Child’s play is not just all fun and games; rather the act of play is a crucial component in the growth and development of the adolescent brain, body, and intellect. Numerous studies conducted over the years consistently demonstrate how young people learn and prove that, especially in children, they acquire knowledge through play, experimentation, exploration, and discovery. Research shows that many of the fundamental tasks children must achieve, such as exploring, risk-taking, fine and gross motor development, and the absorption of vast amounts of basic knowledge can be most effectively learned through outdoor play activities.
In this regard, youth sports, both individual and team, offer a host of emotional and physical benefits that range from helping kids stay active, build self-esteem, and learn to work with others to accomplish a goal. More importantly, youth sports teach children that hard work and dedication can translate into achievements both on and off the field of play. As a parent, knowing which sport is best for your child often depends on your child’s personality, as well as the time and money you are willing to invest.
Here’s a tip … aim for fun! Many parents naturally gravitate toward introducing their child to a sport they enjoyed or experienced success at when they were children. While this is a good place to start, your child may not share your enthusiasm for baseball, soccer, or swimming. You may cycle through several sports and then back again, before you find one that is the right fit for your child and their unique personality.
Today’s parents face a challenge to find the right mix of fun, social interaction, and physical education within organized sports. Parents really need to look at what your kids do to have fun. If they are having fun, then chances are they will stay in the sport longer and will not burn out. They are also more likely to achieve goals that elevate them to their highest potential.
Within a team sport setting, children have to work together toward a common goal and take instruction from a coach who is not necessarily a parent. This skill is not only important but critical in a child’s social development toward peers and learning how to interact with future teachers, bosses and leaders.
Parents need to know and understand that boys and girls approach team sports differently and with vastly different metrics for gauging the success or failure of an experience. In some instances, success in a team sport may mean being motivated to improve by playing alongside more talented teammates. In other instances, the social interaction of team play is rewarding in and of itself, regardless of the final score. Every child progresses at his or her own speed. Encourage your young athletes toward their personal goals with positive, calm support, and celebrate personal accomplishments along the way.
Not every child will compete in the Olympics someday, so watching for individual progress in your child may offer a better measure of performance than direct comparison to those 12-year olds who are naturally gifted. Your child may seem behind or ahead of others, but like Alaskan weather, this can change over the course of a season. It takes at least one or two seasons to really judge improvement and success rather than one or two competitions.
Certain categories of team sports — like hockey and soccer — have become more year-round in nature. Although this approach can help the team and individual players grow stronger and more skilled over time, families may find that the sport is more of a time and money commitment than they had bargained for. Make sure your child is ready and willing to fully commit to this opportunity, otherwise walking away from the team could be interpreted as a failure and thus counterproductive.
Much of the success that children experience during individual sports like tennis, dance, swimming, and gymnastics, depend on the motivation of the particular athlete. Athletes who excel at individual sports find satisfaction pushing themselves to achieve a personal goal rather than relying on the team to help them get there.
This is especially true for my daughter who swims. Swimming is a good fit for her because the race is always between her and the clock. She does not want to have the win or lose dependent on her teammates. While your child may prefer an individual sport, that does not mean they have to sacrifice the support of a team. Many individual sports have the camaraderie or partnership of a team as they travel together and learn to become partners and accomplish individual goals, all while supporting each other as a team.
The down side to individual sports is that not all children feel drawn to the spotlight during a performance or sporting event. Some children may put undue pressure on themselves to reach personal goals, causing the negatives to outweigh the positives if they do not achieve their self-set measure of success. Some parents also find it difficult watching their youngsters navigate the pressures of a sport on their own. As a parent, it is tough to watch your 9-year-old perform her first gymnastics floor routine where she is responsible for remembering how the individual skills all fit together to a choreographed song. This can be a terrifying experience for your child, and completely unnerving for a parent. It can also be an incredibly empowering experience for everyone involved.
As a parent, I am glad my daughters engaged in both team and individual type sports, including soccer, football, softball, volleyball, swimming, and gymnastics. It is impossible to say that one type is better than the other. I think it all depends on the kids, the coaches, and the sport. I do think that exposure to both types is crucial and ultimately leads children to discover what success means to them under their own terms.
