I’d like to see the Montgomery County Democratic Party challenge the Montgomery County Republican Party to a Get Out The Vote contest. I’m working on drafting a proposal for the Central Committee to consider that outlines a contest between the 75 precincts in Montgomery County with the highest percentage votes for Hillary vs the 75 precincts with the highest percentage votes for Trump.

The competition would focus on increasing voter turnout as compared to the 2014 rates.

• The 75 Hillary precincts had a turnout in 2014 of 31.7%. Amazingly, there were 50,301 registered voters in these 75 precincts who failed to exercise their right and responsibility as a citizen to vote.
• The 75 Trump precincts had a turnout in 2014 of 43.3%. There were 43,610 registered voters in these precincts who failed to vote.

Think of it, in these 150 precincts there were 93,911 citizens who failed to honor their duty as a citizen to vote. Wouldn’t it be great if all of those citizens voted in 2018?

Of course a effective system of representative democracy requires more than simply voting. It requires for citizens to take seriously the office that they hold — the office of citizen — and to work to be well informed and meaningfully connected with other citizens. Rather than a GOTV, what would be better is a GOTICV — Get Out The Informed Citizen Voter. I’m trying to think through a contest design that rewards participants for efforts to inform and engage citizens.

When Should You Ask For Help? When Should You Call A Lawyer? Any time you’re in a dispute with the insurance company, you should consider hiring a lawyer to represent you. You will need to gather evidence in order to challenge the insurance company’s position, which may include taking depositions, requesting an independent medical examination, and hiring expert witnesses all of which require legal knowledge and skill. And as a general rule, you should call a lawyer’s office to discuss your insurance problems. There is a good chance that the company will be willing to discuss your case, and you will have the advantage of speaking with a lawyer who is not affiliated with the company. It may also be that the company has made its position clear. In any event, it’s always wise to know the basics of the law before engaging in an activity like calling an insurance lawyer.

A medical liability policy covers most claims that may arise from your medical conditions. However, some medical conditions are more difficult to insure against than others, and will require more professional and physical help than others. Many workers’ comp cases come down to the determination of whether or not your employer has met its responsibility in insuring that you aren’t taking any risks in a physical environment.
When your insurer refuses to pay your claim, you may be faced with the difficult decision of not only filing a claim, but also of traveling to the state where your insurer’s office is located. Many insurance companies don’t have offices in every state, and it can be very difficult to find a lawyer who can understand your case and will be prepared to argue your case before a jury. For the majority of workers’ comp cases, hiring a law firm for workers compensation cases is a smart idea. Additionally, some state laws govern how workers’ comp cases are litigated, which may necessitate you getting a lawyer as well.

How To Avoid Negligence
When accidents happen, it is almost always the case that the worker was intoxicated, mismanaged the workplace, failed to properly train his or her employees, or failed to properly maintain the equipment. If the employer had known about the problems in these areas, the result would have been different. Sometimes workers’ comp cases can be hampered by the fact that a worker did not pay attention to the workplace hazard, or was unaware of the potential consequences of his or her actions. The circumstances of some accidents and incidents can be complicated, and cannot always be described as negligence.

Some situations involve issues that are considered to be “negligent.” These include:

• An employee who was distracted from his or her work, either because of fatigue or a temporary illness
• an employee whose employer deliberately set a dangerous work condition, such as lighting the fire hazard
• An employee who was unable to take proper precautions, such as having a fire extinguisher at the right height or using a slip-and-fall-prone floor
• An employee who was distracted by a mobile telephone, cigarette, or other electronic device at the time of a serious accident
• An employee who was at fault for an accident involving bodily injury or death. Even if a worker’s death resulted from a lack of care or a combination of factors not present in a typical accident, the case may be complicated by the fact that the accident happened at an employee’s workplace.

And since an accident occurs at a workplace, the law of negligence applies at the workplace. It is also important to note that if you are found guilty of negligent conduct, the maximum potential penalty is about $15,000 in restitution, which may not seem like much, but is almost never paid to the worker’s family. Note that the employer cannot be held responsible for negligence. Also, note that the damages can vary depending on the facts of the case. For example, you may be entitled to a large sum because you had medical bills or a damaged vehicle. Your employer should have provided you with a medical condition insurance policy. This policy may allow you to sue the employer for damages. Make sure your insurance company has all of the details of your policy. See also: Is Workers’ Comp Job Injury Compensation About Damages? Learn about how to use your Workers’ Comp benefits to obtain more financial security when you are unemployed.

If you have a severe or permanent injury, your insurance company will be the primary place that you turn to for any legal dispute, including a claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits. Even if you aren’t likely to seek workers’ compensation benefits, the insurance companies may end up paying the judgment anyway. That means that you are likely to have a high likelihood of an adverse decision on your workers’ compensation claim and you need to protect yourself. That’s why you need driving directions to the Boston Office of Jason Stone Injury Lawyers to help you fight for your workers’ compensation payments.

