Ohio looks to overhaul charter school laws

Some of the issues raised in a lawsuit
against White Hat Management are
addressed in a bill to overhaul Ohio's
charter school law.

A series of events, including a lawsuit, has led the Ohio General Assembly to propose updating the laws on charter schools.

Saying they wanted to address issues of transparency and accountability, Rep. Mike Dovilla and Rep. Kristina Roegner, both Republicans, introduced House Bill 2 which would significantly alter the relationships charter schools have with their sponsors and management companies.

Much of the language was the result of an existing lawsuit pending before the Ohio Supreme Court which deals with ownership of the equipment in a charter school.

The case is Hope Academy Broadway Campus, et al. versus White Hat Management Company et al.

The main question is whether White Hat, which Hope Academy hired to perform day-to-day management of the charter school, owns the equipment purchased for the school, or whether White Hat was merely acting as the agent for the school which would then have ownership of all goods purchased on its behalf.

And since charter schools - also called community schools - are public, there is another issue of whether or not management companies can be audited for how the public dollars are spent.

It's an intriguing case and it has implications far beyond the 10 charter schools that are part of the lawsuit. The Ohio Supreme Court ruling can have implications for any company receiving public dollars to perform a public service.

But the General Assembly didn't want to wait and thought it best to address this - and other - issues in an overhaul of the law regarding charter schools, their management companies and their sponsors.

Just to clarify, there are three entities in a public charter school. A sponsor is a local school district, an educational service center, a university or a non-profit entity. Each charter school has a governing authority which is usually a board, like traditional public schools have elected school boards.

Then there is the operator. An operator can be an individual or company that performs day-to-day management services via a contract with the sponsor; or it can be a non-profit organization that provides programming oversight, again through a contract with the sponsor, though it retains the ability to end the contract if the school fails to meet its quality standards.

Under H.B. 2, a low-performing charter school would not be allowed to change sponsors without the prior approval of the Ohio Department of Education.

It also addresses various contractual issues:

• Contracts between sponsors and the boards must contain performance standards, including the applicable state report card measurements.
• Contracts between sponsors and the boards must include an addendum with a detailed description of each facility and mortgage data (principle, interest and name of lender).
• The financial plan in the contract between sponsor and board is subject to review and approval by the Ohio Department of Education and must include the most recent financial statements for the school.
• All new and renewed contracts between the board and the operator must include provisions that address early termination of the contract, the notification procedures and a listing of facilities and property ownership.
• Sponsors must provide a yearly report of the amount and type of expenditures made to provide oversight and technical assistance to each school.
• Requires copies of financial and enrollment records be sent monthly to the sponsor, the board members and the fiscal officer.

There are also a number of provisions that address conflict of interest:

• Employees of a school district, an educational center or a vendor who has a contract with a district or service center cannot serve on the board of a charter school for which the district or educational center is a sponsor.
• Charter school board members will have to file a yearly disclosure statement that identifies any potential conflicts of interest.
• Requires that the designated fiscal officer of a charter school be employed or under a contract with the board of the school.

The bill mandates that the state Department of Education develop, maintain and publish an annual performance report for all operators of schools in the state. It also requires the DOE, by the end of the year, to make recommendations regarding performance standards for charter schools for which a majority of their population is students with disabilities, and determine the feasibility of removing such schools' exemption from permanent closure.

Not all the provisions in the bill will make it through committees in the House and Senate.  In fact, during sponsor testimony in the House Education Committee, Dovilla called the bill a "starting point" for discussion about the overhaul of charter schools.

And there are a number of ideas which the House Education Committee members asked about, including whether or not the law to close charter schools that score a D or F three years running should apply to traditional district schools; whether there should be a residency requirement for the charter school board members, and whether charter school board members who are volunteers can be subjected to the same disclosure and conflict-of-interest rules as traditional school board members.

While the bill has generally been well-received, with the understanding that some provisions may be added and subtracted, one group thinks it doesn't go far enough in spelling out ownership of the assets used in a charter school.

Sandy Theis, executive director of ProgressOhio, a left-leaning policy group, said that requiring contracts "to delineate which gets what assets after the contracts expire...misses the point: Neither should own the assets. They belong to the taxpayers who paid for them."

Ohio Education Association President Becky Higgins also called the bill a starting point. Her organization and Innovation Ohio spelled out three principles they have for overhauling charter schools:

• the accelerated closing of failing charter schools
• making charter schools subject to the same public records laws as traditional public schools
• funding public charters in a way that does not penalized district schools

Rep. Bill Hayes, who chairs the House Education Committee, said he'd support faster closings if the state could identify a school that was actually failing. He also said he'd be interested in applying those same standards to traditional public schools.

But Higgins said No Child Left Behind already has standards for closing district schools that are failing and that any state law would have to align with the federal one.

But even with NCLB, there are still public schools that are failing:  Pickett Academy in Toledo is one example.

The Ohio Association of Charter School Authorizers supports the bill, but with a few reservations. Peggy Young, president of OACSA, urged members to judge sponsors on their outcomes, not just on how they spend money.

The bill is still pending in the House Education Committee.

The most important question on Toledo's 2013 budget

Yesterday I listed a series of questions - important questions - relating to the City of Toledo's 2013 budget.

But here's another question that is equally worthy and may be the most important of all: which member of council - or the media - bothered to ask any of these questions themselves?

