Is TPS Board Member Lisa Sobecki in violation of Ohio law?

I came across this post at SwampBubbles, a local blog forum, discussing disparaging remarks about inner-city school children. What struck me was this particular question from the poster, emphasis added:

If TPS(Dr. Pecko, Bob Vasquez and the Toledo Parent Congress) and Sandy Wiley Steward got all up in arms about the comments made by Brian Wilson, why hasn't TPS gotten all up in arms about what Ms. Wiley-Steward wrote on Facebook about inner city parents? The only reason I can come up with is that they all agree that inner city parents don't have a "volunteer mentality," that they have a hand out mentality and need to be trained (like monkeys) by the county which employs Lisa Sobecki school board vice president..

I'd not heard that Lisa was working for the county, so I looked it up. Every person hired by the county must be approved by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners and, sure enough, there was resolution 10-136, passed February 9, 2010, approving her, and another woman, as full-time, bargaining unit Casework Aides in the Department of Job & Family Services. They were placed at pay range 25, step 1 with a starting hourly wage of $12.19/hour.

Now, I don't have any problem whatsoever with her working at JFS. I don't have a problem with her being in the union. But I do have a problem with a potential violation of state law based upon her other activities.

The position of Casework Aide is in the classified civil service, according to Ohio Revised Code 329.022. And, also according to Ohio law, individuals employed in the classified civil service in the state are prohibited from partisan political activity. Ohio Revised Code 124.57 states, emphasis added:

(A) No officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state shall directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party or for any candidate for public office; nor shall any person solicit directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting, any such assessment, contribution, or payment from any officer or employee in the classified service of the state , the several counties, cities, or city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state; nor shall any officer or employee in the classified service of the state, the several counties, cities, and city school districts of the state, or the civil service townships of the state be an officer in any political organization or take part in politics other than to vote as the officer or employee pleases and to express freely political opinions.

In fact, because the penalties for violation of this section are so severe, (reduced pay, fines, suspensions, or removal from the position, per ORC 124.34) when I was a commissioner, the Board regularly sent out a letter to all employees so affected reminding them of the prohibition.

Because school board members run in 'non-partisan' races, I'm not sure if her election to that office would constitute a violation - and I think it probably would not.

But after being hired by the County, Lisa Sobecki ran for - and was elected - to the position of precinct committeeman in Toledo's Ward 1G as a democrat for the Lucas County Democratic Party. That is clearly a partisan office and certainly prohibited under Ohio law.

So here are the questions:

* Did she know she was violating the law by running for a partisan office?
* If not - why not? Is that not explained to employees when they are hired? If she did know, should the penalty for violation be higher?
* The County Commissioners should certainly know of her role in the local Democrat Party, as they are involved in it as well. Have they just conveniently overlooked her partisan activities or are they negligent in their administration of the county and in violation of their oaths of office to uphold Ohio laws?
* If this employee is allowed to be in violation, are there other employees who are also in violation?
* Now that this has been made public, what are the Commissioners going to do? Sobecki cannot continue both jobs - casework aide and precinct committeeman - so which will go? Will the Commissioners bring her up on charges and provide some reduced penalty if she resigns from her partisan position?

Inquiring minds....

Quote of the Day - Education

"[A]ny provider that commands 90 percent of the market -- whether we're talking about software, phone service, or heating oil -- is, by definition, a monopoly. Our government employs thousands of bureaucrats to track down and break up monopolies on the grounds that monopolies stifle competition and thereby produce bad products at high prices. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that the same government protects its own monopoly in education? And stranger still, that nearly everyone accepts this state of affairs as normal -- as something that has always been and must always be? ... [C]ompetition forces public schools into making long-overdue repairs. And it offers poor parents the choices they desperately desire." ~ Jennifer A. Grossman

Bell realigns executive team

Press release from the City of Toledo:

Bell selects Deputy Mayor, realigns staff entering second year in office

Toledo Mayor Michael P. Bell today announced the appointment of Thomas Crothers to the position of Deputy Mayor for External Relations following the departure of Dean Monske to head the Regional Growth Partnership.

“I don’t view Dean joining the RGP as a loss for the city, but as the extension of our efforts and the opportunity to continue working with him and RGP as partners,” Bell said. “The momentum we started with Dean will continue. I have confidence that Tom will pick up where Dean leaves off and continue collaborating with our partners - local, state, national and international - to move Toledo forward.”

Mr. Crothers is currently director of public utilities and was previously executive director of the Downtown Toledo Improvement District and President of the Greater Downtown Business Partnership. He has also served as chief of staff, finance director; deputy director of economic development; and executive officer for previous mayoral administrations in the city of Toledo.

Along with the responsibility to spearhead the city’s collaborative economic development efforts, Crothers will additionally oversee the city’s inspection and neighborhoods departments and the Division of Real Estate.

