Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October
October 2009
Editorial: Ohio can’t blow chance to get help for schools
Republican Sen. Jon Husted, of Kettering, sees a way to get some things he wants by getting behind President Barack Obama’s ideas for education.
Specifically, he introduced legislation last month that would lift Ohio’s moratorium on new charter schools. A passionate supporter of charter schools, he cited the U.S. Department of Education’s plan to award $4.35 billion to states that are in sync with federal education policy. He said Ohio’s cap on these publicly funded, but privately run, alternative schools might prevent the state from competing for the money.
Democrats are confident that Ohio stacks up well when measured against the education priorities outlined by President Obama, and they aren’t worried about not qualifying. But they can’t take any chances — if only because Gov. Ted Strickland is counting on getting a chunk of the so-called “Race to the Top” money to fund portions of his education reform plan that was approved earlier this year.
Since those changes were passed, federal priorities have gotten more explicit. The state can still do better in showing that it’s committed to following the president’s lead.
Here’s what President Obama is focused on:
Standards and assessment
Gov. Strickland’s plan made strides in this area, ordering a revision of the state’s academic standards and tests. Overall, this could be a strong area for the state, but the new testing and assessment programs are far from ready, and some people question whether an education department hammered by budget cuts can rework them any time soon.
Data systems to support instruction
Ohio collects lots of education data and does that better than many other states. But it does not always do an effective job of helping teachers use the data to improve instruction. New thinking about how the data system operates is needed.
Great teachers and leaders
Gov. Strickland’s plan took many steps toward improving teacher quality by strengthening standards and evaluation and lengthening the tenure process. But there’s more to do.
Sen. Husted, for instance, would clear the way for programs like Teach for America to come to Ohio. That celebrated program places top college graduates in needy schools, and the Obama administration is a fan of it and others like it.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan has also expressed support for teacher evaluation systems that explicitly consider student test performance as part of teachers’ evaluations. Ohio has mostly avoided having this debate or encouraging merit pay.
Struggling schools
The U.S. Department of Education says it wants to see aggressive plans to turn around the lowest performing schools. Lifting the charter cap and allowing good schools of all kinds to be replicated would likely please federal grant makers.
But more than that, Ohio’s efforts to shake up failing schools by bringing in all new staff have mostly fallen flat. An aggressive new approach is definitely needed, and “Race to the Top” money could provide an opportunity to try other approaches.
There is no guarantee Ohio will win some of these dollars. It has to stand out as a reformer. Secretary Duncan has warned that only a small number of truly innovative states will make the cut.
By taking Sen. Husted’s bill seriously and expanding it to address Ohio’s weaknesses, the state increases its chances of getting cash that can pay for reforms it should want to do anyway.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott
TweetEditorial: Salaried Delphi retirees getting left out
That proverbial crack you often hear about people falling through is claiming a new set of victims:
Delphi retirees who were salaried — that is, didn’t belong to a union.
They have already been told they will not get life insurance and medical benefits they expected, because of the company’s bankruptcy. Now they are being told they won’t necessarily be getting the pensions they expected.
Among the four categories of retirees from the original General Motors — GM and Delphi, union and non-union — they have been hardest hit.
(According to The New York Times, the average Delphi salaried worker with long service was making about $96,000 as he or she approached 50. That means a lot of people were making less.)
The pension situation is a long story. When General Motors spun off Delphi a decade ago, the pension plan for salaried employees was in good shape. The plan for hourly workers was not. So, to get the unions to sign off on the spin-off, GM promised to make good on all pension promises to Delphi union members, whatever happened to Delphi. But no such promise was made to salaried workers.
When Delphi went into bankruptcy , the federal government took over responsibility for the pension plans of both groups. That will result in some people getting less than they expected. That’s because the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has rules to guard against companies getting too generous, then dumping the cost of their promises on taxpayers.