I'm often told that I ask really good questions - and that may be true - but why aren't our elected representatives asking these types of questions? And absent the elected officials doing so, why aren't the media?

It's not hard to come up with the 'good questions' on the budget because they're just common sense and a little bit of basic math. When you look at the line items and you see one that doesn't have anything allocated to it for 2010, 2011, and 2012, but a large amount for 2013, don't you want to know why there is a brand new line item in the budget, especially when the city just asked for a 10-year levy in November because they didn't have enough money?

When you see the city estimate an income item that is nearly double what they've gotten or budgeted in the last couple of years, don't you wonder where that money is coming from and how they decided they were going to get twice as much?

It's not hard to be curious - and the budget really isn't that difficult to follow.

So why aren't our elected officials and the media all over these points, demanding answers and accountability?

Citizen Watchdogs - coming soon to a town near you

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

This quote from Edmund Burke has always been one of my favorites because it clearly explains that it is the responsibility of each of us to do what we can to stop bad things from happening.  Whether it's being involved in a Block Watch program, helping to mentor youth or speaking out when something wrong is occurring, it is our actions and our willingness to do 'something' that will make a difference.

In today's world, that concept is even more important as one of the most critical aspects of our government check-and-balance system has abdicated its responsibility to watch our government officials.

For the most part, the main street media (often referred to as lame street media) no longer serves as the watchdog reporting objectively on the actions, decisions and spending of our various levels of government.  Too often, reporters and editors are promoting the agenda of a political party or political philosophy while claiming to be presenting only the facts.

There is certainly a place for opinions from our media, but only if they are properly identified as such.  Sadly, our own local paper has so many instances of bias that I resorted to just numbering my posts about it.  Whether it's in the adjectives they choose to identify groups and individuals, the way they cover a mayoral race, or the way they attempt to justify their blatant bias, the result is that they are no longer just reporting the news and both sides of the story.  They are actually pushing an agenda and manipulating public opinion.

I believe this is the reason newspaper subscriptions and readership around the nation are in decline and why network news channels don't have the ratings they desire.

But what is a person to do?  It's not like the average citizen can start up a newspaper and compete with someone who is already buying ink by the barrel.  The costs for air broadcast are prohibitive as well.  And even if you had the funds for something small, how would you go about it?

Fortunately, there's now a solution.

The Internet has opened a new world to people hungry for facts as well as alternative opinions to what seems to be a liberal echo chamber.  This blog is an example, but I'm just one person and I certainly cannot cover all the things going on in Toledo government, much less in the county and state.

Thankfully, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity has recognized this need and is providing training and tools to create Citizen Watchdogs.  They are conducting day-long educational sessions across the country and they'd like you to join them Saturday, May 12, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Westerville Conference Center in Columbus to learn how you can get involved and hold our elected officials accountable.

As their Citizen Watchdog web page explains:

An engaged, citizen-driven media was one of the driving forces behind the birth of American democracy. The preservation of our republic is incumbent upon the continued participation of our public in observing, reporting, and holding our government accountable at all levels.Today, we face an abundance of challenges and opportunities. Challenges because the decline of the establishment media has been occurring at an alarming rate, with tens of thousands of journalists losing their jobs over the last few years. Opportunities because the public now has access to more tools that allow them to actively participate in government, and to make their voice heard to the public at large, than at any time before in our history.

The greatest threats to our freedom and prosperity occur when citizens lack information and government officials escape without accountability. It’s at the school board and city council meetings where no reporters are present to cover their activities, and no members of the public present to observe their conduct.

Franklin Center is dedicated to preserving and strengthening democracy through promoting citizen journalism and engaging the stakeholders of America’s future to serve as watchdogs at the local, state, and federal level.

There is a $10 fee for the training session, but the information you'll receive is priceless - especially in terms of keeping our elected officials accountable to 'we the people.'

You can register here - and I hope to see you there.  Let's not sit idly by and 'do nothing.'

TARTA missing audit items not 'minor'

In response to the declaration by the Ohio Auditor of State that TARTA is "unauditable" for the 2010 fiscal year, James Gee told the local daily that the missing items were “a list of minor details.”

So I emailed the auditor's office to find out what was missing.

Their letter reads, in part:

To Ms. Stacey Clink and Mr. James Gee:

As part of our regular audit of the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority for the period January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, we have determined that the condition of your financial records is not adequate to finish our audit. The IPA firm completing the audit has been unable to obtain the information in the attachments to this letter.

Consequently, we consider the financial records unauditable pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Section 117.41.

Here are the items listed in the attachment referenced:

Cash and Cash Equivalents

• Request copies of the following checks:

 Huntington a/c 9902 (on Dec bank rec)
 Support of deposit in transit for $33,266.71

• Request details for PNC error

Accounts Receivable

• Support of A/R Federal Oper Assist account

Prepaid

• Trapeze prepaids

Fixed Assets

• FA2- Current year additions detail (need invoices for any significant additions)
• FA3 - Current year disposal detail (need check copy/support for any significant proceeds received)
• Requested support for significant CIP additions
• FA4 - Gain / loss on disposal detail
• Need responses to tax department questions

Accrued Liabilities

• Copy of AL16 for adjustment noted in health care accrual calculation which caused adjustment to be off $62,000

Miscellaneous

• Provide G/L detail for accounts 1380-000, 3020-000 and 3200-000.
• MC8 - Most recent (2011) internal Balance Sheet and Income Statement