As Crothers departs public utilities, David Welch will take over as director. Mr. Welch is currently director of public service and previously served as commissioner of field operations in the Department of Public Utilities.

Ed Moore will be appointed director of public service. Mr. Moore is currently commissioner of streets, bridges and harbor, that department’s most expansive division responsible for road maintenance and repair, demolition and debris removal; snow and ice control; and leaf collection. He has worked with the city of Toledo for 17 years beginning as a heavy equipment operator with the demolition crew. He became a foreman supervising road repair and was later appointed commissioner of sewer and drainage services. Moore is completing a degree in construction engineering technology at the University of Toledo.

David Pratt will serve as acting commissioner of streets, bridges and harbor. Mr. Pratt has worked for the city for 20 years in various capacities. Most recently he has served as manager of streets, bridges and harbor working with Mr. Moore to oversee road repair, snow and ice control and leaf collection.

Salaries have not yet been determined for those employees changing status or departments.

Other staff realignments will include a change in title for Shirley Green. Ms. Green has served as director of public safety, overseeing police and fire services. She will take on an expanded role as Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Personnel as human resources and affirmative action are brought under her administration. As a lieutenant, Green served as the equal employment opportunity officer for the Toledo Police Department. The changes in executive oversight will allow Deputy Mayor for Operations Steve Herwat to focus on collective bargaining negotiations with six of the city’s eight unions during the 2011 calendar year. There will be no change in salary for Ms. Green or Mr. Herwat.

The executive leadership changes will take effect March 14th.

###

The tanning bed police - protecting you from yourself

Yesterday I posted about a new law Rep. Courtney Combs has introduced, H.B. 119, that would require a doctor's permission for anyone under 18 to tan. Ohio law already requires parental permission, but this law would eliminate the parent's role and turn it over to a doctor.

My friend and fellow blogger Matt Hurley, Weapons of Mass Discussion, linked to my post on his Facebook page and here is the discussion that ensued.

Rachel Mullen Manias: My 11 year old is drinking coffee right now for a migraine. Should I have gotten a doctor's note first?

Matt Hurley: That sounds like a question for State Rep. Combs. His office number is (614) 644-6721. :)

Rachel Mullen Manias: So are the tanning salons going to have to file claims with insurance companies? What a tremendous amount of regulation for generally family owned business.
I am very disturbed by this bill.

Maggie Thurber: Great question Rachel!!! Those unintended consequences strike again.

Rachel Mullen Manias: So I called and the Aide told me that I can give my daughter coffee for a migraine. He also said that if you can afford a tan you can afford a doctor's visit.

Rachel Mullen Manias: So I called back. It wouldn't be a prescription so there would be no claim to process. Just authorization that the tanning salon would keep on file.
Oh and if I have a tanning bed in my own home I still need a doctor's note. I wonder who would be knocking on my door to verify that.

Matt Hurley: Did you get that guy's name?

Maggie Thurber: Rachel - that's hilarious! My doctor's co-pay is $20 for an office visit. A tan costs $7. But I suppose the aide completely missed the whole 'who gets to be parent - you or the nanny state' sarcasm of your question. lol

Matt Hurley: The Tanning Bed Police. A division of the Ohio Highway Patrol. To Protect and Serve.

I wonder if Rep. Combs has thought this through in terms of a doctor's order. Why wouldn't the order then be subject to medical reimbursement claims? If, as some people claim, there is a 'right' to health care, does it naturally follow that there is a 'right' to tan, if a doctor must order it? If this law is passed, how soon will it be before states are paying for tanning for medicaid/medicare recipients?

What about the office visit? I know my cost to visit the doctor is only a $20 co-pay, but the insurance company pays the rest of it. How will insurance companies like having to pay for an office visit so some parent can get a permission note for their kid to tan?!? What is THAT going to do to insurance rates?

And why stop at children? If it's bad for you, it's bad for you so perhaps the state ought to require a doctor's permission for everyone. But maybe they won't go that far - especially since that might reduce the number of tanning visits people make and that would hurt the state coffers, considering they're now collecting tax on such 'services.'

This is a ridiculous piece of legislation that isn't going to do anything to reduce skin cancer rates. Maybe our legislators should stop promoting these kinds of feel-good/sound-good bills that do nothing but add to our costs and, instead, focus on ways to address the state's estimate $8 billion budget deficit.

As I said originally...I can hope.

Prevailing wage and PLAs eliminated for school construction projects

Press Release from the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law:

OSFC agrees to eliminate Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreements for School Construction

Agency will also Review Strickland Era Contracts for Corruption

COLUMBUS - The Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) today agreed to adopt OSFC Resolution 11-16, marking the conclusion of a lawsuit brought by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a public interest law firm representing Ohio taxpayers. The Center argued that OSFC's funding of school projects with Prevailing Wage was unconstitutional, and that the Strickland Administration and labor unions engaged in corrupt activity in procuring, at great taxpayer expense, Prevailing Wage (PW) and Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on school building construction projects around the state.