The PBGC covers basic benefits (up to $54,000 for those who retire at 65 , less for earlier retirees). But the government doesn’t necessarily cover, for example, any inducements a company might have offered to get a worker to retire early.
For unionized Delphi retirees, GM has stepped in to “top off” the government payments, so people will get whatever the company told them they would get. But that offer doesn’t apply to salaried retirees.
Some people say the company’s action on behalf of unionized workers stems from politics. They point out that GM is largely owned by the government, and they suggest that the Obama administration wants to take care of the unions.
In truth, however, the more innocent explanation — about the promise made at the time of the spinoff — seems reasonable.
At any rate, in the normal course of things, retirees whose pension plans are bailed out by the feds can’t expect a top-off.
The salaried Delphi retirees have filed suit and also have brought their case to Congress. A committee on which Ohio’s Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, sits is involved.
The salaried retirees hope to get all their benefits, possibly by being put back in the GM plan. Dennis Black, of the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association, says there are only about 7,400 such retirees. (For the Dayton area, the number is about 700.) He says GM is paying the pensions of 122,000 salaried retirees through a fund that is now in good shape.
There’s a limit to what Congress can do about this problem, given that it has already set up the pension guaranty program, That program has been a godsend to a lot of retirees. Created in the 1970s, it now has responsibility for 3,800 pension plans that have been terminated by employers. It says that 85 percent of retirees get from it what they were expecting from their employers.
What Congress should do is comb through the Delphi situation for the horror stories — for the vulnerable people who are taking bigger blows than anyone intended, who have fallen into the biggest cracks — and try to get them fixed.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Auto industry, Editorials, Local Business, Martin Gottlieb
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Pro-gambling forces have way too good a hand
2009 ELECTIONS
Elections about legalizing casinos ought to be best four out of seven. It’s good enough for baseball.
Doesn’t something seem profoundly unfair about the fact that, having lost four times in the last two decades in efforts to bring casinos to Ohio, the advocates might now get casinos by winning just once?
Worse yet, each of the last four times, they lost big (62 percent to 38 percent just last year). Now they can win with just 50 percent of the vote plus one.
You have to like those odds. It’s as if the game was designed for the casinos (just like the games at the casinos).
The people who invented the country’s political system put all manner of hurdles in front of people who want to pass laws. You have to get a proposal through one house of a legislature, then another (then reconcile the two versions), then get the president or governor to sign off, or else go back and get two-thirds of both houses.
Then, given the way the system evolved, you have to basically get approval from the courts on the constitutionality of the measure.
But these days, with a ballot measure — boom. One vote. That’s it. Sometimes you don’t even have to worry about the constitution, because the vote is about changing the constitution.
Theoretically, if casinos are ever approved, it would be possible to undo the approval, again through the constitution. But one vote is all that’s necessary to get casinos started. And the reality is that once they’re in, they’re in.
After all, the people who make a living in the industry join forces with the people who incorporate gambling into their lifestyles — plus the interests that get the gambling tax money — to become a political coalition nobody wants to mess with.
Anyway, regaining a state’s virginity isn’t nearly as galvanizing a political goal as maintaining its virginity. That’s the thing about virginity.
Now it’s true that each gambling proposal that’s been put on the ballot is different from the previous one and is funded by somewhat different interests. These differences may matter to some voters.
But you have to guess that roughly the same voters form the base of each side each time: the pro-gambling people versus the anti-gambling people.
If the 2009 measure passes, that will suggest that what really changes the minds of the voters who are being fought over is the state of the economy. Things are now worse than in any of the previous tries.
And yet, if the measure passes, it will sustain casinos in good times — when the majority of voters don’t want them — and bad. (Truth is, judging from recent reports about how casinos are doing across the country, they actually make more money — attract more gamblers, if not more voters — in good times than bad.)
What’s to be done about the fact that the deck is stacked in favor of the gambling interests?
Insist that they must win more than one statewide vote, say two out of three, if not four out of seven? No. Obviously, the public would not be enthusiastic about “Groundhog Day” (the movie) elections.
