CURRICULUM VITAE Bob Darcy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Can't Turn Me Around
CAN’T TURN ME AROUND: AN ORAL HISTORY PLAY by Julie Pearson Little Thunder This play is based on interviews conducted by Dr. Tanya Finchum and Juliana Nykolaiszyn for the Oklahoma Oral History Research Program at Oklahoma State University. It includes first person accounts from nine of the forty-six women in the interview series, who served in the Oklahoma Legislature from 2007-2010. Classroom curriculum and specific lessons are also included in the interview collection. To access written transcripts or audio interviews, go to https://library.okstate.edu/search-and-find/collections/digital- collections/wotol/women-legislators/ This is a public domain play. No royalties are required for performances so long as they are given free of charge. However, any public performance must include a program acknowledgement of the playwright. 1 A NOTE ABOUT STYLE This is a presentational play which can be done Reader’s Theater style or as a memorized performance. Posture, voice and various costume elements such as scarves and jackets can be used to indicate the change from actor to character and vice versa. Because this play relies upon these transitions for its theatrical effect, and to emphasize the fact that the women legislators lines are quotes from their interviews, I distinguish between actors and interviewees by listing one or the other first. For example: Actor #3/LAURA BOYD means the actor starts as herself and then presents Boyd. When the notation is reversed, LAURA BOYD/Actor #3, Boyd gets the emphasis. https://library.okstate.edu/search-and-find/collections/digital- collections/wotol/women-legislators/ 2 CAST OF CHARACTERS Bernice Mitchell and Hannah Atkins/Actor #1 (African Americans) Lisa Johnson Billy/Actor #2 (Native American, Chickasaw) Laura Boyd/Actor #3 (white) Audience member/Actor #4 (white) Kathleen Wilcoxson/ Actor #5 (white) Betty Boyd/Actor #6 (white) 3 ACTOR #3 This is how Bernice Mitchell started out in politics. -
Minutes October 23, 2008, 1:30 – 3:30 P.M
Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2008, 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. Room 104, State Capitol Building The Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women met in Room 104 of the State Capitol Building on October 23, 2008. Vice Chair Mary Walker called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Commissioners Present: Fern Bowling, Rebecca Kennedy, Lou Kerr, Lou Kohlman, Joyce Martin, Bernice Mitchell, Jilda Motley, Jennifer Paustenbaugh, Claudean Reynolds, Nancy Rothman, Mary Walker Commissioners Excused: Patty Bryant, Bob Darcy, Lee Denney, Sally Frasier, Vicki French, Lyn Hester, Kathryn Jones, Denise Kinzie, Debbe Leftwich, Valeska Littlefield, Pat Martin, Chris Morriss, Anita Norman, Pam Peterson, Patti Presley Commissioners Absent: Toni Calvey, Catherine Haynes, Valerie Thompson. Advisory Council Members Present: Glenda Carlile. Tya Smith (Staff). Visitors Present: Latisha Edwards, OPM. Women’s Leadership Moment: Lou Kohlman gave the Women’s Leadership Moment. Maj. General LaRita Aragon was the Journal Record 2008 Woman of the Year. Jan Peery accepted an award on behalf of the YWCA for its contribution to Oklahoma women. Also honored for contributions to Oklahoma women were N.E.W. Leadership, the Oklahoma Heart Association’s “Go Red for Women” program, and Dress for Success. Listed among the Journal Record’s “50 Women Making a Difference” were Commissioners Rep. Lee Denney and Lou Kerr, and Advisory Council members Laura Boyd, Kay Martin, and Jan Peery. In addition, Lou Kerr received a national award this year. In Oklahoma election news, according to Jean Warner’s Oklahoma Women’s Network tally, twenty-two women are on the ballot for races overall. -
American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020
American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020 An open a ccess journal published by the University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science in colla bora tion with the University of Okla homa L ibraries Justin J. Wert Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science & Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage Daniel P. Brown Managing Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science Richard L. Engstrom Book Reviews Editor Duke University Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Social Sciences American Review of Politics Volume 37 Issue 1 Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making Stephen C. Craig Paulina S. Cossette Michael D. Martinez University of Florida Washington College University of Florida [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract American politics today is driven largely by deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. That said, there are many people who view the opposition in an overwhelmingly negative light – but who simultaneously possess a mix of positive and negative feelings toward their own party. This paper is a response to prior research (most notably, Lavine, Johnson, and Steenbergen 2012) indicating that such ambivalence increases the probability that voters will engage in "deliberative" (or "effortful") rather than "heuristic" thinking when responding to the choices presented to them in political campaigns. Looking first at the 2014 gubernatorial election in Florida, we find no evidence that partisan ambivalence reduces the importance of party identification or increases the impact of other, more "rational" considerations (issue preferences, perceived candidate traits, economic evaluations) on voter choice. -