Under the Resolution, the agency will no longer fund Ohio public school construction projects that implement Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) or Prevailing Wage (PW). The move is expected to save Ohio taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, and level the playing field between union and non-union contractors.

"Project Labor Agreements" require non-union contractors to enroll their own employees as dues-paying members of a local union hall and abide by union work rules for the duration of the project. It is typically infeasible for non-union contractors to bid on projects with PLAs, which results in the elimination of competitive bidding, and drives up the costs of projects.

"Prevailing Wage" is a wage rate that is set based upon the average wage paid to union workers in a particular locality. It is typically well above the market wage rate, and its use reduces competitive bidding and drives up costs on projects.

Richland County taxpayers in Shelby and Madison school districts brought the lawsuit against OSFC, former Governor Ted Strickland, former OSFC Director Richard Murray, and Laborers' International Union of North America. The lawsuit alleged that Strickland and Murray pressured school districts to use union labor, at taxpayer expense, to ensure union donations to Strickland's campaign.

"The adoption of this resolution is a monumental victory for the taxpayers of Ohio, who can expect to save tens of millions of dollars now that they won't be subsidizing inflated union wages on multi-million-dollar school construction projects, and for non-union workers, who can now compete for public contracts on a level playing field," said 1851 Center Director Maurice Thompson. "Ohioans and non-union workers across the state should be very pleased with this outcome, and the Kasich Administration and Attorney General DeWine are commended for their cooperative approach in resolving this matter."

The Resolution OSFC will:

* Prohibit the use of Prevailing Wage on state-funded school projects;
* Prohibit the use of PLAs on state-funded school projects;
* Repeal all of OSFC Resolution 07-98, the Resolution implemented under the Strickland Administration that favored use of PW and PLAs;
* Review existing contracts with PW and PLAs, including those where 1851 has alleged rampant corruption;
* Allow OSFC to rescind PLAs and PW terms on existing school construction projects that OSFC is funding;
* Commit OSFC to the belief that "open contracting for publicly funded construction projects aids in lowering costs of such projects."

The Resolution halts a practice outlined in the 1851 Center's Complaint, whereby local construction unions would ensure the victory of a school district's tax levy campaign to build new schools in exchange for the school district's promise to implement union-friendly PW and PLAs.

"Higher quality schools can now be built for less, and tax levy elections in Ohio will now more accurately reflect taxpayers' wishes, rather than construction union clout," said Thompson.

As a result of the Resolution, the 1851 Center earlier today voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit, Oleksa v. Murray, which was pending in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.

The Complaint in the case is available here.

More information on the case is available here.

Review new OSFC Resolution 11-16 here.



The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Is Rep. Courtney Combs really a Republican?

I have to wonder, considering his primary sponsorship of H.B. 119 which would prohibit the sale of indoor tanning to anyone under the age of 18 unless permission has been granted through a prescription by a physician.

Fellow Ohio blogger, Matt Hurley at Weapons of Mass Discussion has the press release which states:

The current law requires that consumers under 18 obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to receiving tanning services. House Bill 119 seeks to eliminate such wording to protect teens from the early onset of serious medical conditions.

So why would an elected official who identifies himself as a Republican want to remove the authority of the parent and replace it with the authority of the state?

Are tanning services bad for you? Probably. Is it a bad idea of children to use tanning beds? Probably. Who should be responsible for making that decision? Parents.

But this law would remove the ability of a parent to make the decision with the state mandating that only a doctor can decide. So the state and this representative (along with the other sponsors of the bill) are saying that parents aren't good enough to make such decisions. Only doctors should be able to decide such a thing.

I have a problem with this. The more we remove the ability of parents to decide on behalf of their children, the more power we give to the government to make those decisions instead.

Some will say that the government isn't deciding at all - they're just requiring that doctors do. But that is still removing the ability of the parent to be the parent and I have a problem with someone who is supposed to believe in the freedom of the individual sponsoring such an action by the government.

Maybe Rep. Combs has a good track record on other issues, but this is a fundamental philosophical question: who is the better choice for making decisions on behalf of children - the parents or the government? And if you believe the government should be able to mandate someone other than a parent to make a decision about usage of a tanning salon, what will be next?

Remember, they said banning smoking was only going to be on airplanes, so the slippery slopes do exist.

This bill substitutes the opinion of the government for the opinion of the parent. I hope other Republicans in Ohio's legislature will refuse to start down this path, but I fear that hope is slim.

