Stephen Baskerville, PhDStephen Baskerville, PhD Department of Political Science Howard University Washington, DC 20059 703-560-5138 202-806-7267 Professor Ousted from Child-Support Panel The Secretary of Health and Human Resources of the Commonwealth of Virginia has informed me that, because of "opinions" and "criticisms" of government officials I expressed in an article published in the Washington Times and other respected newspapers, my appointment to a government panel has been rescinded. "Upon reviewing your opinions published in the June 17, 2001, Washington Times, we question whether you would be able to work effectively with other Panel members," Secretary Louis Rossiter writes. Astoundingly, he adds, "I find it difficult to see how you could effectively participate along with representatives of other groups that very likely have different perspectives than yours." The federal and state statutes specifically require that such panels represent a variety of different interests and perspectives. That is precisely the purpose of the panel, to represent different points of view (but apparently not too different). If the Secretary doubts that my "opinions" are representative of non-custodial parents, an official of his department told me that I was recommended for the position by more custodial parents than any other candidate. Ironically, the article for which I have been dismissed was less on child support as such than on government ethics in Virginia. The article charged that free government and constitutional rights have been corrupted by the child support system. Secretary Rossiter has proven my charges by his action, which shows that the corrupting influence of child support enforcement now reaches to the highest level of Virginia government. The other irony is that the article that provoked my dismissal (reprinted below the Secretary's letter) was mostly a summary of the minority report written by Barry Koplen when he served on a similar panel in 1999. This report was published by the Panel itself - in other words, by the government of Virginia. All I did was remind readers of Barry Koplen's experience. In the final line I am thanked for my willingness to participate, "even if in a context counter to the Panel's purpose." This would seem to validate Barry's suggestion that the Panel's conclusions are effectively determined before the process has begun. The article was reprinted in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star and is under consideration for publication at other Virginia newspapers. I plan to write a response to Secretary Rossiter. Stephen Baskerville PS: Secretary Rossiter's letter is attached as a PDF file. I'm sorry I can 't give it in text. Here are the key passages. Below also is the original Washington Times article. I think some letters to the Times are in order: letters@washingtontimes.com. Louis F. Rossiter, Secretary of Health and Human Resources, to Stephen Baskerville, July 23, 2001: "After looking over the credentials that you sent demonstrating your qualifications to serve on this Panel, we offered you appointment as the NCP representative on April 27, 2001, which you accepted. However, upon reviewing your opinions published in the June 17, 2001, Washington Times, we question whether you would be able to work effectively with other Panel members." "I have read your statement in the June 17, 2001 Washington Times, and the criticism of the motivations of those who either sit on the Panel or administer the program. Secretary Louis Rossiter writes. Astoundingly, he adds, "I find it difficult to see how you could effectively participate along with representatives of other groups that very likely have different perspectives than yours." "From this, I find it difficult to see how you could effectively participate along with representatives of other groups that very likely have different perspectives than yours, in a cooperative effort to improve Virginia's existing Guideline within its existing legal and regulatory parameters. "Accordingly, I believe it to be in the best interest of all concerned to rescind your appointment tot he 2001 Virginia Triennial Child Support Guideline Review Panel. Thank you for your willingness to participate, even if in a context counter to the Panel's purpose." ************** Washington Times, 17 June 2001, http://www.washtimes.com/ Commentary section (Forum), p. B5. Appetite for family destruction A little-noticed commission is beginning work in Virginia that has major implications nationwide for both families and governmental ethics. Every four years, each state is required to review its guidelines for child support. In Virginia the outcome may be less remarkable than the process. The last review in 1999 was a classic case of the foxes guarding the hen house. The review panel was selected by the director of the state's Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), and at least 10 of the 12 members derived income from the divorce system: two judges, four lawyers, a feminist, an enforcement official, two custodial parents, and a legislator. All these people have a stake in encouraging divorce and criminalizing fathers and therefore in making child support as onerous as possible. "By virtue of the Director of DCSE deciding its make-up, conflict-of-interest concerns are both evident and also reflective of much larger improprieties." The words are from the minority report of Barry Koplen, the lone representative of parents paying court-ordered child support. A full-time clothier, Mr. Koplen was appointed only after fundamental decisions had already been taken and by his own account had neither the time nor the expertise to attend to his duties. Yet he was told he would serve or no one would. Mr. Koplen set about to educate himself on the intricacies of the child-support industry. The result was a scathing indictment of how powerful interests can hijack the machinery of government not simply to line their pockets but to seize children and used them as weapons against law-abiding parents. Mr. Koplen accused the commission of nothing less than "criminal wrongdoing" in jailing parents "without due process of law." He discovered a political underworld where government officials are feathering their nests and violating citizens' rights while cynically proclaiming their concern for children. "This is frightening in its disregard for due process," Mr. Koplen wrote. "The violation of constitutional rights [is] perpetrated by both our courts and the DCSE." The review process was hardly better than the system itself: "conducted in a manner so questionable as to cast doubt on its credibility," said Mr. Koplen. "We had been asked to blind ourselves to the illegal incarceration of thousands of citizens in our state, to the harassment and pursuit of parents by attorneys on loan to DCSE." By controlling this panel, judges, lawyers, and plainclothes police are making the same laws they adjudicate and enforce. Perhaps most questionable is that the system used in the Old Dominion (and some 30 other states) is largely the creation of one man, who also happens to preside over the nation's largest private child support contractor. Robert Williams created Policy Studies Inc., to compound the ethical conflict, while working as a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, which in turn imposed his system on the states. "His company 's participation in child support guideline determination and the profit it derives from its child support collection division points to an obvious conflict of interest," Mr. Koplen noted. "His proposal's higher numbers meant more collections" for his company. So why should we care about punitive burdens on divorced fathers? If they don't want to pay child support perhaps they shouldn't have gotten divorced. That is precisely the point: Most noncustodial parents are divorced involuntarily and without legal grounds. The same interests represented on the review panels can force divorce on the parents whose property they then confiscate - for the children, of course. This makes unilateral divorce very lucrative for all concerned. High guidelines, Mr. Koplen points out, "create an irresistible incentive to divorce for the party most likely to be rewarded with child custody and child support." Coerced child support, along with forced attorneys' fees, is the financial fuel of the divorce machinery. Academic studies by Sanford Braver, Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, and others confirm that the parent expecting custody usually files for divorce. Divorcing parents can then plunder their spouses by an assortment of charges that are "punitive and inappropriate," as Koplen puts it, and which render them subject to "incarceration and criminalization." This "civil rights nightmare" is perpetrated under the guise of providing for children by the very people who are forcibly destroying their homes. The divorce industry, in short, has turned children into cash cows. Similar chicanery operates in other states. "The commissions appointed to review the guidelines have been composed . . . of individuals who are unqualified to assess the economic validity of the guidelines, or who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, or both," writes William Akins, a Georgia district attorney writing in the Georgia Law Journal. This time around the eyes of the nation will be on Virginia to see if it will continue to enrich the divorce industry by engineering the destruction of its children's homes. STEPHEN BASKERVILLE The author teaches political science at Howard University, and is a member of the Virginia Child Support Guideline Review Panel. ***************************************