And if you feel, as I do, that we already put way too many matters on the ballot, then putting them there repeatedly doesn’t look like progress.
It’d be nice if some sort of commission could be set up to decide whether a particular ballot measure should be labeled a pro-gambling measure, and if a limit could be imposed on the number of such efforts allowed per decade. Certainly a ban on attempts in consecutive years would be in order.
In reality, though, constructing and operating such a system would be awfully dicey. (Good grief, gambling metaphors are relentless.) It’s not going to happen.
For all kinds of reasons, pro-gambling forces have been convinced for decades that casinos will come to Ohio eventually. When particular entrepreneurs and corporations put together a specific ballot proposal, the idea is largely to beat competitors to the punch.
Also widely believed for years has been the notion that what you really need to get a casino measure passed is a lousy economy. That’s one reason the promoters keep coming back: Ohio’s modern economy is almost always lousy. The question has been just how lousy must it get.
If the economy just keep getting worse and worse, and if there’s no legal limit on the number of attempts you can make, and if you only have to win once, and if the money to fund your attempts is limitless (because the payoff is an unknown multiple of limitless), you’re too lucky to be allowed in the house.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics, Sports and Recreation
Tweet2009 election: The complete list of DDN recommendations
2009 ELECTION
Here are the candidate and ballot issue recommendations from the Dayton Daily News editorial board for the Nov. 3, 2009 election (X indicates recommended candidates):
STATEWIDE
ISSUES:
Issue 1: Permit the sale of up to $200 million in bonds to compensate veterans of the the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.
Recommendation: Yes
Issue 2: Amend the Ohio Constitution to create a Livestock Care Standards Board.
Recommendation: No
Issue 3: Amend the Ohio Constitution to allow a casino in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo.
Recommendation: No
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
RACES:
Centerville Council
Vote for three (* indicates incumbent):
Joy M. Brush
*Doug Cline X
*Brooks A. Compton X
*James E. Singer X
Dayton Mayor
Vote for one (* indicates incumbent):
Gary Leitzell
*Rhine McLin X
Dayton Commission
Vote for two (* indicates incumbent):
David Esrati
*Nan Whaley X
*Joey Williams X
Dayton School Board
Vote for four (* indicates incumbent):
*Yvonne Isaacs X
*Joe Lacey X
*Ronald Lee X
*Stacy Thompson X
James Weir
Kettering Council
Vote for two (* indicates incumbent):
Timothy Allison
*Amy Schrimpf X
Ed Smith
*Frank Spolrich X
Debbie Waker
Ashley Webb
Kettering School Board
Vote for three (* indicates incumbent):
*George Bayless X
Mike Bock
James Brown
*Julie Gilmore X
*Frank Maus X
Washington Twp. Trustee
Vote for one (* indicates incumbent):
*Dale Berry X
Harry Drain
Ken Parks
Washington Twp. Trustee
Vote for two (* indicates incumbent):
Scott Paulson X
*Lee Snyder
*Joyce Young X
ISSUES:
Five Rivers Metro Parks
Replacement, 1.8 mills, 10 years.
Recommendation: YES
Dayton Metro Library
Replacement and increase, 1.75 mills, continuing.
Recommendation: YES
Wright Memorial Library (Oakwood)
Additional, 0.5 mills, 5 years.
Recommendation: YES
GREENE COUNTY
RACES:
Beavercreek Council
Vote for three (* indicates incumbent):
Linda Borgert
Tony Corvo
*Scott Hadley X
*Brian Jarvis X
Steve Stratton
Debborah Wallace X
Beavercreek School Board
Vote for three (* indicates incumbent):
*Peg Arnold X
*Joyce Carter X
Donna Dempsey
Robert Dotson
Kim Grant X
ISSUES:
Greene County Library
Renewal, 1 mill, 5 years.
Recommendation: YES
Cedar Cliff Schools
New 0.25% income tax, 28 years; additional 8.5-mill levy, 28 years.