A 'fair' price for public safety

As a result of a conversation following one of my earlier posts on the real issue in the Wisconsin union protests, my friend and fellow blogger, Tim Higgins, decided to take the idea expressed in his comment and turn it into a full blown column.

I hope you'll take the time to read his intro to the post as well as the column itself, and decide on your own what, exactly, is 'fair.'

Toledo to pick up storm debris

Press release from the City of Toledo:

City to pick up storm debris over the next several weeks

Following Sunday’s ice and snow storm, the city of Toledo has been working to clear downed trees, limbs and branches from city streets to ensure roads are passable and to allow Toledo Edison crews access to areas where electric service must be restored. This has been the priority in cleaning up after the weather event.

The city will begin collecting branches and limbs that are too large to fit in refuse containers in the following weeks. The following details will be helpful to residents to ensure that their storm debris is collected as expediently and thoroughly as possible:

- Residents are asked to move storm debris - tree limbs and branches only - to the curb between the street and the sidewalk as soon as possible.
- Residents are asked to be patient as the city works to collect the debris, as the priority is clearing streets. It may take several weeks for forestry crews to collect the storm debris.
- The city’s Division of Parks and Forestry will collect the debris and accordingly only tree limbs and branches will be collected - no construction or demolition debris will be taken.

This is a one-time service that will be provided only as a result of the extensive natural damage caused by the ice and wind during Sunday’s weather event.

Questions regarding the storm debris clean up may be referred to the Division of Parks and Forestry at 419-245-3357.

###

Quote of the Day - government unions

From my friend, and fellow Ohio blogger, Matt Hurley at Weapons of Mass Discussion, comes today's quote on collective bargaining by public sector employees:

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

~ President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)

Going green costs jobs

Investors Business Daily had an interesting Friday editorial that took a look at the consequences of cutting off water to an area in order to 'save' the delta smelt. Turns out, jobs were lost and families lost their farms. And the worst part of it all is that it didn't help the delta smelt one bit.

Consequences: The green lobby assured everyone it knew what it was doing when it got a judge to cut water to Central Valley farmers to save the delta smelt. But while the Valley economy is now ruined, it hasn't helped the smelt.

Some day, environmental radicals will be held accountable for crimes against the ecosystem — the human ecosystem.

Back in 2007, they convinced federal Judge Oliver Wanger to rule that the Endangered Species Act gave the federal government the right to cut water to thousands of farmers in California's Central Valley to protect a 3-inch baitfish called the delta smelt.

That ruling turned many of the Valley's prized vineyards and almond groves into wastelands. Jobs were lost, family farms were shut, fields went fallow and food prices rose.

But there's been just one problem with this overreaching of the law: Cutting off water didn't save the smelt.

A draft of a new study from the Delta Stewardship Council shows the water cutoffs had no effect on the smelt. The smelt remains endangered even as farmers have been punished with a policy that cut off as much as 90% of their water.

"Environmentalists claimed the sky was falling in Delta, and the only way to save smelt was to flush more fresh water to the ocean," said Andrew House, spokesman for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. "So they embarked upon a narrow path of diverting water from (San Joaquin Valley) farmers by using science to confirm their predetermined assessment of what was going on."

But it didn't work. Similar evidence is now coming out from the Pacific Northwest stating that shutting down the logging industry never did save the spotted owl.

Read more

The real issue for union protests in Wisconsin

By now, most people - or at least those who don't live and die by American Idol - have heard about what's going on in Wisconsin. Michell Malkin has a good roundup on her blog, in case you'd like a single source to follow her updates.

Depending on which side is speaking, this is either a noble and necessary effort to return the state to fiscal sanity or a devious plot to break the unions.

If you listen to what the union supporters say, they give everything to work on behalf of the citizens, they 'sacrifice,' they're the only middle class and they've given concessions to help the situation. They also say that making them pay a portion of their pensions and a portion of their health insurance costs is 'unfair.'

But the main issue - the one that I believe is really motivating the unions (not the members, specifically) to protest is that their income is on the line. It's the money, stupid.

Now, you've probably not heard about these provisions in the proposed law:

1) The proposal to remove the requirement for state employees to belong to a union. No longer would a state employee have to join a union upon getting a job with the state. They could join, but they wouldn't have to.

2) The proposal to eliminate automatic deductions from paychecks for union dues. In most government sectors with unions, the dues are deducted from the employee paycheck and forwarded directly to the union by the governmental entity. If the law passes, employees will have to pay the union directly - after they cash their paychecks.

3) The proposal to require an annual vote to maintain a union's certification with it members. The current members of the bargaining union would be able to decide yearly if they want the union to continue representing them.