IMPORTANCE OF PARENT SUPPORT
It is important to not view your child’s participation in sports as a “child-care” opportunity. It is not enough to just drop them off for practice or games, especially at younger ages. While it may be tempting to view sports as a temporary reprieve from parenting, both coaches and parents can help competitors deal with the aftermath of winning and losing. Valuable life lessons are taught and learned on the field of play and every parent should strive to be a part of that journey as often as possible.
Neither coaches nor other influential role models can serve as a substitute for parents. The presence of parents as onlookers and supporters of their child’s academic and athletic endeavors sends a clear message of love, pride, and affirmation to their child. In order to achieve genuine self-esteem, children must achieve goals they have set for themselves. They have a much better chance of doing so with active parental support.
Attend your child’s sporting events, and be their biggest fan! If you have the time and resources, be a coach, an organizer, a team Mom or Dad, or the parent willing to give your neighbors’ kids a ride to practice. Join the many dedicated parent and coach volunteers willing to participate to make our kids’ experience in sports as fun, healthy, and safe as possible.
See you at the swimming pool and ball park soon!
For additional information and reading:
The National Association for the Education of Young Children
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn-Gettler, C. M. (2013). The Benefits of Recess in Primary School
Forstadt, L.A., Graham, J. (2011). Children and brain development: what we know about how children learn. The University of Maine.
UMKC-School of Education’s Edgar L. and Rheta A. Berkley, newsletter (2015)
Goldstein, Jeffrey, (2012), Play in Children’s Development Health and Well-Being
Early Headstart National Resource Center, 2013, Supporting Outdoor Play and Exploration for Infant and Toddler.
Gabbard,C. and Rodrigues, L. Windows of Opportunity for Early Brain and Motor Development. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(8),54-56
Tandon, P., Zhou, C., Christakis, D. (2012). Jama Pediatrics: Frequency of Parent-Supervised Outdoor Play of US Preschool-Aged Children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(8):707-712.
According to American Bar Association (“ABA”) research, many women are leaving the legal profession in record numbers at what should be the height of their careers. Although women enter the legal profession in numbers equivalent to men, and outnumber men in law school, a process of attrition occurs over the years. Women comprise only 23% of partners and 19% of equity partners in law firms. Women are leaving law at the time in their careers when they should be at the peak of their experience, value, and success to their employer. The ABA finds this phenomenon so troubling that it has undertaken an initiative to understand why women are leaving the legal profession, and reverse that trend.
Preliminary ABA research shows that women tend to leave the profession for several major reasons:
Other research sources cite law firms’ toxic environment and a lack of training and mentoring. Women also leave firms when they see longer partnership tracks and requirements for larger books of business to protect the profits of partners at the firms’ top.
I read about the ABA initiative several months ago and have been pondering writing about this trend. When my managing partner asked me to write a blog for publication July 2, 2018, I knew this piece was “meant to be.” July 2, 2018 is my thirty-sixth anniversary with the Firm.
It takes a lot to stay with a law firm for thirty-six years. I used to tell my friends that I just didn’t like change. It really was a lot more.
Birch Horton was my second job out of law school. I served as an Assistant Attorney General representing the Alaska Public Utilities Commission in Anchorage Alaska for four years. I joined Birch Horton in 1982 to develop a public utility practice. I am a native Washingtonian, and was able to move home, as well as maintain my beloved Alaska ties, by joining the firm’s Washington, DC office. Here, I represent a wide range of clients, both national and Alaska-based, in the areas of energy and telecommunications. My clients range from a tiny Alaska Native Village Corporation for St. Paul Island in the Bering Sea that owns four rural Alaska electric utilities to a private equity firm based in New York City that is investigating investments in Alaska energy infrastructure.
In Birch Horton, I have found a firm with a culture consistent with my personal values. Attorneys don’t fight over taking credit for clients. Attorneys share credits and client responsibility with younger partners to help them develop their practices. We work together to promote one another with clients and support each individual attorney’s client relationships. The quality of work is the firm’s number one priority, not “face time” in the office on weekends or inflated billable hours.