American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: a Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations Katharine G
Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 5-2014 American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: A Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations Katharine G. Young Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Katharine G. Young. "American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: A Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations." Boston University Law Review (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REFLECTION ON THE 2013 LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS KATHARINE G. YOUNG∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 991 I. THE U.S. SHUTDOWN AND POLITICAL DYSFUNCTION ......................... 993 II. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL IMPASSE .............................................................................................. -
Journal Header of Some Sort
House Journal - Committees 1333 STANDING COMMITTEES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES First Session Fifty-third Legislature ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT George Faught, Chair Purcy Walker, Vice-Chair Gary Banz Pam Peterson David Brumbaugh Mike Reynolds Will Fourkiller Mike Shelton Charles Key Weldon Watson Fred Jordan Mark McCullough AGRICULTURE, WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENT Phil Richardson, Chair Todd Russ, Vice-Chair John Bennett Curtis McDaniel Lisa Billy Tom Newell Dennis Casey Charles Ortega John Enns Leslie Osborn Larry Glenn R.C. Pruett Tommy Hardin Brian Renegar Mike Jackson Mike Sanders Steve Kouplen Jerry Shoemake James Lockhart Steve Vaughan 1334 House Journal - Committees APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET Earl Sears, Chair Scott Martin, Vice-Chair Don Armes Joe Dorman Lisa Billy Chuck Hoskin Gus Blackwell Guy Liebmann Mike Brown Jerry McPeak Doug Cox Jason Nelson David Dank Ron Peters Lee Denney Purcy Walker Dale DeWitt Education Subcommittee Lee Denney, Chair Corey Holland, Vice-Chair Gary Banz Jadine Nollan Dennis Casey Marty Quinn Ann Coody Jabar Shumate Sally Kern Todd Thomsen Jeannie McDaniel Cory Williams General Government and Transportation Subcommittee Guy Liebmann, Chair Harold Wright, Vice-Chair George Faught Jason Murphey Larry Glenn Eric Proctor Dennis Johnson Seneca Scott Charles Key T.W. Shannon Randy McDaniel Randy Terrill Human Services Subcommittee Jason Nelson, Chair Richard Morrissette, Vice-Chair Elise Hall Brian Renegar Jeannie McDaniel Dustin Roberts Ron Peters Sue Tibbs Pam Peterson Steve Vaughan -
The Political Science Program in the Australian National University's
Democratic Audit of Australia – December 2005 The Mathematics of Democracy: Is the Senate really proportionally representative?1 Scott Brenton Australian National University Former Prime Minister Paul Keating memorably described the Senate, when the Democrats and Greens shared the ‘balance of power’, as ‘unrepresentative swill’. After the Liberal-National Coalition government won a Senate majority at the 2004 federal election that description has assumed an unintended – and at least partially accurate – meaning. Whilst most discussion has focused on the implications of the executive gaining control of the legislature for the first time in almost two-and-a-half decades, of greater concern is that the majority of voters did not vote for the Coalition in the Senate. The Coalition parties2 only received 45.09 per cent of the first preference vote in the Senate but won 21 of the 40 seats up for election, or 52.5 per cent of the seats. In Queensland – the state that delivered the Coalition its majority at the last election – the Liberal Party won half the seats with only 38.29 per cent of first preferences, whilst the National Party won only 6.61 per cent of first preferences. National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce, the self-proclaimed balance-of-power holder, won his seat with less than half a quota on first preferences, and after a 2.55 per cent swing against the Nationals from the previous election. How proportionally representative is the Senate’s electoral system? As many eminent psephologists note – including Antony Green3, Campbell Sharman4 and Malcolm Mackerras5 – the Senate’s electoral system of Proportional Representation 1 Thanks to Marian Sawer, Antony Green and John Uhr for suggesting some useful references and to Peter Brent and an anonymous reviewer for editorial advice. -
Earle Page and the Imagining of Australia