In looking at all three of these proposals, they could have a dramatic effect on union coffers. Many people would choose to join a union, but a significant portion wouldn't. If you had to actually write a check to the union instead of letting your employer take it from you before you even see it, are you going to be more or less likely to pay - and then monitor how your money is being spent? And if you could vote - every year - on whether or not you wanted a union to represent you, imagine how responsive that union would have to be to continue to earn your support, especially when any number of other unions could vie for your attention. If they didn't do a good job, they'd lose you (and everyone else) as dues-paying members.

I believe the real reasons the unions are mobilizing so strongly isn't because of terms they could negotiate - like pension and health care contributions - but because their bottom line is at risk.

This isn't really about representing their members. If it really were about the 'all for one' approach, no union would accept layoffs for some in order to keep wage rates for the remaining. But that's something they do regularly - especially in the public sector. They willingly sacrifice the jobs of some of their members in order to maintain what we now know are unsustainable compensation levels for the remaining.

And when union members realize that the union which claims to be working on their behalf is really working on its own behalf, such laws as Wisconsin is proposing will be the least of their worries.

***Sidenote: According to this summary of the Governor's proposal, the collective bargaining proposals do NOT apply to all unions:

Makes various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on inflation unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until a new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues, and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. Changes would be effective upon expiration of existing contracts. Law enforcement, fire employees and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from the changes. (emphasis added)

Quote of the Day - Ohio's budget mess

From my friend, Scott Allegrini, who is also the leader of the local tea party group, the Children of Liberty:

"In Ohio spending in 2000 was 19.243 billion it increased to 26.783 billion in 2009 that is a 39.1% increase. Ok well that is a lot of money to spend, but if income kept up it would be no problem right.

Ohio income tax receipts in 2000 was 15.617 billion and it increased to 17.093 billion in 2009 a 9.4% increase. Ok so with a decrease in the tax rate Ohio Tax receipts increase by almost 10%.

So the state increased spending by 39% but income increased by only 9.4%, you don’t have to be a economist to see the problem here."

Roundup: Obama's budget and the deficit

There's been a lot of media and blogger coverage of President Barack Obama's budget, which is anything but the 'limit' on spending that he's trying to spin it as, and the impact on the deficit in the short and long term.

So I thought you'd like to see these two excellent posts to add to your knowledge:

1) My friend Steve Eggleston, who blogs at No Runny Eggs, says there is no deficit reduction. He spent hours comparing the budget to the CBO's "Budget and Economic Outlook" released last month, which assumes revenues and mandatory spending increase (or decrease) according to existing laws up until on-schedule expirations, and that discretionary spending increases at the rate of inflation. He said, "As the old Hertz commercials went, there's "deficit reduction", and "'not exactly' deficit reduction", and this is "not exactly"."

I hope you'll read his analysis: Obama’s FY2012 budget – worse than doing nothing.

2) Keith Hennessey is a former Assistant to the U.S. President George Bush for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He has a blog where he posts on economic policy, among other things. His most recent entry, The long term budget problem begins now, has a startling chart, based upon Obama's own budget numbers, that should have us gathering up pitchforks and marching on Washington. But true to his style, he doesn't just give you the data, he explains what it means.

Take the time to read both of these posts and educate yourself about what your 'representatives' are doing on your behalf (and to your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren!).

New laws and one that is a 'must'

I'm not really in favor of creating more laws - in fact, my general opinion on the subject is that many of the laws we have right now are redundant and should be repealed.

As an example, look at the push to ban texting while driving and use of cell phones in the car. Both of these situations are more readily addressed by a single law already on the books, known by many names in different areas, but in Ohio as "Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property" (ORC 4511.20). We also have a 'failure to control' section that covers just about everything a driver could do. So you see my point.

But too many politicians - and the voting public - judge the performance of an elected official in office by how many new laws they pass. And there are a couple introduced recently that, while good, shouldn't have to be a law. You know - like citing the section of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to pass a bill or the one that would require Congress to be subject to any law they pass.

Swept into office on a sea of discontent, Republicans in Congress are working on cutting the spending of our federal government - and rightly so. Of course, for every penny they want to cut, there are multiple groups getting a portion of that penny who are arming battle stations to retain their access to other people's money (OPM).

And this is where I believe we actually 'need' a new law. I want a law that prohibits any person, organization or recipient of government funds from lobbying or advocating on behalf of the funding they (or any other persons, organizations or recipients) receive. The law would include prohibiting these entities from hiring a lobbyist to advocate for such spending on their behalf. Ideally, this new law would apply at every level of government.

Just think about it - no crowds of people coming into city councils, state houses or congressional hearings telling how they'd all be dead if it weren't for OPM handed out by the politicians. No tearful stories to pull on the heartstrings, no parents pimping their children for dollars, no lobbyists taking up the limited time of politicians leaving them plenty of time to actually read the bills they're voting upon.