Recommendation: YES
Xenia Schools
Additional 2.7-mills, 38 years; additional 0.5-mill levy, continuing.
Recommendation: YES
WARREN COUNTY
RACES:
Springboro School Board
Vote for three (* indicates incumbent):
Scott Anderson X
Kelly Kohls
*Donald Miller X
*Ira Thomsen X
ISSUES:
Mary L. Cook Library (Waynesville)
Additional, 1 mill, 5 years.
Recommendation: YES
Franklin/Springboro Library
Additional, 1 mill, 5 years.
Recommendation: YES
Lebanon Library
Additional, 1 mill, continuing.
Recommendation: YES
MIAMI COUNTY
ISSUES:
Troy/Miami County Public Library District
Additional, 0.6 mill, 5 years.
Recommendation: YES
Tipp City Library
Additional, 0.75 mill, 5 years.
Recommendation: YES
Permalink | Comments (38) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements
TweetEditorial: How many police departments are too many?
One good thing about a recession is that it forces people to re-think a lot of what they’re doing, even if that creates a ruckus.
Take this business of the Montgomery County sheriff providing police protection for Washington, Harrison and Jefferson townships.
Montgomery County Administrator Deborah Feldman, who’s staring at a 2010 budget deficit of $12.8 million, wants a financial analysis of whether those townships are paying the full cost of the services they’re getting.
If they’re not, Sheriff Phil Plummer will be told to raise his prices.
In truth, Sheriff Plummer and Ms. Feldman already know the answer. There’s much in the sheriff’s budget that the townships aren’t charged for, including management of the property room, record-keeping, evidence technicians, contract negotiation, recruitment and more.
Ms. Feldman is not alone in questioning the sheriff’s pricing practices, even his legal obligations. Because money is tight everywhere, a push is on statewide by county commissioners to get their sheriffs to do only what’s required by law.
Though sheriffs once were mandated to patrol all areas of a county that weren’t part of a city, the law today says only that sheriffs are supposed to “keep the public peace.”
In 2003, a judge in Geauga County said county commissioners can refuse to provide money for patrols in township areas, effectively saying that townships are responsible for raising taxes to pay for that service.
In the great bulk of Ohio counties, sheriffs provide police protection to most parts of their county. It’s in the few big urban counties — where most of the land is part of a city — that police departments proliferate.
Even where sheriffs aren’t fighting crime, they still have the task of running the county jail, tracking sex offenders and providing court security, among other duties spelled out in the law.
This work, though, is not why most sheriffs went into law enforcement. More important, running a good jail is not what gets them re-elected.
If Sheriff Plummer were to raise the price he charges Washington, Harrison and Jefferson townships too much, they could buy police protection from a neighbor or start their own department.
If you’re a county commissioner, neither option would bother you; you have your hands full funding the jail, the prosecutor and the courts.
The problem, however, is that good sheriffs are perfectly poised to provide police protection on a regional basis. There are townships especially, but some struggling cities as well, that have police departments that are woefully ill-equipped to handle major crimes and even challenging day-to-day police work.
They can’t afford the training, the administrative support or the money to do the things required in a 21st century professional police department. Very few are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., which the sheriff’s office is.
These stand-alone police departments exist nonetheless because almost every town council and board of township trustees wants its own police chief and cadre of officers.
Montgomery County’s commissioners and Ms. Feldman are right to care whether the sheriff is under-pricing his services and whether county taxpayers are subsidizing police protection for three select places.
But if Montgomery County’s officials were really being politically bold, they’d also be pushing the citizens and elected officials at least in small and struggling communities to consider whether they would be better off with the sheriff’s services.
When local governments keep saying they need more and more money, the question has to be asked: Are there ways to do things better and cheaper — so taxpayers don’t have to keep paying more?
But if elected officials — or the people who put them in office — won’t consider consolidation and collaboration, then, of course, the cost of government is going to be hard to check.