‘NOW IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT’ EARLE PAGE AND THE IMAGINING OF AUSTRALIA ‘NOW IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT’ EARLE PAGE AND THE IMAGINING OF AUSTRALIA STEPHEN WILKS Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for? Robert Browning, ‘Andrea del Sarto’ The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything. Edward John Phelps Earle Page as seen by L.F. Reynolds in Table Talk, 21 October 1926. Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] Available to download for free at press.anu.edu.au ISBN (print): 9781760463670 ISBN (online): 9781760463687 WorldCat (print): 1198529303 WorldCat (online): 1198529152 DOI: 10.22459/NPM.2020 This title is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The full licence terms are available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This publication was awarded a College of Arts and Social Sciences PhD Publication Prize in 2018. The prize contributes to the cost of professional copyediting. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover photograph: Earle Page strikes a pose in early Canberra. Mildenhall Collection, NAA, A3560, 6053, undated. This edition © 2020 ANU Press CONTENTS Illustrations . ix Acknowledgements . xi Abbreviations . xiii Prologue: ‘How Many Germans Did You Kill, Doc?’ . xv Introduction: ‘A Dreamer of Dreams’ . 1 1 . Family, Community and Methodism: The Forging of Page’s World View . .. 17 2 . ‘We Were Determined to Use Our Opportunities to the Full’: Page’s Rise to National Prominence . -
The States and Territories Ferran Martinez I Coma and Rodney Smith
9 The States and Territories Ferran Martinez i Coma and Rodney Smith In November 2015, Bill Shorten declared that, if elected, his government would provide $100 million towards the construction of a new Townsville football stadium. The Queensland Labor government would match the funding. The stadium would primarily serve as the home ground for the newly crowned NRL Premiership winners, the North Queensland Cowboys (Australian Labor Party (ALP) 2015). In the months leading up to the 2016 federal election, Shorten continued to promote his stadium proposal, challenging the Coalition to equal his commitment (Peel 2016). Business analysts criticised Labor’s plan, while the Coalition remained uncommitted (Ludlow 2016). During the fourth week of the election campaign, after the Queensland government announced it would increase its funding to $140 million, Malcolm Turnbull matched Shorten’s stadium promise as part of a broader ‘City Deal’ for Townsville. The State’s Assistant Minister for North Queensland welcomed this new bipartisanship, while criticising the time it took Turnbull to make his promise (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) 2016; Liberal Party of Australia (LPA) 2016b). Townsville’s football stadium illustrates some of the ways in which federalism and party competition interact in Australian federal elections. The fact that Labor controlled the State government gave federal Labor the possibility of an initiative that created policy and electoral dilemmas for the federal Coalition. As events transpired, the Queensland government was able to leverage State infrastructure funding from both federal major 211 DOUBLE DISILLUSION parties. Had the Queensland government been in Liberal–National Party (LNP) hands, as was the case until early 2015, the dynamics of the stadium decision would have been quite different. -
Australian Electoral Systems — How Well Do They Serve Political Equality?
Australian Electoral Systems — How Well Do They Serve Political Equality? Prepared by Graeme Orr Law Faculty Griffith University, Brisbane for the Democratic Audit of Australia Political Science Program Research School of Social Sciences The Australian National University Report No. 2 The Democratic Audit of Australia—Testing the Strength of Australian Democracy An immigrant society PAGE ii The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and From 2002 to 2004 the Political Science Program in the Australian National PAGE iii should not be taken to represent the views of either the University’s Research School of Social Sciences is conducting an audit to assess Democratic Audit of Australia or The Australian National University Australia’s strengths and weaknesses as a democracy. © The Australian National University 2004 The Audit has three specific aims: ISBN paperback 0-9751925-0-7, online 0-9751925-1-5 (1) Contributing to Methodology: To make a major methodological Cover: Polling day, 10 November 2001, in Burnside, South Australia. contribution to the assessment of democracy—particularly through the Thanks to the Australian Electoral Commission for this image. study of federalism and through incorporating disagreements about National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: ‘democracy’ into the research design; Orr, Graeme. (2) Benchmarking: To provide benchmarks for monitoring and international Australian electoral systems, how well do they serve political equality? comparisons—our data can be used, for example, to track the progress of Bibliography. government reforms as well as to compare Australia with other countries; ISBN 0 9751925 0 7 (3) Promoting Debate: To promote public debate over democratic issues and ISBN 0 9751925 1 5 over how Australia’s democratic arrangements might be improved. -
Chapter Five: Increasing the Size of Parliament