Ohio Revised Code

• OR4 - Certificate for total amount from all sources available for 2009 and 2010.
• OR7 - Do-not-exceed certificate
• OR8 - Amending appropriation resolution for expenditures
• List of contracts over $25,000
• Any contracts > $50k. Need corresponding RFPs

Single Audit

• Disbursement Testing Selections. Sample was sent by email on 5/13/11. File was titled “Grants Disbursement Selection”. Requesting P.O.’s, invoices, and copies of cleared checks
• DBE Memos for 2010
• SA11 - Disposals that were purchased with federal dollars

Prepaid

• Hylant prepaid

Accounts Receivable

• Proof of subsequent receipt of TMACOG invoices in other accounts receivable

o Nov 09, Jan, Mar & - $21,918
o Nov – $11,166.20
o Dec - $14,065.61

Accounts Payable

• Need requested invoices for sample selected from 2011 check register. - missing grant invoices

Expenses

• Legal fee detail for 2010 invoice
• Explanation for fluctuations in the following accounts:

o 6110-020
o 6145-020
o 6160-020
o 6175-020
o 6185-020

• Need to determine whether holiday and vacation accruals are correct for last week of pay period
• Updated report for claims
• Updated report for litigations

Control testing

• Last page of check registers for requested pay periods

Other

• Completion of disbursement testing on 11/2/11
• Responses to questions and additional requests relating to quarterly narratives

These are NOT minor. It's not 'minor' to be missing your accounts receivable support for your federal operating assistance account.

It's not 'minor' to be unable to produce a listing of your fixed asset purchases and disposals.

It's not 'minor' to be missing your "Most recent (2011) internal Balance Sheet and Income Statement."

It's not 'minor' to be unable to produce - for 13 months! - your listing of contracts over $25,000 and the requests for proposals for all contracts over $50,000.

It's not 'minor' to be missing your list of disposals purchased with federal dollars. In fact, lack of the audit information on the federal items could result in loss of federal income.

It's not 'minor' to be missing details of your legal expenses, details about fluctuations in various accounts, reports for claims and litigation against the agency, or your complete check registers.

No matter what Gee says, these are major items, most of which should be kept on a regular basis or at least should be capable of being produced within a full year of being requested.

How does TARTA not provide a list of their contracts over $25,000? How do they not provide their RFPs for contracts over $50,000? How do they not gather this information in 13 full months????

There is no excuse for such incompetence. A change in personnel and a new computer system cannot be blamed for many of the missing items. It shouldn't take any specialized knowledge to go to your check register (the document used to record checks written) and make a copy of the last page for various pay periods.

I'll say it again: James Gee needs to go and the entire TARTA board needs to be replaced.

Washington vs. the real world (or where solar art trumps the national debt)

The discussions by politicians in Washington, D.C. over the debt limit have me extremely frustrated.

First there is the whole 'default' and doom-and-gloom scenario. You know, where President Barack Obama and the Democrats are saying that failure to raise the debt limit will mean the United States will default and send the world into chaos, even though that wasn't the case when George W. Bush was president.

In 2006, every single Democrat voted no to raising the debt ceiling. That also means that Republicans who were in office then voted in favor of it.

Today, the Dems are saying the world will end without an increase and the Republicans are saying 'only if we cut spending, too.' At least the Republicans seemed to have learned from the past several elections and the Tea Party movement consisting of members of all political parties demanding a fiscally conservative approach for the federal government.

But the whole 'default' discussion isn't really relevant. When you reach your limit on your credit cards, you don't declare bankruptcy - you just have to stop using them for purchases. As long as you can make the required payments, your card isn't cancelled and you don't 'default.'

This is the same as the U.S. government. While they may not be able to borrow any more money, they don't have to default on the loans - at least, not as long as they make their payments. As Cato explains:

The Treasury Department estimates that the federal government will collect a bit more than $203 billion in taxes during August — roughly $36 billion just in the first three days. But, during August, the federal government is expected to spend $307 billion. That is why we have a problem.

If the government is not able to borrow more money after Aug. 2, spending will have to be reduced to the amount of revenue that the government has. That would require roughly a 44 percent cut in federal spending.

This will almost certainly hurt. But it's not the same as default. During August, interest payments on the federal debt will total roughly $29 billion, meaning that there will be sufficient revenue to meet our obligations to creditors. If the Obama administration is truly worried that we might not do so, they could always support legislation by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) that would require the Treasury Department to pay our creditors first.
...
In fact, the revenue we will collect in August would more than cover Social Security payments, Medicare and military salaries, in addition to interest payments on the debt.

It's a matter of priorities, as this article from the Washington Post explains, but setting priorities is, apparently, a 'heinous' choice for the President:

“You do not have to default and you don’t have to shut down the government if you choose not to,” said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland. If Congress raises the debt ceiling without a long-term plan for reducing the federal deficit, he added, “they’ll never solve the problem, and we’ll end up like Greece.”

Obama’s advisers have said that prioritizing some payments over others is impractical and would be chaotic. Money comes in and flows out at an inconsistent rate.

“You would have to make heinous choices about which bills you would pay,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

Just what does he think the rest of the world - and the citizens he's supposed to represent - are doing?!?