It must be said that Ohio’s sheriffs are not universally excellent — one of the big reasons that some communities won’t think about buying services from that office. But when the right person is in the job, there’s an opportunity for communities to band together and save money.
If a lot of places were dependent on the office, what do you want to bet that incompetents would have a hard time getting elected?
Law enforcement is complicated, dangerous and technical. Not every burg, village and township is going to be able to afford to have the professionals they need in this line of work, especially when tax dollars are only getting more precious.
Permalink | Comments (61) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Law Enforcement and Public Safety, Montgomery County, Ohio politics, Rural Communities, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Ohio Senate should delay next tax cut
Gov. Ted Strickland proposes filling the state’s budget gap — created when the Ohio Supreme Court rightly shot down his plan for turning racetracks into casinos — by postponing the last phase of an income tax cut. Immediately, the smart money in Columbus said even some of the governor’s fellow Democrats might not like the idea.
After all, Democrats won control of the House of Representatives by winning districts that had been drawn for Republicans. Those legislators are reluctant to support a move that critics are (absurdly) calling a tax increase.
But now the House Democrats have universally endorsed the Strickland plan. The vote came after a clever political move. Democrats added a provision to cut the salaries of legislators by 5 percent (starting with the next legislature, which is the only way it can be done). That apparently gave representatives from the more conservative districts all the political cover they thought they needed.
(Also, the more combative Democrats might argue that their Republican opponents have supported a salary increase for themselves. It’d be a preposterous charge, of course. But if failure to cut taxes can be called a tax increase, then maybe the failure to cut salaries can be called a salary increase.)
Meanwhile, Rep. Seth Morgan, R-Huber Heights, complicated life for the Democrats by proposing an amendment to impose the pay cuts, but to also go forward with the planned tax cut.
Now the Strickland proposal measure goes to the Republican Senate. There’s been talk there — as on the Republican side in the House — of using the budget crisis as an opportunity to cut spending by reorganizing the state government.
One plan would cut the number of state agencies from 24 to fewer than half that, while cutting perhaps 10,000 jobs.
But a budgetary crisis is not the time to focus on something so complicated. Republicans would do better to save the plan until consideration of the next two-year budget. There will still be big problems then. The state will be facing the loss of almost $6 billion in federal stimulus money.
The senators know what has to be done, that suspending the tax cut is the obvious short-term solution. Now it’s just a matter of rising above the contentiousness that the most partisan Republicans want to promote.
As for budget cuts, enough is enough for a while. The state has almost 5,000 fewer employees than it had in 2007, with the vast majority of those reductions being full-time, permanent jobs.
When you add those to all the job cuts that have been made and are threatened in local government, it’s hard to see more job loss as a good thing for the state. For one thing, these cuts undermine the efforts of the federal government to stimulate the economy by creating jobs.
The current $50.5 billion budget is a couple of billion dollars less than the previous two-year budget. That budget was cut three times after it was first passed, as the economy kept shrinking. The cuts hurt real people who are dependent on mental health services, on in-home senior services, state scholarships and more.
Two Republicans in the House voted with the Democrats to suspend the tax cut: Ross McGregor, of Springfield, and Rep. Matthew Dolan, of suburban Cleveland. Rep. Dolan (the son of the owner of the Cleveland Indians) has won a lot of attention for his speech.
On spending cuts, he said, “We are nothing more basically than a pass-through entity to counties. When we beat our chest and say we need to cut more state spending, all we’re saying to our counties who provide the essential services to our constituents is, ‘You find the money somewhere. You go to the taxpayers.’”
Any Ohioan who suffers a setback now — such as the loss of a state job or state help — suffers all the more because of the lack of options in this economy. So there’s not much doubt that further spending cuts would do more harm than suspension of an income tax cut which, by definition, would only benefit those who have a good enough income to pay income taxes.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics
TweetEditorial: ‘Yes’ on Issue 1; ‘no’ on Issues 2 and 3
2009 ELECTIONS
“Issues” get on the Ohio ballot — as opposed to being resolved in the Legislature — in different ways for different reasons. This year, Issue 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot is there because it requires selling bonds, a process that needs to be directly approved by voters.