Be sure to check with an insurance attorney if you’re not quite sure about the facts of your case. For more information call boston workers compensation lawyer for your workers’ compensation claims.

Last evening was the quadrennial MCDP Reorganization Meeting. My five proposed changes to the MCDP Constitution (see below) received strong support by some members, but in the end all proposed changes were all handily defeated.

The most revealing part of the evening happened when a long-time member of the Central Committee said that she was insulted that anyone would dare to take away her right to a secret ballot. She had quite a head of steam expressing her indignation. She said that she was totally opposed to requiring her to sign a ballot. In the discussion that followed, several members reminded her that the Central Committee is a representative body and the Democrats in her precinct who elected her to the Committee have a right to know how she votes.

This member is mistaken, because the Central Committee must abide by the rules stated in the Ohio Revised Code. But it is understandable, however, why she feels she had a right to a secret vote. That’s the way the MCDP operates. I made a motion to make a roll-call vote for proposed changes to the constitution. I had prepared a handy ballot that required a signature — a roll-call ballot — and my motion was to use this ballot.  (The ballot the Chairman Owens approved whited out the “Reasons.”) My motion to have a roll call vote was defeated, but a good number, I’d say a least one-third, of those voting supported the motion.  Voting to not make the Reorganization Meeting transparent meant that the constitution amendment to require transparency concerning endorsements also would surely fail.

These proposals to change the MCDP Constitution stem from the disastrous decision of the party to make an endorsement in the Rev Ward vs Rev Fairchild contest. This endorsement needlessly divided Democrats, needlessly divided the party, needless spent money.  This audacious decision on the part of the Screening Committee and the rubber stamping of this decision on part of Central Committee follows an established history of unwise and unproductive endorsements. I believe if transparency concerning endorsements was required by the MCDP Constitution, many unwise endorsements would be avoided. Secrecy empowers bad decisions. In practical terms, the Ward / Fairchild endorsement decision was a secret vote — there was no record kept of who voted for endorsement, who voted against and who didn’t vote — and, as the indignant Central Committee member pointed out, some members of the Central Committee feel pretty entitled to secrecy.

PREAMBLE: “We the Representatives of the Democrats living in Montgomery County — in order to form a strong party organization that empowers representative democracy within our party and throughout the county — do establish the Montgomery County Democratic Party Constitution.”

If I could have a do-over for the evening, I would ask for a separate vote on this preamble. I wrote this preamble as a proposal for discussion — I circulated it in a letter to Central Committee members, but there was never any discussion. These words were approved as written at the short meeting of the “Constitution Committee.” The words were highlighted in the xerox of the revised Constitution that everyone at Reorganization received, indicating that it was new text, but nobody at the Reorganization Meeting suggested the preamble should be discussed. I should have pressed the point. This preamble advances a point of view that contradicts the POV of a Central Committee that would reject a motion for roll-call vote. A debate likely would have resulted in tabling the preamble or referring it to a committee, so I said nothing. That was a mistake. The preamble should have been debated.

The underlying premise of the Preamble is that when the party empowers representative democracy and when it holds itself to the high standards of transparency expected of a representative body, it is a stronger party. This premise is the crux of what the Democratic Party should be debating. I don’t think that the Democratic Party can become the strong party it must become — unless it changes its ways and commits to operating as a small-d democratic organization that is responsible to its constituents. The place for the transformation needed in the Democratic Party to begin is at the county level. The Reorganization Meeting demonstrated how difficult it is to start the process.

The outcome of quadrennial Reorganization Meetings depends on who shows up. First of all, over 60% of the precincts in Montgomery County failed to elect a member on the Committee, so if everyone elected showed up at this Meeting, the Central Committee would not come close to representing the county’s 60,000 Democrats. As a representative body, it is a failure from the get-go because of this lack of numbers. Of the 93 people at the meeting (26% of the total precincts in the county), a big part were old-timers but there were a lot of new people. I’m guessing at least one-half of the group was new.

The argument for voting “No” that prevailed was that the proposed changes to the constitution dealing with endorsements are not needed — after all, the MCDP operates according to Roberts’ Rules — and that a constitution should not needlessly constrict the options available to the organization.  I argued that history shows that the MCDP needs a constitution that will establish guardrails to prevent big endorsement mistakes. Requiring transparency on endorsement votes would provide the needed guardrails. I was glad that a number of members rose to emphasize the same or similar points. By big majorities — there is no record of how each member voted, of course — the Reorganization Meeting agreed to give the MCDP the option of continuing these past bad practices:

• Central Committee members may be expected to ratify or reject endorsement recommendations the same evening they are made. (No time to consult with constituents.)
• The Central Committee may continue to make endorsements for the Democratic Primary contests two months before the deadline for candidates to file with the Board of Elections. (Deliberately suppressing primary participation)
• The Central Committee may choose to not keep a record of how members vote on endorsement motions  (making endorsement in practice a secret vote).