Working younger attorneys to the bone, just to test their mettle, is not standard fare. In fact, the Firm encourages a healthy work-life balance. Addressing client work in a timely manner is always essential; however, the Firm recognizes that attorneys who can meet their own personal needs, by taking the time they need to tend to their families, exercise, or pursue other interests, are more satisfied. They are more loyal to the Firm and naturally want to work harder for clients. Of course, there are periods where attorneys work very hard because their cases demand that level of effort. Long days are not required, where not needed, simply as a rite of passage. Additionally, the Firm has recently made it a priority to support the ability to work remotely, making it simple to be responsive to clients while attorneys are required to be away from the office.
The Firm is a good place for women to grow, influence policies and practices, and find personal support. Unlike other firms, women have served for long periods as managing partners and board members and proliferate among partner ranks. There is no bias against women advancing. To the contrary, senior partners transitioning to more modest work schedules have trained women to take over their practices. Salaries are based on objective criteria, and younger attorneys’ salaries are not set artificially lower to prop up older partners who are no longer as productive. The Firm also offers good family-oriented benefits as part of its salary package, including paid maternity and paternity leave.
These are values that appeal particularly to women, and certainly have sustained my loyalty for thirty-six years. I have seen the Firm evolve from its early period, where the founders dominated share ownership and control, to present, where we have successfully transitioned to a younger management team. Women have major sway in this group and advocate strongly for policies and practices consistent with fair values.
I admit, I do dislike change. But, like other women at the Firm, I have found Birch Horton to have the values that fit my needs, in addition to very high quality legal work standards. That appears to be rare in the law business, and I feel lucky to celebrate my thirty-sixth anniversary here.
On June 27, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466 (June 27, 2018), forbidding states from enforcing mandatory union membership of employees, expressly overturning its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. This was a 5-4 decision with the Court divided along the same ideological lines as its other recent landmark decisions.
Plaintiff Mark Janus is an Illinois state employee who believes his Union’s “behavior in bargaining does not appreciate the current fiscal crises in Illinois and does not reflect his best interests or the interests of Illinois citizens,” and would not subsidize the Union if given a choice. Janus argued that support of collective bargaining itself violated his free speech rights. It should be noted, the lawsuit was originally filed by the Governor of Illinois and Janus was later substituted as plaintiff.
Under the prior precedent in Abood, although public employees could not be required to join a labor union, they could be required to pay an “agency fee” to the union for its services in being their collective bargaining representative. The “agency fee” could not include any portion of the union dues to fund the union’s political or ideological projects, but requires payment for dues attributable to employee representation in collective bargaining, such as negotiations and grievance representation. (For Mark Janus, the agency fee amounted to $535 a year.) The Abood decision struck a balance between an employee’s First Amendment rights to free speech (including the right to not speak at all) and payment for services provided by the union.
The Court majority went to great lengths to argue that the reasoning in Abood was outdated, both in regard to free speech rights and in regard to maintaining “labor peace.” The Court ruled agency fees are unconstitutional “compelled speech.” The heart of the decision is the premise that labor negotiating itself is a form of speech and individuals cannot be compelled by government to support the wage and economic positions of the union.
What does this mean for Alaska municipalities with represented employees?
Alaska municipalities fall into two groupings in regard to labor relations law: those municipalities who validly opted out under section 4 of the Alaska Public Relations Act, ch. 113 SLA 1972 (PERA); and those regulated by PERA and the Alaska Labor Relations Board. In adopting PERA, the Alaska legislature stated a strong policy in favor of collective bargaining: “The legislature declares that it is the public policy of the state to promote harmonious and cooperative relations between government and its employees and to protect the public by assuring effective and orderly operations of government. These policies are to be effectuated by (1) recognizing the right of public employees to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining; (2) requiring public employers to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with employee organizations on matters of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment; (3) maintaining merit-system principles among public employees. (§ 2 ch 113 SLA 1972).” AS 23.40.070.