Issues 2 and 3 are there because narrow interests — that are vastly outspending their opponents — saw the ballot as a way to get their way.
So perhaps it’s no surprise that Issue 1 has some merit, but Issues 2 and 3 don’t. By way of summary, let’s count down:
Issue 3: Don’t let promoters set their own terms
Issue 3 is an effort by casino developers to get approval, not for the idea of casinos — or for a process for approving casinos — but for their specific projects. They are the ones who put out the money to get a measure on the ballot (by passing petitions and gathering signatures).
Their side has raised $36 million for this campaign, about seven times more than the opposition.
The developers want their plans for casinos in Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo and Cleveland blessed in the constitution. They’ve written their own tax rate, and their own rules for how their profits would be distributed, the latter with an eye toward buying political support.
They promise to create jobs. In fact, though, the days are long gone when casinos can attract out-of-state money. Mainly, casinos just recirculate money that is already in the state. That doesn’t result in a net creation of jobs.
Yes, there will be short-term construction jobs. That appeals to voters in these hard times. But there won’t be nearly as many as the 34,000 figure in the television ads (that number counts dealers, servers and whatnot). And the workers will be building businesses that take jobs away from other businesses, unlike, say, government-funded stimulus projects, which build roads and other projects that help the entire economy.
Anyway, there is something dubious about trying to get voters to approve something that they have rejected in four previous elections, hoping they’ve become desperate for any jobs.
Reasonable people can disagree about the desirability of casinos. But the desirability of allowing promoters to set their own terms, while shutting out everybody else, is hard to see.
Issue 2: Don’t let agri-business insulate itself
Issue 2 got to the ballot a different way: the state Legislature put it there. But even that process had special-interest written all over it. Agri-business lobbyists went to the Legislature with a request that generated no opposition from any potent force; and their ballot idea was approved before you knew it.
It is a proposal for an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. Why do some people want this all of a sudden, though the state has not had such a board — or considered inventing one — all these years? What problems have developed with the status quo?
None. The promoters of Issue 2 aren’t even complaining about anything. It’s just that animal-rights activists have sought some new rules in other states, and some people are anticipating them coming to Ohio next year.
Certain farm interests just want to get themselves insulated — with a board they control — so they never have to worry again.
That is not nearly a good enough reason to change the state constitution in a way that takes power that has always rested in the hands of elected officials — the governor and Legislature — and puts it where voters can’t get at it. The current system ain’t broke. Next year’s issues can be handled next year.
Issue 1: Give state’s recent war veterans extra money
Issue 1, on the other hand, has no political game-playing behind it. You get what you see.
As the ballot notes, it will cost the state up to $200 million (plus interest). The proposal is on the ballot because, in the opinion of the governor, at least, there’s no money in the state’s regular budget. (You know how that’s been going.)
The $200 million cost, divided among 11.5 million Ohioans, comes to about $17 a person, spread out over some time. It would go to veterans of modern war zones at the rate of $1,000 (or $100 for each month of service in the zone, whichever is less) per person, or $5,000 to the families of people who have been killed. It’s something other states are doing.
For those of us who have not been called up, not had our lives interrupted, not been in harm’s way, it’s not asking too much.
In all, voters are confronted with a bad way to approve casinos (Issue 3), a bad way to regulate farms (Issue 2) and a chance to put a little money in the hands of war veterans (Issue 1).
Permalink | Comments (33) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics, Rural Communities, Sports and Recreation, Wright Patterson Air Force Base
TweetEditorial: “Who’s better?’ is not the debate kids need
The debate about charter schools really has to move beyond the argument that asks, “Which is better — charter or traditional schools?”
