouye, Vice-Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee:
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to appear today and testify on this important subject. I do not believe that this subject is, or should be, immune from Congressional scrutiny. To the contrary, the National Football League has always strived to conduct itself in the public interest, and to do everything in a first-class way. We can only benefit from objective, thoughtful reviews of our policies and programs. And so I welcome the opportunity to be with you today.
I am joined here today by Harold Henderson, our Executive Vice President of Player Programs, and Dennis Curran, our Senior Vice President and labor relations counsel. Both Mr. Henderson and Mr. Curran have been deeply involved for the past two decades in collective bargaining, including on player benefits, and in the administration of these benefit programs by the joint NFL-NFL Players Association Retirement Board.
I recently completed my first year as Commissioner of the NFL. During that year, I have spent a considerable amount of time with retired players and on the concerns raised by a number of them. And while I would candidly acknowledge that we have more work to do, I want to outline both the steps taken thus far, and the framework within which we are approaching this issue going forward.
In that context I should add that I cannot comment on the specifics of any individual case. In my role as Commissioner, I have not read the disability claims files, and I am not qualified to speak to the medical and legal issues raised in any individual case. Although I appoint one half of the Trustees on the Retirement Board, those Trustees act in a fiduciary capacity and I never discuss pending cases with them. Insofar as you may have questions regarding individual cases, I am certain that Mr. Henderson or Mr. Curran, or one of Mr. Upshaw’s colleagues, could respond better than I can today.
In considering the subject of benefits for retired players, I begin from a premise which I think no one seriously disputes – the men who played professional football decades ago deserve our respect and recognition, and their contributions to our game must never be overlooked. I honor them and their achievements and neither I nor the NFL clubs will turn our backs on them.
Second, while it might be tempting to say – as some have – that this is Gene Upshaw’s problem to solve, that is neither fair nor accurate. The responsibility for addressing the needs of retired players belongs to all of us. The retired players, the current players, the clubs, Gene as head of the Union, and I as the Commissioner – all of us have a role to play. We will continue to address this issue in a way that is compassionate, creative, and realistic.
Third, just as it would be wrong to say this is Gene Upshaw’s problem to solve, it would be wrong to say that the NFL can or should solve the problem by itself. While some may not believe this, the fact is that we cannot solve every problem of every type that has been identified, and certainly not in a way that will satisfy everyone. NFL clubs currently spend close to 60 percent of their gross revenues on player benefits and salaries. Our clubs contributed almost $150 million last year to finance medical, disability, and retirement benefits for former players, and during the term of our current collective bargaining agreement, we project that our clubs will spend more than $700 million to fund just this package of player benefits. Owners are responsibly addressing these concerns, but they are simply not in a position to absorb significant incremental costs.
In meetings with Committee and personal staff, our office and the NFLPA have provided you with a comprehensive summary of the benefits provided to retired players. Those benefits have steadily improved over time, and among the benefits available to a player who retires from the NFL today are all of the following:
n A defined benefit pension plan with a benefit that is geared only to years of service, not to the player’s earnings. If a player with ten years of service begins to receive his pension at age 55, he receives $56,000 per year; if he waits until age 65, he receives $147,000 per year. These amounts have grown steadily, and pension benefits have been increased in each new collective bargaining agreement over the past 15 years. For example, a player who retired 25 years ago – in 1982 – and who begins to receive his pension at age 55 has seen his pension benefit credit more than double since he retired as a result of increases agreed to in collective bargaining.
At a time when companies all over America – many of which are considerably larger than the NFL – have terminated their pension plans or turned them over to the federal pension guaranty board, we have both negotiated steady increases in our benefits, and agreed to apply those increases on a retroactive basis. In our most recent agreement in 2006, we agreed to increase pension obligations by more than $200 million. In the last ten years, we have increased those obligations by roughly $400 million – virtually all of which has been for the benefit of retired players. I think everyone would agree that this is a substantial additional commitment by our member clubs to former and current players.
n We also offer a 401(k) plan, in which player contributions are matched on a 2:1 basis by the clubs up to $20,000 per year. Players have access to these funds as early as age 45.
n A player annuity plan, under which eligible players receive an NFL contribution of $65,000 per year to provide transition income to players. They have access to these funds as early as age 35.
n Five years of post-career medical care and a health reimbursement account of up to $300,000 for use later in life.
n A lump sum severance benefit paid upon retirement from the NFL based on the number of seasons played.
We also, as the Committee knows, have a disability plan which offers a range of benefits, including Total & Permanent, Football degenerative, and “Line of Duty” benefits. We recently added another benefit, known as the “88 Plan,” which provides up to $88,000 per year for former players suffering from dementia, without requiring proof that the dementia is football related. For other categories of disability, the benefits range from $18,000 per year to $224,000 per year, depending on the nature and severity of the disability. These benefits are in addition to any state workers’ compensation. In addition, not all disability benefits are based on a complete inability to work.