But that's not all - as Mark Steyn explains:

In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

And he's right. You and I (and our descendants for probably more than a generation) are the ones expected to the foot the bill for this debt, as Steyn, with his irreverent sense of humor and irony, demonstrates:

On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

Think about the spending. We've got elitist politicians in DC bickering over the debt limit and saying they can't guarantee that granny is going to get her Social Security check in August, yet they're handing out $1 million for 'solar art.'

Seriously. The regional transit authority, along with the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, is going to jointly design a solar panel to be used to help offset the cost of lighting the administration building. TARTA hasn't calculated exactly how much per year the solar panels are going to save, but they're going ahead with the project anyway. Isn't that grand?

For reference, the solar panels on the I-280 bridge (also a 'gift' from our 'esteemed' representative) cost $1.5 million and were 'projected' to save $9,721 per year in energy costs. When you do the math, you'll find that project will take a little more than 154 years to break even. And those solar panels only have a lifespan of about 20 years.

No wonder TARTA hasn't done the calculations!

Really now, if we're truly in need and at risk of default, shouldn't the federal government put a hold on such 'unnecessary' expenditures? Wouldn't even our representative, Marcy Kaptur, agree that NOT spending money to put a solar array on a TARTA building so they can, hopefully, save money is the wiser course of action - at least until the debt limit is addressed?

And how many other expenditures of this nature have been made over the past several months? A simple Google search for "representative announces grant" produced 9.8 million hits in .2 seconds. That's a lot of spending!

Washington elitists don't live in the real world - at least, the ones insisting on raising the debt limit don't. Even Republicans, who are holding the line and insisting on spending cuts and no tax increases, are only talking about cuts 'over the next 10 years.'

We all know that those cuts aren't guaranteed and that future congresses can decide to eliminate then and spend away. We've got history to show us this potential is actually the norm. Besides, if they can't stop spending on superfluous stuff today, what makes us think they've got the intestinal fortitude to stop in the future?

Raising the debt ceiling to solve our financial predicament is the equivalent of raising the blood-alcohol level to solve drunk driving. It doesn't work and we all know it - how can our politicians not know this, too?

Logic and common sense are completely lacking in the discussions, but fear-mongering, political posturing and rhetoric are rampant. We'd never survive if we ran our personal finances this way - and fortunately for our country, the majority of Americans not only recognizes this, but is speaking out and holding the elitists accountable.

What comes after AZ immigration law for Toledo City Council?

Well, they did it. Toledo City Council decided that taking a position against Arizona's immigration law was more important than a host of other issues, including our city's high unemployment rate, looming deficits, over-spending, trash tax lawsuit, loss of population, loss of businesses, 'not-business-friendly' reputation, etc..., etc..., etc...

Thankfully, there are two sane people on council, Tom Waniewski and Rob Ludeman, who realize this is completely outside their purview as members of that body and voted no. One can only wonder what happened to the other Republican, George Sarantou, who switched his vote to yes for this particular non-binding, non-enforceable resolution.

What Arizona does on behalf of their own citizens is their own business. It should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that I'm a strong proponent of states' rights, including their ability to protect their residents and their residents' property. I'm also a strong proponent of the limited Constitutional authority for the federal government. I recognize and appreciate that the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration but in Arizona's case, their law complements - not contradicts - federal law (despite what others may say - read the law yourself and you'll see) and the federal government has failed to perform its duty to secure our borders. Furthermore, the federal government wants to sue Arizona when it believes their state law is contradicting a federal law, but when other cities and states contradict federal law (sanctuary cities, for instance), the federal government turns a blind eye. Hypocrisy and double standards are always a target on this blog.

But when it comes to Toledo City Council, they've opened a very wide door and I believe they will regret it.

First, let's look at council itself. Our council members are elected to represent our wishes. There is no way that they can know the wishes of the majority of Toledoans when it comes to Arizona's law. They might be able to infer our wishes based upon national polls. But if that was the case, they'd be supporting Arizona's law - not opposing it.

They might claim that, by virtue of being elected, they can substitute their own personal opinions for the opinions of the city as a whole. I might go so far as to support such a position if - and this is a big if - any one of them had run on a platform that even remotely included the issue of immigration or illegal aliens. None of them did.

So they are, in reality, substituting their own personal opinion for the will of the people since they did not take the time to survey the residents they are supposed to represent and they were not elected on a platform that included this issue.

So if they believe this type of opinionated legislation is right and proper, what else might they include? Aye, there's the rub!

These 10 members of Toledo City Council, in voting yes on the resolution, have failed to confine their actions to issues relevant only to their duties as a member of our council. As a result, they are now subject to being held accountable for positions/opinions on a host of issues.

After all, if they are going to weigh in on an Arizona law and do so under the color of their office, I want to know where they stand on all kinds of things, because it's obvious they might decide to address just about anything under the sun.

And they cannot ignore, brush aside or refuse to provide their stance on everything else by saying it's not relevant to their job. While I agree it shouldn't be relevant, they have made it so.