Some recent research on charters, while raising interesting questions, remains too focused on pitting schools against each other.
When you put it in perspective, this is really an odd way to view the issue. Despite the grandiose ambitions of a few early supporters of the idea, charter schools are no threat to supplant traditional public schools. About 3 percent of American K-12 students attend the free, publicly funded, but privately run, schools.
It makes more sense to think of charters not as a competitor seeking to challenge the established public school system’s franchise, but rather as a complement to that system. Ideally, the new options offered by charter schools should be truly unique and experimental. In the best cases, that’s what charter schools do now.
On the local level, you see this approach at the Dayton Early College Academy — challenging students early with college-level work — and the ISUS Trade and Tech Prep High School — taking dropouts and teaching them job skills along the way to getting their academic careers back on track.
Nationally, new models like the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) — offering extended school days and school years and cultural reinforcements encouraging academic success — are perhaps showing the way to improve the life chances of poor, urban kids who too often haven’t had good schools to attend.
While these are charter school success stories, other ideas have flopped or, just as bad, floundered too long in mediocrity. As a result, charter school test performance has been mixed overall, which has partly fueled the obsession with comparing them to traditional schools as if this were a competition.
Two big studies this summer from the same university had differing takes on charter performance. While one set of Stanford researchers found charters lagging behind traditional schools in a survey of test data in 15 states and Washington, D.C., another Stanford team found New York City charter school students were gaining more test ground than kids who did not get selected for the schools via a lottery and thus remained in traditional schools.
This fall, Ohio’s Policy Matters think tank took a novel approach that looked at whether charter schools had an advantage by attracting better prepared kids. It found that in Ohio cities, charter school kids scored slightly higher than their traditional school counterparts on a kindergarten readiness assessment.
The study concluded charters are a bad policy choice since they have higher performing kids, on average, but were coming in with similar, or even sometimes lower, test scores than comparable traditional schools.
That kind of argument misses the point. The reality is that there are extreme differences in the quality of charter schools. Absolutely Ohio and other states should be more aggressive about closing down perpetually low-scoring charters. But without the charter school movement, education reform would be a big step behind where it is today.
The successes and exciting ideas that have emerged from charter schools are crucial to wider future reforms.
Dayton, which was the state’s first big charter school hot bed, is certainly better for having lived through what was, at times, a tumultuous evolution of the city’s education offerings. Dayton kids have better options today — both from outside and from within the district — than they did a decade ago. Charters were an important catalyst for positive change here, even though Dayton’s charter school test scores, on average, have not blown away those of traditional schools.
The focus should be on nurturing charter school successes, incubating other promising new school reform models and pruning those charters that have failed. To focus on an artificial horse race between charters and traditional schools is giving into distraction at a time when school reform needs to remain focused.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott
TweetScott Elliott: Dayton schools could have been Detroit
The 11 years since the advent of charter schools in Dayton has, at times, felt wrenching.
Schools closed, while others opened. The school district battled a seemingly never-ending financial squeeze. All the while, Dayton students have continued to struggle to pull themselves out of the basement relative to Ohio’s 610 school districts on test scores.
Yet, in other ways, Dayton is a dream example of the positive effects of charter schools. You need only look three hours north to Detroit to see just how wrong things might have gone.
The first charter school opened here in 1998 and, within two years, a flood of students left the district, choosing from an array of new charter schools. The district was hit with a severe financial loss. That’s because, as the kids left, they took a big chunk of the district’s state aid with them.
Dayton responded well to the economic and competitive pressure of charter schools. In 2001, the city elected a reform school board led by Gail Littlejohn, who was motivated to run, in part, by the sense of crisis that was being exacerbated by charters.
The Littlejohn-led board took crucial financial steps and then began trying to mimic what was working for successful charters.
The board started by shutting down a lot of low-enrollment schools. Before charters, board members didn’t have the political courage to close even one school for a decade and a half, despite a precipitous decline in enrollment. In response to charter schools, the board closed more than 15 schools, most of them longtime low-scorers.