With this law on the books politicians would have to judge programs and spending based upon total actual outcomes - not just individual stories that may, or may not, be representative of all. They'd also have the ability to properly prioritize the limited dollars they have without being accused of being heartless or callous or uncaring because they didn't bow to the emotional pressure of people who just want OPM.

What got me thinking about this was the recent effort by National Public Radio (though they no longer refer to themselves as such, preferring their brand: NPR) to fight their proposed cut in funding, which, according to this article is less than 10% of their overall budget. It seems to me that if every person who wanted that particular line item of funding to continue just contributed to NPR, they wouldn't need government funding in the first place. Besides, if they're such a terrific asset, it really shouldn't be necessary for the government to fund them, as the market surely will.

But NPR and other such groups are going to spend hundreds of man-hours and untold amounts of money to continue feeding at the public trough - money that would be better applied supplanting the public funds they are losing.

People dependent upon the largess of government shouldn't get to demand even more.

Toledoans and changes to Ohio's collective bargaining law

Toledoans are going to Columbus to partake in the discussion of changes to Ohio's collective bargaining law - Senate Bill 5. I noticed a Facebook post from the Toledo Police Patrolman's Association that they have a bus going down tomorrow and I received this press release from the City of Toledo:

Deputy Mayor Herwat to testify before Ohio Senate regarding collective bargaining law

Toledo Deputy Mayor Steve Herwat will testify before the Ohio Senate Insurance, Commerce & Labor committee this afternoon regarding proposed changes to Ohio’s collective bargaining law.

Herwat will represent the Bell administration in advocating for changes to Ohio’s collective bargaining law that reflect our fiscal times. His testimony will not advocate for or against specific proposed changes in Senate Bill 5, but will outline the City of Toledo’s experience over the past year with collective bargaining in the face of scarce financial resources. He will encourage the Senate to consider and address those issues in the legislation as they affect local governments and taxpayers across Ohio.

The Senate Insurance, Commerce & Labor committee meets this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. in the South Hearing Room at the Ohio Statehouse.

A PDF copy of Deputy Mayor Herwat’s proposed testimony is attached to this release.

###

His prepared statement can be viewed here.

Must see movie: The Cartel

For decades, people have been warning of a problem with our public schools. The general consensus has been that if we spend more money, we'll have better outcomes. But recent test scores, both nationally and internationally, show just the opposite has occurred - our scores are stagnant, not improving, and our standing in the world is declining. We must need even more money - right?

That is the premise the starts the educational expose, The Cartel, a movie that looks at the state of education in New Jersey, though the movie's director, Bob Bowdon, is quick to explain that other states have similar problems.

I saw a screening of the movie at RightOnLine in San Diego, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity who provided me with a travel scholarship to attend. With the emphasis we have on education in Toledo - and the massive budget deficits along with the stated need for 'transformational change,' I thought seeing the movie would provide me with a good idea of the overall problems within public education and maybe some ideas on how to address them locally. I was correct.

The movie starts with Bowden, who has been in the news business for the past 15 years, asking various parents if they think more money needs to be spent on education. Overwhelmingly, the response is yes. But then he tells them how much their school is spending per year per classroom - and the parents are dumbstruck. One asked how much of the nearly half a million dollars per year goes to the teacher and was shocked to learn it averaged only about 10%. Upon finding how much money each classroom was costing, all the parents wanted to know where the money was going - because they certainly weren't seeing it in their kid's class.

It's a question that is resonating across America. As Bowden details, in New Jersey, 90 cents of every dollar goes to someplace other than the teacher - so it's not the teachers, themselves, that are the problem. Children are the not the focus of schools anymore, he explains. It's money that is the focus - and the adults who get or control the money to the detriment of the kids they're supposed to be serving.

Bowden interviews a NJ history teacher who was the state's teacher of the year. She end up being fired because she questioned funding for positions she knew didn't exist. While she won her lawsuit over the firing, she explains that other teachers knew the same thing, but couldn't risk their jobs to be whistle blowers.

Then there is the example of the speech therapist who kept asking for more help because of an increasing workload. The administrator took a look at the workload and saw that, yes, it was increasing. But then he looked further to find that kids were placed in speech therapy, but were never leaving. He commissioned outside experts to examine every student in the therapy program and found that a significant majority had no issues requiring a speech therapist. But this was one way to game the system.

These kinds of examples abound throughout the movie.

Bowden says the biggest bully in the schools is the teachers union, especially when they place the value of their union over the value to the children. He isn't opposed to unions - but he is opposed to the role they're playing in the educational cartel while opposing programs, policies and ideas that would help kids.

He rightly questions why teachers unions would be opposed to merit pay. Without it, he says, great teachers don't get rewarded for their performance, mediocre teachers don't get the support they need or the incentive to do better and bad teachers dominate - the union, the schools and the attention of the public.