So here are the questions these 10 members of Toledo City Council should be required to answer:

* What is your position on Elena Kagan and do you believe someone with her activist attitude should be confirmed to the Supreme Court?
* What is your position on 'don't ask, don't tell' and do you believe it is a good policy or a bad one - and should the federal government continue it or abolish it?
* What is your position on holding terrorists at Guantanamo Bay?
* What is your position on federal funding of abortion?
* What is your position on the war in Iraq?
* What is your position on the war in Afghanistan?
* What is your position on foreign aid and do you believe the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to give it out?
* What is your position on the 17th Amendment? Would you support its repeal?
* What is your position on the 10th Amendment and what actions are you willing to take to support it?
* What is your position on 'cap-and-trade' which, as most proponents agree, will raise our energy prices?
* What is your position on regulation of the Internet?
* What is your position on federal regulation of salt and other products/ingredients that bureaucrats and politicians think are bad for us?
* What is your position on drilling for oil - in the Gulf and in Alaska - and what is your position on Pres. Obama's moratorium which was declared unconstitutional?
* What is your position on Minnesota's law banning sleeping in the nude?
* What is your position on Virgina's law that makes it illegal to tickle women?

And you may come up with some questions of your own, but the point is that we have every right - in fact, a responsibility - to determine the position of our council members on all these issues since they have proven they will pass legislation supporting or opposing anything they want.

In catering to a small group of individuals - perhaps contrary to what the majority of Toledoans want - they have subjected themselves to such scrutiny. And we ought to give it to them.

So the next time you see a member of Toledo City Council - hold them accountable!

Texting while driving - UPDATED

UDATED with responses from council members at the bottom of the post.


Toledo is considering a 'texting while driving' law - to prevent it, not encourage it, though in Toledo you can never quite be sure...

I've sent an email to all members of city council asking them to address the issues raised in this Cato Institute article about the issue, saying the law if pretty much unenforceable.

I expect that I'll hear back from a few of the members - and I'll share them with you by adding updates to this post when I do.

What I don't expect, however, is a quick response from any of them because I believe the article raising questions they've not addressed - so now they have to.

Well, they could ignore the email and questions, so I suppose they don't 'HAVE' to...

But proper diligence in deciding whether or not to implement a law says that you should consider how the law will be enforced and what challenges will be brought against that could, especially in this instance, make the law irrelevant.

Additionally, if it's so bad to read and/or send a text while driving, is it not equally distracting and dangerous to do a host of other things? Will city council be creating regulations that outlaw all those things as well?

I didn't hear any answers to that question - just the whole 'if it can save one life' mantra - the emotional appeal - that too many politicians resort to when logic fails them.

I hope you'll take the time to read the article, which I've previously posted on my blog, and then contact your city council members and demand they tell you how they're going to deal with the issues raised in the article - and all the other dangerous things people do while driving.

You can then leave a comment here for all to see.

We need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and that includes having them address such concerns about laws they are going to impose upon us.

UPDATE: Responses from city council members

1) from Lindsay Webb on 11-06-2009 at 9:23 a.m.

"I am going to vote no. I think this should be handled at the State level."

2) from D. Michael Collins on 11-09-2009 at 1:49 p.m.

Mrs. Thurber.......thank you for your e mail concerning "Texting While Driving", please be advised that we will not be voting on this matter at our Council meeting on November 10, 2009. I will ask to have it relieved from my Law and Criminal Justice Committee and we can discuss it again on November 17, 2009 at our Agenda Meeting and then vote on it at our November 24, 2009 Council Meeting. In the event you would like to be at the Agenda Meeting and provide input I would welcome your presence.

I would like to share with you that on November 2, 2009 UPI reported that a poll was conducted by the New Your Times and CBS with 97% of the respondents backing a prohibition for sending text messages while driving.The poll report went on to say that 50% of the pollsters defined texing while driving as equally as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. The poll was conducted from October 5 - 8 and 829 adults responded, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

In conclusion, I do understand the argument that we already have laws in place to cover this issue. The traffic code most frequently referred to is Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle. To beg the question is operating a motor vehicle when impaired/intoxicated a reckless act and I would suggest it would be defined as such. Then why would we need a traffic statue which specifically addresses this issue, the reason is the act of operating a motor vehicle while impaired/intoxicated becomes the element of the offense and thus removes a subjective opinion from the trier of law. I will end by saying the police department will not carry on a crusade to cite the violators, however this will cause under the force of law the ability to subpoena records from the carrier which may be used in both criminal as well as civil litigation.

Respectfully;

D. Michael Collins

This a follow-up response after I raised questions about the process of using a subpeona; the questionable validity of a NYT's poll to Toledo and the enforcment questions I'd previously raised; and the comparison to a DUI when the texting ordinance is a minor misdemeanor:

Mrs. Thurber.......In response to your e mail I respectfully disagree with your assumption concerning the relevance of the New York Times/CBS poll. My point is a law with specificity is preferable over a general assumption and may not have the force of law when the investigating agency seeks to secure by subpoena phone records. To be case specific the execution of a subpoena defining a specific element of an offense, based upon probable cause is in the communities best interest as it provides evidence which can be used in the furtherance of justice.

I terms of enforcement, I am not suggesting that reckless operation of a motor vehicle is sufficient to command a response to a subpoena, having said that a specific law or element defined as texting would have the force of law attached. The use of a subpoena would be determined by the nature of the event and the need for the record. In the event of a serious injury or fatal accident I can assure you that a carrier record would go a long way to help the State/City or Plaintiff in proving the case.

In closing, speeding, running a red light, running a stop sign and most all other traffic offenses are minor misdemeanors, In this case the second offense becomes a 3rd degree misdemeanor and the third or more becomes a 2nd. degree misdemeanor. In my opinion, our Democracy and freedoms are in fact law based, and the laws are created to insure and protect the citizens from harm and injury.