Under Alaska law, the state and many municipalities operate what is called an “agency shop” where all employees in certain classifications are required to pay union dues in order to be employed. Alaska Statute 23.40.225 was amended in 1976, providing an exemption from payment of an agency fee for religious reasons, but allowing the union to collect an equivalent amount as the agency fee and contributing it to a charity. However, the Labor Relations Board has kept to the strict language for the statute, limiting the exception to cases of “bona fide religious convictions based on tenets or teachings of a church or religious body.” http://labor.alaska.gov/laborr/do/171.htm
A year later in 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209, 234 – 235, 95 L.R.R.M.(BNA) 2411 (1977), that public employees could not be required to fund union expenses that are not “germane to the duties of bargaining representative” based on the First Amendment right to free speech. Abood required union dues/agency fees to be apportioned between expenses related to collective bargaining, (like negotiations and grievance representation,) and political and ideological expenses of the union. Under the Abood decision, collective bargaining expenses could be charged to an employee based on the idea that the employee receives the benefit of these services; as opposed to political expenses which are used to support a particular viewpoint. The Court in Janus overruled Abood and expanded the free speech protection to object to all union activities.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, trumps Alaska law and the intentions of the Alaska legislature. Thus, the new law of the land is public employees cannot be compelled to join a union or pay union dues; there is no more “agency shop.” It should be noted that the Court’s decision does not apply to private employers who may continue to operate closed shops as negotiated under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), contrary to speculation of some news reporters and pundits. The Janus decision is only in regard to government action; private employers still have the ability to limit most free speech.
For Municipalities that are not subject to PERA, the possibilities are wide open. For PERA municipalities, there are still a number of options, but awaiting guidance from the Labor Relations Board may be a good idea. The Labor Relations Board is currently analyzing the decision internally as to what statutes and regulations will need amendment. Under current contracts, where the union is the exclusive representative of a class(es) of employees, the union remains the exclusive representative and all currently represented employees remain represented employees. However, individual employees may now choose not to pay dues or agency fees to the union.
There are a number of options ranging from doing nothing and letting the represented employees and unions “work it out.” The downside of ignoring the issues is not only the municipality losing any control over the discussion, but, more importantly perhaps, the municipality needs to have a system for addressing the issue of union membership and dues collection for new employees and existing employees choosing to exercise their right to decline membership.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States opened up a new and potentially significant revenue stream to municipalities in Alaska.
In South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., the Court ruled that companies no longer need to have a physical presence in a state in order for that state to require the company to collect sales taxes. The decision overruled the Court’s previous opinions in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota. In those decisions, announced before the dot-com boom established the internet as the prime method for many consumers to purchase goods, the Court had held that a state could only require out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes if the company had a physical presence in the state. When Quill was decided, physical stores were by and large the main choice for consumers; mail order retailers of the day accounted for a smaller percentage of overall sales. However, that has obviously changed since Quill established the “physical presence rule” in 1992. By 2015, Amazon had eclipsed Wal-Mart as the world’s largest retailer. And most holiday purchases are now made online. This shift from shopping locally to on-line has dried up a significant portion of state and local governments’ revenue from sales taxes. Estimates for the decrease in revenue to state and local governments range between $8 billion and $33 billion.
These changes in Americans’ shopping habits have extended to Alaska and impacted the budgets of local municipalities and boroughs. While the State of Alaska does not collect sales taxes, many boroughs and municipalities rely upon sales taxes as a source of funding. The decision announced today has the potential to revive those revenue streams.
However, some potential challenges remain. The Court’s decision today did not address whether the particular law at issue in South Dakota complied with the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Per the Supreme Court’s rulings related to that clause, states may not discriminate against interstate commerce and, instead, must treat local and out-of-state retailers alike. However, Justice Kennedy’s opinion did provide some guidance on how to comply with the Court’s caselaw in that area.
With the “physical presence rule” from Bellas Hess and Quill now consigned to history alongside the former prominence of Blockbuster and the Sears catalog, state and local governments will now be able to collect taxes on goods purchased online. Municipalities and boroughs in Alaska should review their Codes in order to determine whether their sales taxes can now be constitutionally applied to sales made by out-of-state retailers to consumers in Alaska.
As a healthcare lawyer, I regularly deal with issues on behalf of my clients which can be divisive or require a balance of competing interests, such as privacy concerns, patient rights, the rising costs of healthcare, ethical practices, and extensive compliance requirements on practitioners and facilities. Political views often invade discussions with regard to healthcare whether about choice, access, religious freedoms, or public funding, and in our current political climate, civility and acceptance of others’ views can get lost. Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot has found common ground, however, on at least one public health issue in supporting the annual Alaska Run for Women, which has raised millions of dollars for education about, and access to, diagnostic screening for breast cancer that can be life saving.