Bowden makes a clear distinction that I believe we should adopt locally: the difference between public funding of education versus public administration of education. Nearly all people agree that public education should exist and most people don't mind paying for it, though they will disagree on 'how much.' So the issue isn't the public funding - but there are numerous ways to publicly fund education - and not all of them require public administration of system.

But, as Bowden notes, the whole idea of vouchers is rejected by too many people. So let's stop calling them 'vouchers' and change the name (that's what liberals -oops, progressives - do all the time). Vouchers are, basically, scholarships. So when you ask people about vouchers, they have a negative impression, including all the myths that have been promoted about them. But when you ask people if they'd like a 'scholarship' for children, they almost universally love the idea.

Bowden looks at all the claims promoted by opponents of vouchers and destroys every one. I love that he points out the hypocrisy of these people by highlighting how they're all for 'vouchers' in the form of Section 8 Housing, Medicare, the GI Bill, Pell Grants - even Food Stamps. So why would education be any different?

This is a key point that all of us should remember to emphasize at every opportunity.

Rev. Reginald Jackson, president of the New Jersey Black Ministers’ Council, is featured at one point in the movie and he says this:

"Quality education should not be a privilege nor based upon zip code."

Simple, but true. But too many think vouchers and charter schools are a GOP plot to steal money from public education and feed it to white corporations. As one person in the movie explained, if that's true, then failing schools are a plan of evil Democrats who depend upon 'us' to maintain their status quo. "We've been pimping children for a very long time."

Some other questions we should be asking of those opposed to school choice are emphasized throughout the movie:

* Is a high drop-out rate a better alternative than 'letting' a child attend a school of their choice?

* Are bad schools the only choice because vouchers are 'evil'?

* If it's really 'for the children,' why trap a child in a school that's not meeting their needs?

* Since safety cannot be measured on a test, shouldn't children have an option other than a school rife with violence?

But the best analogy is the burning building. Bowden demolishes every argument against school choice by asking:

If you see a building on fire and 20 people inside, do you not save any of them just because you know you cannot save them all?

That is what we need to focus upon - saving as many children as possible from a failing education, even if we cannot save them all through school choice or scholarships for all.

The most touching part of the movie is watching a lottery drawing for school vouchers. We see the elation of two moms whose children got one of the limited spots available. We share their tears of joy that, as they say, their children now have a chance. And our hearts go out to the mom sitting with her crying daughter whose name has not yet been called, even though they are into drawing the list of alternates in case one of the winners doesn't follow through. Both mom and daughter know that their chances of attending a school of their choice are not going to happen.

This movie puts a human face on the problems and frustrations. As the movie's website states,

Together, these people and their stories offer an unforgettable look at how a widespread national crisis manifests itself in the educational failures and frustrations of individual communities. They also underscore what happens when our schools don't do their job. "These are real children whose lives are being destroyed," director Bob Bowdon explains.

But the movie doesn't just inform you, there are things you can do and I hope you'll take the time to sign up for updates and participate in the items listed on the website.

The movie is available through Amazon.com and costs just under $25 (shipping to Toledo included). I've ordered my copy and would be happy to loan it to you for your private viewing if you can't afford your own copy. I believe it's important to see. Below is the trailer:



There is also a public showing version of the film that I hope someone locally will be willing to sponsor (about $200). It would certainly complement "Waiting for Superman" and "Kids Aren't Cars" that have been or are going to be shown.

But if not, we can still share the lessons from this movie and start focusing on what 'transformational change' really means.

Blade bias - #9

It's been a while since I did a post about our local daily paper's obvious bias - but today's headline on the trash service story cries out for attention.

Yesterday, Toledo City Council held a committee meeting to discuss the administration proposal to transfer garbage collection to Lucas County. Council had previously approved the county issuing a Request For Proposal (RFP) to see what kind on interest there might be for contracting out the collection of garbage. The Commissioners approved that RFP last week.

Today's headline about the committee meeting reads:

Councilmen drag heels on trash decision

When you read the article, you find that members of council had some serious questions about the plan and the claimed 'savings.'

In fact, I talked about one of the concerns last week when I filled in on WSPD for Brian Wilson, so I'm glad someone was listening and is now raising the question. The RFP calls for the 'option' of buying the city's newly purchased automated trucks for $7 million. But we paid $12.2 million for them about a year ago. The $7 million isn't enough to cover our debt on the trucks - and it's only an option for the bidder to consider. If the bidder doesn't want to purchase the trucks, they don't have to - which means that we'll still be paying for them despite the fact that they won't be in use.

I also took a look at the budget numbers that don't add up in this post from earlier today.

Then there are the questions members of council raised about the obligation to cover the refuse department employee pensions (for forever, it seems) as well as the costs the city will still have to pay to actually dump the garbage in a landfill.