D. Michael Collins

3) from Tom Waniewski on 11-9-09 at 8:21 p.m.

I've had some discussion with D. Michael Collins, who is sponsoring this.
It is my understanding the ordinance will not be acted on until our last council meeting in November. As you may have read some time ago, I was not in favor of such legislation because current "Reckless Operation" laws exist in the city. After receiving much email on the matter, and with the amount of texting that I personally do while driving, I am convinced there is some merit in the approach, but I'm not sure if this is the way. For example, would adding, "including text messaging...." to the existing reckless operation laws suffice. Or a resolution strongly urging the police department to enforce reckless driving laws, (including putting lipstick on while driving) be the best approach. I did learn the following:

- in the past 12 months for violations of TMC 331.23 "Failure to Control; weaving; full time attention"
1334 tickets were issued under this section of which 241 specified subsection (c)- full time attention.

I don't have the numbers at my finger tips for reckless operation but it was about twice that number for the past 12 months.

No town halls for Kaptur during recess; group asks her to be accountable

I had a very nice conversation with a staff person in Rep. Marcy Kaptur's office about her schedule during the August recess. I wanted to know if she had any forums, town halls or public meetings scheduled where she would be talking about the health care bill and other legislation.

I was very disappointed to learn that she doesn't plan on having any such meetings in Ohio District 9. While she has accepted various invitations to speak to specific groups, the policy of the office (as a result of federal security regulations) is to allow the individual groups to announce and advertise those events. Some of those speaking engagements may be open to the public, the staffer said, and she suggested several media outlets that post community events on their calendars as a way to learn about those events.

I understand the security regulations, so I don't object to the policy. But I do object to having significant issues and no opportunity to meet with my representative about them.

And I'm not the only one. Today, the Children of Liberty released the following open letter to Kaptur:

An Open Letter to
Representative Marcy Kaptur,
9th Congressional District of Ohio

Dear Ms. Kaptur,

It is with deep respect for the Constitution of the United States and the legislative branch that it establishes that we, the people of the 9th Congressional District of Ohio, submit this open letter.

In each Congressional election of the past twenty-seven years, the people of this district have entrusted you with the distinct honor of being our Representative. While many of us did not vote for you, the nature of our representative republic gives you the honor of representing all of us. We have been patient over these many years, and have exercised our right to speak by contacting your office with our thoughts and concerns, even when no reply was forthcoming. Last year, even though many of us might normally disagree with you, we encouraged and thanked you as you stood steadfastly against President Bush’s bank bailouts. Your speeches on the floor were thought provoking, and you stood on principle.

However, it seems that the commendable fiscal oversight that you exercised in that vote did not carry over to votes thereafter. With the Stimulus, the Spending Omnibus, Cap and Trade, and other legislation, government spending is out of control. We do not have enough money to pay for this out-of-control spending. Our children’s liberty and prosperity are being gambled away on federal deficits and the inflation that follows from printing more money to pay them.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the authority of the government comes from the people: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” As concerned citizens, we do not consent to these actions, and we hold that the government is not maintaining the system that the Founders established.

Representative Kaptur, we believe that you are no longer representing your constituents in accord with the Constitution; and to that end, we are openly holding you accountable for your votes and actions. Therefore, we respectfully submit the following grievances:

• You have failed to openly and honestly debate issues with your constituents, and have instead opted to hide behind staff and form letters.
• You have voted on legislation without personally reading its content.
• Your recent votes have contributed to trillions of dollars in federal deficits, and enslaved our children to increased taxation, inflation, and debt.
• You allowed “czars” to assume unconstitutional powers in the Executive.
• You voted for government ownership of American industries at the price of jobs, personal property, and liberty. In doing so, you moved America toward socialism.
• You voted for “Cap and Trade” which will raise our already exorbitant taxes and energy costs while crippling our industries.
• You cast this vote in exchange for $3.5 billion of our tax money to fund another new federal bureaucracy.
• You are about to vote for a healthcare bill that threatens our right to life and the liberty to maintain our health care as we choose. This bill would forever undermine the quality and efficiency of healthcare, lead to government rationing, and move America toward euthanasia and taxpayer funded abortion.

Representative Kaptur, we have not come to this decision lightly. We respect our Constitution and the government it created. But, as Thomas Jefferson wrote of the People in the Declaration of Independence: “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

While we do not want to throw off the Government, we must question those who represent us. We hired you with our votes, and as your employer, it is our right to hold you to standards that are both ethical and constitutional.

Frankly, we do not doubt your passion for the good of our region. However, a large portion of your constituency is disenfranchised, and we respectfully request a townhall meeting with you during your recess, so that you may explain your positions in person, and hear our concerns as citizens and business owners.

Representative Kaptur, the time has come to forgo automated form letters, website updates, and quarterly newsletters. We have reserved the following dates at different branches of the Lucas County Library: August 13th, August 18th, August 25th, and August 31st. We would like to begin a meeting at 6:30pm and have approximately two hours of your time. Please respond by email to thechildrenofliberty@yahoo.com or call 419-705-xxxx(admin edit) to schedule a time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Scott and Anna Allegrini
On behalf of your Constituents, the Citizens of the 9th Congressional District of Ohio

I applaud this group for requesting the meeting and for reminding Kaptur that she works for us. Would you tell your boss that you were too busy to meet??