For the past five years, BHBC has sponsored a “port-a-potty” or “rent-a-can” to be used by the thousands of racers, volunteers, and fans at the race day event. This decorating contest pits organizations and businesses against one another to put out a fun and creative message in support of breast cancer awareness and prevention (while also providing a functional necessity to the well-attended event). BHBC’s team includes walkers and runners of all abilities, from ages 20s to 60s. Some are lifelong Alaskans and others “transplants” to Alaska, with ideological views across the spectrum. While our team members may have different views on how to approach the difficult issues in healthcare today, we can agree on supporting this positive event in our community that encourages individuals to be proactive about their own health.
As four-time winners of the “Port-A-Potty Decorating Contest,” including 2018, BHBC takes the message of this silly competition seriously – with serious fun! Congratulations to Team BHBC on your MOUNTAINOUS victory – can’t wait to see what you come up with next year!
For more information about the Run for Women, to donate, or to join the competition for next year, please visit http://www.akrfw.org/.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced that it is holding three consultations to solicit input and suggestions from Native American Tribes (Tribes) and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) to eliminate burdensome regulations and procurement procedures in the HUBZone and the SBA’s Minority Business Development Program (8(a)) .
The first consultation took place in Anchorage, Alaska, on May 9, 2018. The second and third consultations are scheduled for June 7, 2018, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and June 8, 2018, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Pre-registration deadlines for the two remaining consultations are May 31, 2018 and June 1, 2018, respectively. Testimony presented at the consultations will become part of the administrative record for the SBA when it considers changes in the regulations pertaining to these programs. Information and guidelines regarding pre-registration, submission of comments, and meeting times and locations, have been published in the Federal Register.
Robb Wong, Associate Administrator, and John Klein, Associate General Counsel for Administrative Law, led the May 9, 2018, Anchorage consultation at which there were about 75 attendees. During the meeting, John Klein announced that the SBA would accept written comments for the two-week period following the meeting. (The comment period for attendees of the May 9th meeting has closed.) During the meeting, some of the comments and concerns expressed by attendees were:
NAICS codes could be improved or better defined; two federal agencies could classify the same work with different NAICS codes; SBA’s unilateral ability to change a firm’s NAICS code.
Paperwork: constant monitoring of contracts of multiple firms.
Multiple subsidiaries with differing program dates require that the same information about the parent company and benefits must be repeated and recertified. Perhaps this could be done once a year based on the parent company’s fiscal year.
How to calculate the performance requirements based on contract values given the high cost of transportation and materials in many rural and overseas work sites.
The conflict between SBA regulations and statutes. SBA regulations require the head of an 8(a) firm to devote 100% of their time to running the firm while the statute allows the head of an 8(a) firm to run two firms at the same time.
Designate every village as a HUBZone (much like reservations in the Lower 48).
John Klein and Robb Wong offered a number of insights into proposed changes:
New regulations will clarify the concept of a follow-on contract (similar to the recent opinion Klein issued on this subject).
Simplify the burdensome regulations that impact firms with minor changes of ownership. For example, an increase of the ANC’s overall share changes the corporate structure, such as company mergers or converting from a corporation to an LLC.
Ease the HUBZone’s 35% requirement if an employee moves out of the HUBZone so that it will not lose its status. Veterans – regardless of where they live – count towards the 35% requirement.
Congressional amendment to change the competitive threshold measure by eliminating option years.
There was no announcement regarding how long the changes to the HUBZone and the SBA 8(a) Program will take. It appears that the HUBZone changes are closer to release than the 8(a) Program.
A representative from the Office of Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) spoke at the consultation and announced that the Senator had reached several accords with the Department of Defense related to Section 811. These changes should enhance the ability of Tribes and ANCs to use the Justification & Approval process for contracts above the $22 million threshold. The essence of the commitments obtained by Senator Sullivan are:
The ‘head of agency’ threshold for Native 8(a) contracts from $22-93 million is no longer at the head of agency level; it is now at a lower level of approval (below head of agency).
The aforementioned approval threshold should NOT be seen as a barrier to awarding these contracts.
There should be an effort to streamline each service’s approval processes.
This is significant progress in streamlining Section 811. These policy clarifications could be best used by the business development people of Tribes and ANCs when discussing contracts as the end of the fiscal year nears.