Benefits available under the disability plan have also grown substantially over the past 15 years. An active player who qualifies for football-related Total & Permanent disability has seen his annual benefit increase from $48,000 in 1993 to $224,000 today. An active player whose Total & Permanent disability is not related to football has seen his annual benefit grow to $134,000. And former players with football-related “degenerative” disabilities have seen their annual benefit grow from $75,000 in 1993 to $110,000 today, without regard to whether they are able to work. These are annual amounts paid to the player as long as he remains disabled.
Our disability plan has a number of features that make it unique and superior to many other plans. I am told that most American workers have no employer-provided disability benefits. A report released last month by the Labor Department showed that barely 3 out of every 10 workers in the private sector have access to long term disability coverage. In certain sectors of the economy that might be perceived as higher risk, the rate of coverage is ever lower.
The NFL Plan covers all players with at least three seasons of experience (four years for players retiring before 1993) and provides for benefits even if the disability is not football-related. With as few as three years of NFL experience, a former player can receive benefits from the NFL disability plan even if his disability results from a car accident, a fall at home, or some other everyday cause. Moreover, eligible players can still apply for football degenerative benefits for up to 15 years after they retire from the NFL.
The NFL Plan provides for payment of disability benefits on a retroactive basis, so players are not prejudiced by delays in the application and administration process. A player who is approved will receive benefits retroactive to his date of application. If the disability precedes the application, the player can receive up to 42 months of benefits on a retroactive basis. And, finally, NFL disability benefits are not offset by medical or workers’ compensation payments, or any other NFL benefits, such as injury protection or severance pay. As the Committee knows, the workers’ compensation system provides lifetime medical and other benefits to players. NFL disability benefits are in addition to any payments received from those systems.
We believe these features, far from being exclusionary, demonstrate our commitment to providing fair and generous benefits to players and their families. And the record bears that out – since 2000, we have paid more than $110 million to players from the 1960s to the present who qualified for disability benefits.
Like you, I have heard concerns expressed about “red tape” and the complexity of the application process. We have taken recent steps to address that problem, and I think there is more we can do. One area of frustration is the Plan’s “Initial Claims Committee.” This arises out of new regulations adopted by the Labor Department in 2002. At the time these regulations were being considered, we filed comments with the Department noting that these regulations would likely have the effect of slowing down decisions on disability claims, and urged that they not be adopted. As we said at the time, because of the sometimes complex nature of disability decisions, including the need to have medical examinations completed by neutral physicians, and the reports analyzed within 45 days, the new rules “will only force faster denials.” The requirements imposed by the Labor Department have had the unintended consequence of making the application process longer and more complex, as our people feared at the time they were proposed.
In the future, we can look more closely at how we decide which cases need to be reconsidered. The statistics show that an overwhelming number of recipients are approved to continue their benefits, which rather strongly suggests that we may not need to review and reconsider cases as often as we have in the past. We have begun that process by reducing the frequency of medical re-evaluations from annually to once every three years for players receiving Total & Permanent disability payments.
When decisions need to be reconsidered at the Board level, we will begin making decisions outside of the Retirement Board’s quarterly meetings. Thus once an application is complete, or additional medical evaluations have been received, the Board can consider and vote on the application by fax or email. This simple change will allow more expedited processing of applications.
Finally, we have tried to ensure that the standards by which disability claims are evaluated are clear and understandable, and therefore more easily applied. As one example, decisions regarding “Line of Duty” disability, which is a partial disability arising from football, are based on standards developed by the American Medical Association. We also recently agreed to expand the standards for determining Total & Permanent disability by incorporating the medical findings of the Social Security Administration. If a player has been determined to be eligible for disability benefits by Social Security, no separate medical assessments will be needed. Instead, the determination of the Social Security Administration will govern the former player’s medical eligibility for NFL disability benefits. Our retirees have my personal commitment to continue the effort to identify and implement any reasonable procedural changes that would allow disability determinations to be made more quickly and reliably. To that end, we have enlisted the assistance of independent counsel and benefit consultants to advise us on best practices with respect to disability plans and to recommend steps we can take to improve the administration of the Plan.
This does not mean that every person who seeks disability benefits will, or should, receive them. That needs to be understood by all parties. Disability benefits are meant to assist people who cannot work, not simply that they can no longer play professional football. No disability plan, whether sponsored by a private insurer, by an employer, or by the Federal government, provides benefits to anyone who applies. And it does not mean that, even if approved, every applicant will receive the amount he requests. But we will continue to strive to do better, and to be seen as doing better.
I now want to address certain allegations about the manner in which decisions are made on disability applications. The administration of the disability plan is governed by federal law and by regulations established by federal agencies. The Plan operates as required under those regulations, including the use of an Initial Claims Committee, neutral physicians, and the associated time limits. The people who make decisions act as fiduciaries, who are obligated to follow the law and the terms of the Plan.
There are those who claim that disability applications are nonetheless denied as a result of some sort of grand labor-management conspiracy. This claim assumes that an extraordinary number of people – myself, my predecessor, Gene Upshaw, the Trustees, the Plan Administrator, the neutral doctors, Plan counsel, and their various staffs – have all agreed to deny benefits without regard to whether an applicant actually qualifies.