Apparently, this is a national issue and American Thinker has details on just how far Congressional reps are willing to go to ignore the will of the voter - and to use the force of government against those who disagree with them.

I'll keep you posted.

Kaptur: 'I'm not subject to FOIA'

Earlier this month I made a FOIA request of Rep. Marcy Kaptur to find out the numbers of calls for/against the cap and trade bill.

While I was aware that congressional reps claim constituent communications as confidential, I thought that the numbers of calls was a public record, since revealing the numbers, percentages or ratio does not, in any way whatsoever, reveal who contacted the rep nor their specific communications.

Several others across the nation have made this same request, including Earl who blogs at Kansas Meadowlark and Skip who blogs at GraniteGrok and has a radio show.

Our efforts have not been fruitful. Yesterday I received the type-written response to my request. I received an email copy of the letter over the weekend. The letter denies my request as 1) members of Congress are not subject to FOIA and 2) communications with constituents "are considered confidential and are generally not made public without the constituent's request." Accordingly, Rep. Kaptur "respectfully declines to the produce the information you have requested."

Unlike the other members of Congress who responded, Marcy did not answer my request. My answer came from the U.S. House of Representatives Office of the General Counsel:


So they 'generally' don't give out this information? No confidentiality between a constituent and their representative will be violated if Kaptur tells us how many calls or the percentage/ratio of 'for' and 'against' she got on this issue.

Why doesn't she want us to know?

Congress has again exempted themselves from the laws they impose on others, making FOIA apply to the executive branch of government but not the legislative. Furthermore, how can we hold them accountable to actually represent their district if we cannot ever find out how their district instructs them to vote on specific issues?

Are we just supposed to trust them when they tell us they're doing what we want?

This has to change!

Kaptur refuses to release info on calls for/against cap and tax bill

UPDATE: Maybe we'll start a trend...Kansas Meadowlark has also filed a FOIA request for similar information from his congressman, Rep. Dennis Moore.

And this isn't the first time.

This morning on WSPD, they read an email from Lisa who recounted her experience with Rep. Marcy Kaptur's office when she requested to know the number of for and against communications regarding the Waxman-Markey energy bill, more properly known as the cap and tax (not cap and trade) bill.

She was told, as they have informed others, that they don't keep that information. She had two polite conversations with individuals in the office, one of whom told her the majority of calls were in favor of the bill. How they knew that if they didn't keep count was not explained.

Then Steve Fought, Kaptur's communications director, got on the line. Lisa described his demeanor as 'rude.' He said they weren't required to give out that information. When Lisa asked about accountability, Fought explained that Kaptur is accountable to the Constitution.

Well, that's true. So where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to require us to retrofit our homes according to some government-created standard?

But it's also true that as our representative, Kaptur is accountable to us, the people she's supposed to be representing. And if she refuses to tell us, on numerous occasions, what her constituents have instructed her to do, how do we hold her accountable?

Aye, there's the rub.

But the bigger problem is that this information is a public record. So today I used the 'contact me' form on her website and made a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for anything that documents the communications from her constituents on this bill. I used the FOIA Letter Generator to help me word it properly and, because I'm a blogger, requested a waiver of fees, as allowed under the law.

The instructions of the public relating to this bill are critical to know, especially because she was reported to be undecided, saying it would "have an economic impact on the Midwest" and that she was "uncomfortable with the idea of trading carbon permits." But after her $3.5 billion pork project was included, she voted yes.

We need to know if she voted yes in because of her constituent instructions - or if the $3.5 billion was the cost to overcome the will of those she's supposed to represent.

I'll keep you posted on any response to my request.

Why Finkbeiner thinks he can withhold public records

It should come as no surprise to The Blade that Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is withholding a public record detailing the reorganization plans for the Police Department. They even did an editorial on the subject - the same day of the news coverage rather than a day or two later as is their normal practice.

This has been a standard of the Finkbeiner administration for several years now.

Despite a prior reputation of aggressiveness on the issue of public records, The Blade was strangely silent when it came to coverage of citizens who tried repeatedly to gain information from the city.

Whether it was the Erie Street Market, red light cameras (here and here), the number of vacant but funded positions, or more on the Erie Street Market, I and others have tried to get public records from the city - and most of these efforts got little or no coverage from the daily paper.

But I didn't expect them to. You see, The Blade has supported the red light cameras and the Erie Street Market, so why would they provide any coverage of citizens who were questioning the spending or efficacy of these pet projects?

But the police reorganization is important to them, and they were the ones being refused requested documents this time around.

Last night, an emailer to Eye On Toledo took exception to a caller who said Carty was the worst thing that had ever happened to Toledo. He wrote:

"I disagree with the last caller.

Carty has been and is a blight on this city, but he’s not the number one offender. That honor goes to JRB (John Robinson Block, publisher) and the editorial board at the Blade. Carty, if left to his own devises, is not bright enough to cause serious harm. The same can be said of Young Ben (Konop, Lucas County Commissioner). What makes these buffoons dangerous is the support and cover they get from the local paper. The list of problems with Toledo and Lucas County can all be traced back to the agenda pushed by the Blade. Commodore Perry, Hillcrest, Steam Plant, Erie St. Market, the ambulances, tow lots, etc, etc, etc, are all ideas first brought forth and championed by the Blade. Carty and Ben are just the most recent incarnations of the Blade's puppets.