Chapter 5: Increasing the Size of Parliament This is an appropriate place to show the five sections of the Constitution that are the basis of my case. They begin with section 7 which this book mentions more often than any other, especially the words “directly chosen by the people of the State”. Notice the similarity of the Senate words to those in section 24 requiring that the House of Representatives “shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth”. The origin of those words is easy to explain. Our Founding Fathers wanted to copy the US Constitution and the American Founding Fathers provided in their ARTICLE ONE, section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States. .” It was the intention of the American Founding Fathers that their House of Representatives be the ONLY genuinely democratic part of their Constitution. The reason why our Founding Fathers added the word “directly” to the American “chosen” was to ensure that BOTH senators and lower house members be elected in a candidate-based electoral system. That has continued from federation right through to the present day for members of the House of Representatives. That it has not been so for senators is what this book is mainly about. 1 There is a Part VI of the Constitution with four sections. The one below is the second of the four. The idea that the size of the Parliament should be increased is unpopular among voters but is now quite popular among commentators. -
Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women Kate Barnard Award Presentation February 24, 2011
Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women Kate Barnard Award Presentation February 24, 2011 Commission Members Present: Rita Aragon, Patty Bryant, Fern Bowling, Rep. Lee Denney, Deena Fisher, Catherine Haynes, Joyce Horton Sanders, Ashley Kehl, Rebecca Kennedy, Denise Kinzie, Lou Kohlman, Valaska Littlefield, Joyce Martin, Bernice Mitchell, Chris Morriss, Jennifer Paustenbaugh, Patti Presley, Nancy Rothman, Holly Shelton, Nancy Smith, Mary Walker and Adeline Yerkes Commissioner Members Excused: Malaka Elyazgi , Carolyn McLarty, Rep. Pam Peterson, Peggy Thompson Commissioner Members Absent: Devon Shannon and Valerie Thompson Advisory Council Members: Kitti Asberry, Glenda Carlile, Linda Edmondson, Sheryl Lovelady, Kay Martin, Marjan Seirafi-Pour, Heather Simon, Correna Wilson Distinguished Guests: Past Hall of Fame Inductees: The Honorable Rita Aragon, Secretary of Veterans Affairs and present OCSW Commissioner, Suzanne Edmondson, Dr. Kay Goebel, Esther Houser, Lynn Jones, Jackie Longacre, Dr. Kay Martin, Bernice Mitchell, present OCSW Commissioner, Betty Price, Dr. Jeanine Rhea 2011 inductees: Minister Chloe Brown, Joy Culbreath, Marsha Mitchell, Ardina Moore, Dr. Cindy Ross, The Honorable Kathryn Taylor, former mayor of Tulsa and former Secretary of Commerce, Tourism and Workforce Development, Helen Thompson Women Elected Officials: Honorable Lee Denney, State Representative District 33; Honorable Marian Cooksy, State Representative District 39; The Honorable Lisa Billy, State Representative, District 42, The Honorable Emily Virgin, -
Proportional Representation in Theory and Practice the Australian Experience
Proportional Representation in Theory and Practice The Australian Experience Glynn Evans Department of Politics and International Relations School of Social Sciences The University of Adelaide June 2019 Table of Contents Abstract ii Statement of Authorship iii Acknowledgements iv Preface vi 1. Introduction 1 2. District Magnitude, Proportionality and the Number of 30 Parties 3. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in the 57 Senate 4. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in Western 102 Australia 5. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in South Eastern Jurisdictions 132 6. Proportional Representation and Minor Parties: Some 170 Deviating Cases 7. Does Proportional Representation Favour 204 Independents? 8. Proportional Representation and Women – How Much 231 Help? 9. Conclusion 247 Bibliography 251 Appendices 260 i Abstract While all houses of Australian parliaments using proportional representation use the Single Transferable Vote arrangement, district magnitudes (the numbers of members elected per division) and requirements for casting a formal vote vary considerably. Early chapters of this thesis analyse election results in search for distinct patterns of proportionality, the numbers of effective parties and partisan advantage under different conditions. This thesis argues that while district magnitude remains the decisive factor in determining proportionality (the higher the magnitude, the more proportional the system), ballot paper numbering requirements play a more important role in determining the number of (especially) parliamentary parties. The general pattern is that, somewhat paradoxically, the more freedom voters have to choose their own preference allocations, or lack of them, the smaller the number of parliamentary parties. Even numbered magnitudes in general, and six member divisions in particular, provide some advantage to the Liberal and National Parties, while the Greens are disadvantaged in five member divisions as compared to six or seven member divisions.