Those who adhere to this theory also dismiss that federal courts throughout the country have upheld the Retirement Board’s decisions in 24 of the 25 cases that have been litigated. The critics explain that away by saying that the standard of review is too deferential, ignoring that the standard is set by federal law, not by the NFL, and is consistently applied in reviewing decisions by benefit plan administrators and fiduciaries in all sectors of the American life.
But no matter how deferential the standard of review may be, no court would defer to a decision tainted by collusion or conspiracy. The simple reality is that no such claim has ever been proved and no court has ever made such a finding. These charges are as cynical as they are unfounded, and the Committee should not dignify them here.
There is one other myth about decision-making that should be dispelled – that being that many players are either denied benefits altogether, or forced to endure extraordinary delay, because the Union and management trustees routinely divide 3-3 on applications. There is no basis whatsoever for this suggestion. In fact, since the Initial Claims Committee was put into place in 2002, it has deadlocked on only six claims in a line-of-duty disability and only 32 cases of Total & Permanent Disability. Every other claim filed – almost 600 claims – was decided unanimously, one way or another.
Where claims are appealed to the Retirement Board, the same is true. The Board seldom splits in its votes. And even if there is a split in the Retirement Board, the case is referred to a neutral physician, called the Medical Advisory Physician. That doctor’s report is final and binding. That report decides the case – not the Union trustees or the Management Trustees.
Apart from addressing the workings of the disability plan, we have recently
taken some additional steps to address specific needs of former players.
Earlier this year, we joined with the NFL Players’ Association, the NFL Alumni Association, and the Pro Football Hall of Fame to establish an “Alliance” to bring together the different groups seeking to help retired players. As a first step, we have agreed to create a fund, set initially at $7 million, to fund two specific medical initiatives.
First, to provide full or partial funding of hip, knee or shoulder replacement surgery and related rehabilitation for former players at a network of leading hospitals throughout the country.
Second, to provide an expanded national program of cardiovascular risk screening, and education for former players.
Apart from these two programs, we are also exploring ways of providing support for players in need of assisted living arrangements, and other specific medical needs.
Finally, we are expanding our outreach efforts to better identify former players with special needs, so that our Alliance can provide financial assistance to those proud former players and their families who are sometimes hesitant to ask for assistance.
We recognize that this is not a short-term problem. Some of the leaders addressing this issue – former players like Jerry Kramer or Hall of Famers Willie Lanier and Merlin Olsen – have met with us and continue to do so. I am sure that together we have the resources, creativity and determination to make a real difference in the lives of our former players.
There are today approximately 8000 active and retired NFL Players. Like many groups of 8000 people, their circumstances vary widely. We are proud of the comprehensive and improving package of benefits provided to players, and we will continue working to do as much as possible to help those in need.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Committee today.
Maddison Gabriel - !3-Year-Old Picked As Aussie Fashion Week Model
Well, she's tall -- 5 feet, seven inches to be exact -- and blonde, and a model. So she's supposed to be in the running to be picked as the model for Australia's Fashion Week, right?
Well, she's 13. Yep. 13.
And because of this, in my view, she's too young. Look, this digital instant image culture has created a market for an image like that of Maddison Gabriel, but in the process it's robbing young women of their youth. It's time to put on some breaks and install some basic restraint. Pick an 18-year old, who's an adult. Let Madison be a kid -- which is what a 13-year old is -- a little longer.
I mean, come on. She looks like she's 13! What were they thinking? Well, this is going to be an interesting story, no doubt.
Republicans Can Vote For Obama In Open Primary States
Want to vote for Barack Obama because you don't like Clinton? But -- what's that you say? You're a Republican? Well, that's ok. You too can vote for Barack Obama if you live in the following states:
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
That's a lot of states! So if you want real change -- and many Republicans like Barack Obama -- vote for him in your state's open primary!
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
That's a lot of states! So if you want real change -- and many Republicans like Barack Obama -- vote for him in your state's open primary!
Len Pasqurelli Says Redskins Jason Campbell Has Arrived - Beat Phili
And I agree. I didn't see the game, but I've long believed that Campbell would grow into the position and be not just the Redskins leader, but one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL.
Remember, he came out in the same draft at Alex Smith and Aaron Rogers, yet wasn't even considered as good as those two. He was drafted in the first round, but his selection was virtually ignored by many.
Watch out for Campbell.
Remember, he came out in the same draft at Alex Smith and Aaron Rogers, yet wasn't even considered as good as those two. He was drafted in the first round, but his selection was virtually ignored by many.
Watch out for Campbell.
GOP Avoidance of Debate Before Black Audience Shows Mental Illness Called Racism
Look, there's no other way to describe the relutance of the top GOP Presidential candidates to participate in a debate before a mostly Black audience.
Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are exhibiting a kind of mental illness we call racism. What the reason for this is, I don't know. But then racism never makes logic, so to expect logic in this case is not logical.
Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are exhibiting a kind of mental illness we call racism. What the reason for this is, I don't know. But then racism never makes logic, so to expect logic in this case is not logical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)