Getting rid of Carty will help, but as long as that building on the Left Side of Superior is still calling the shots, Toledo will never be prosperous."

When the area's (supposed) primary 'watchdog' on public officials ignores the practice of refusing to release, in a timely manner and according to law, records that are public, it emboldens those officials to continue the practice, as they see no negative consequences from doing so.

In their editorial, they state:

"Refusing to release a clearly public record of such import to the citizens of Toledo at this crucial point in the city’s history is yet another example of the arrogance and imperiousness Mr. Finkbeiner has shown over the years that has caused citizens to line up to sign recall petitions."

Where was this opinion on all the other refusals to release public records?

It didn't exist and it was the lack of holding such officials accountable that caused them to think they could continue. Of course, The Blade now finds itself on the receiving end of what has become a pattern of behavior and so they're making it a major news story.

If they'd paid a bit more attention to the difficulties in getting public records in the past, they wouldn't be having this issue today.

Because we let them

Shortly after Pete Gerken was elected as a Lucas County Commissioner, we were all at a meeting with other elected officials and members of the private sector. Comm. Gerken made a comment that was a blatant lie. I objected, stating that what he said was not true and we shouldn't base our decision on the false statement. The body decided otherwise.

A few days later I had a conversation with one of the private sector members of the group. I asked why they'd all voted to support a lie - didn't they realize it was lie? The response was that of course they all knew it was a lie - that "Pete Gerken lies a lot which is why he had the nickname of 'Pinocchio Pete.'" In disbelief, I asked why, if everyone knows he lies, they allow him to get away with it. The response was that 'he controls two votes' (meaning his and Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak's on the BCC).

This exchange was something I've always remembered, and it came back to me in startling clarity with the recent events of the LCIC (background here and here), in which Executive Director Shawn Ferguson resigned following a Blade article about a questionable contract with Rictor International and what was, imho, unfounded criticism by Comm. Ben Konop. That Ferguson was only doing as his board had directed (through a unanimous vote with no comment or discussion) and considering the fact that Gerken had supported Ferguson's performance up until this point, it's clear that the issue wasn't with Ferguson but with 'protecting' Gerken.

A caller to Eye on Toledo last week asked if, in light of Gerken's culpability, I thought he should step down. I said no. But not because I think he's innocent in all this - but because he's not solely to blame. His fellow commissioners and LCIC board members are as much at fault, if not more so, because they have allowed Gerken to get away with such acts for a long time now.

Gerken pushed an $18,000 contract with a company of questionable credentials. And shame on him for doing so in the first place and for thinking his act of patronage would go unnoticed or that he wouldn't be held accountable for it. But the reason he was able to get away with such patronage was because everyone let him. According to the minutes of the LCIC executive committee, there was no discussion about the company or the contract. No one questioned their qualifications, expected outcome, performance measurements or even if any other company might be more qualified considering the subject area. In fact, there was no discussion whether or not such 'contacts' fit into the overall plan for recruitment and retention of companies.

The failure of these fellow LCIC executive members - and the failure of fellow BCC members Ben Konop and Tina Skeldon Wozniak to read their minutes and ask pertinent questions - is what allowed this patronage contract to go through.

The Blade is to be commended for following up on this news story, but I can't help but wonder if they, too, have contributed to the web of deceit by allowing the focus to be on getting rid of Ferguson rather on the actual process and assumptions which allowed such a contract in the first place. And the Blade, with its recent fascination with all things China, would certainly have reason to 'object' to Ferguson's philosophy about trade delegations from China (see the letter on this issue from Ferguson's brother, Kevin, here).

So why is it that Gerken was allowed to push through a patronage contract without any evaluation? Are there other instances where this has happened - perhaps in other agencies? Why is it that we're building a downtown arena without documented sources of revenue to support the construction and the operation? Why is it that Gerken, and other elected officials, continue to do these kinds of things?

The answer is because we let them. We object to the priorities they set for our community and then we re-elect them anyway. We object when they hire family, friends and campaign workers outside the normal vetting processes and then we re-elect them anyway. We learn that they're threatening the withdrawal of public contracts if a company publicly disagrees with a decision they make and we re-elect them anyway.

Companies get pressured all the time to go along with decisions in exchange for not being black-listed but they refuse, sometimes for valid business reasons, to publicly announce such pressure - and in doing so fail to realize that shining the light on such tactics makes them impossible to implement.

Rumors abound about a group a private investors who wanted to do an ice arena and I've talked with two individuals personally involved - but they won't speak in public for fear of retaliation, despite my pleas otherwise. According to them, their companies were threatened with loss of current or no future public contracts. Even explaining to them that announcing such a threat would negate the ability of elected officials to follow through, wasn't enough to overcome the fear, especially when they believe that 1) no one would cover any such announcement, 2) any loss of business would be blamed on other factors not attributable to this issue and 3) that considering 1 and 2, the elected officials would get away with it.

Numerous times throughout my four years as a commissioner, people would come to me and say, 'you need to know what's going on.' But when I explained that 'knowing' didn't do any good without 'proof' or without them standing with me because of their personal knowledge of the facts, they'd suddenly develop amnesia, citing potential loss of a job, an income, a contract, or other such 'retaliation.'

The point is this ... such activities will continue - to the detriment of our community - only for as long as we let them.