These are serious concerns and getting clear answers to the questions is part of the duty of the members of council. They aren't 'dragging their heels' - they are, in this case, being responsible representatives.

The headline is clearly the opinion of the headline writer. There is no quote in the article that might have supported the opinion as a claim and only the mention of the administration's arbitrary deadline to support the erroneous conclusion.

The headline could have easily read, 'Council considers costs, savings of trash plan' or even partial use of the sub-headline, 'Council raises questions on trash decision.' Either of these would have been both accurate and truthful without expressing an opinion in the news section.

Now, if this had been a headline for an editorial, it would have been perfect, as it expresses the opinion of the editorial board. But since this was the news section, it deserves to be #9 in the ever-growing list of bias examples at The Blade.

City's trash numbers don't add up

Toledo City Council held a committee meeting yesterday to discuss 'turning over' the city's trash pickup to Lucas County. Dave Welsh, the director of public service, gave the committee information about the income and expenses of the service. According to today's paper (link), here is the report:

Dave Welch, the city's director of public service, said the trash operation costs Toledo $16.5 million annually. A monthly $8.50 trash fee generates about $9 million toward that cost. The rest is paid for with income taxes collected by the city.

"If you want to make this a true enterprise fund that pays for itself, you would have to raise that monthly fee [to] $17.25," Mr. Welch said.

But the city's own budget figures show something else completely. This is the line item for Refuse Fee revenue from the 2011 proposed operating budget:

24100 - REFUSE COLLECTION REVENUES:
2008: $ 4,966,035.04
2009: $ 4,700,000.00
2010: $ 13,124,736.84 (budgeted)
2011: $ 8,928,000.00 (proposed)

In addition, there is a line item for Refuse Disposal income:

406910 - REFUSE DISPOSAL
2008: $ 368,279.39
2009: $ 350,000.00
2010: $ 375,396.80 (budgeted)
2011: $ 651,000.00 (proposed

So if the trash fee only generates $9 million a year, why did the city collect $13 million last year in fees and another $375,400 for individual disposal? If he was referring only to the 2011 proposed/projected collections and only for the garbage tax itself, his statement is understandable. But it's not a complete picture.

Then he says that the trash operation costs the city $16.5 million annually. However, the budget shows the following for expenses:

24100 - REFUSE COLLECTION EXPENSES:
2008: $ 11,603,270.67
2009: $ 10,192,454.93
2010: $ 7,714,761.53 (budgeted - though it was originally $7,211,259.06)
2011: $ 5,438,208.36 (proposed)

This is a far cry from $16 million.

Is it possible that there are other costs not described in the budget as 'refuse'? I suppose, but when a citizen looks at the budget and adds up anything with 'refuse' or 'waste' in the line item description, they don't total $16 million.

The Bell administration is to be commended for reducing the refuse collection expenses. The cost in 2010 was a 24% decrease from 2009, even though the city did forget to budget additional costs for fuel for having to go up and down each street twice with the automated trucks.

But when council is told the expenses are $16 million, despite the budget showing it's not been anywhere near that amount for at least the last 3 years, questions should be asked.

Quote of the Day - Education

"It constantly amazes me that defenders of the free market are expected to offer certainty and perfection while government has only to make promises and express good intentions. Many times, for instance, I’ve heard people say, 'A free market in education is a bad idea because some child somewhere might fall through the cracks,' even though in today's government school, millions of children are falling through the cracks every day." ~ Dr. Lawrence W. Reed, President of the Foundation for Economic Education

Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln

Today is President Abraham Lincoln's birthday. In honor of his birth, here is a great article from The Heritage Foundation discussing whether or not he was the father of big government:

On February 12, America will celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s 202nd birthday, but will conservatives celebrate his legacy? Lincoln is a pivotal figure in American history, yet some conservatives are wary of him. Lincoln, the Left proclaims and the Right fears, is the father of big government.

Conservatives shouldn’t be fooled. If big government means a permanently large and growing federal budget and a vast civil service (see William Voegeli’s Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State), then Lincoln may deny paternity for both. As Allen Guelzo explains, while the federal budget indeed ballooned to meet the cost of the Civil War (from $63.2 million in 1860 to $1.29 billion in 1865), it shrank once the war ended (back to $293 million by 1870). “If Lincoln had plans to create ‘big government,’” Guelzo concludes, “none of his successors seems to have known what they were.” Similarly, while the federal government employed more people during the war, the number shrank once the war ended.

In reality, big government is a Progressive invention, designed by Progressive thinkers such as Herbert Croly and John Dewey and perpetrated by Progressive presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These men embraced big government, because they held certain principles opposed to the limited government framework set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

By contrast, Lincoln held a different set of premises. He defended the Constitution and “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” To understand Lincoln, therefore, we must turn to the documents he held so dear.

Read the entire article here.