But the district also responded by opening new schools and creating new, high-quality options. Among them were an early college high school, a boys-only school, a girls-only school and an academic magnet program. These schools looked a lot like the charter schools.
The end result was the district’s tumbling enrollment stabilized. Its test performance, while still low, improved. Its finances continued to be strapped, but at least the district managed to get out of crisis mode.
Suppose it hadn’t worked out that way. What if good people hadn’t been motivated to run for the school board? What if they didn’t make tough, unpopular choices or weren’t bold enough to experiment with their own charter-like options?
Had it gone the other way, Dayton might be where Detroit is today.
To be fair, at its worst, Dayton schools were never as corrupt nor as suffocatingly bureaucratic as Detroit’s. Even so, the things that Dayton did right, Detroit did wrong. When Dayton was recognizing the need to compete, Detroit was burying its head in the sand, hoping charters would somehow go away. While Dayton was trying out its own academic experiments, Detroit mostly just kept doing what it always did.
In the end, Detroit schools were hammered by enrollment losses, both to charters and simply from families rapidly escaping to the suburbs. The corresponding loss in state aid left them drowning in red ink. Detroit schools are all but bankrupt.
Last year, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm appointed an “emergency financial manager” to take charge of the district and to deal with its staggering $260 million deficit (bigger than the entire annual budget of Dayton schools). Robert Bobb, a veteran public administrator, has earned good reviews for his efforts to root out corruption and make the hard choices the city’s school board never seemed able to confront.
No matter how you look at it, Detroit is a mess. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called the district “New Orleans without Katrina.” Ouch.
Dayton certainly hasn’t done everything right. Most frustratingly, test scores have only nudged up slightly despite the decade of big changes in the city’s education system. But, by comparison, it’s clear Dayton did a lot of things right.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Columns, Education, Scott Elliott
TweetKevin Riley: Site selectors tell the good, bad about us
NCR’s decision to move its headquarters to Georgia bruised Dayton’s collective ego. Beyond the anger over losing the jobs and a business that began here and literally revolutionized commerce, the company hurt our pride. Its leaders all but said that Dayton is small-time and doesn’t meet the needs of a high-tech, global company.
How does our region stack up in the world of site selection, the process by which companies decide where to put their operations? Like our competitors, Dayton has advantages, possibilities and opportunities — and limitations.
There are legions of consultants and companies that help companies select sites, although not every company turns to these specialists. Pretty much every decision is handled differently, each having its own wrinkles and peculiar considerations.
Because of the NCR experience, I’ve been asking some consultants, site developers and one regional company’s decision-makers to shed light on how these choices get made. None of the folks I talked to was involved or had information about NCR’s move; all spoke generally about the process.
Some things to know:
• Headquarters moves like NCR’s are rare, although they get lots of attention when they happen because they’re so traumatic for individual communities and even to whole states.
• Companies are more likely to move “back office” functions, create a call center, build a manufacturing site or locate a warehouse away from the headquarters than to pick up and move the corporate offices.
• Sometimes a community (or a state) will know it’s being considered, but not always, especially during the first cut.
• Sometimes companies go through a thorough, objective process that analyzes data about a region. (Large, publicly held companies are more likely to do this.) Other companies resort to a more informal process that establishes the first cut based on perhaps the CEO’s preference.
• Personal relationships can matter.
• Expansion or consolidation in a place where a company already has operations is almost always easier than wooing a new business or its headquarters.
• As the process moves along, communities often will be pitted against each other in an effort to get incentives such as tax breaks, grants and government support.
Sometimes this help is important, sometimes not. But the “tone” and speed of a community’s response matters.
What do site selectors see in Dayton?
We have advantages: an impressive collection of high-quality colleges and a central location served by a good transportation system.
Several consultants mentioned Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the region’s aerospace companies, although we need to keep marketing that advantage.
On the down side: we are an unlikely location for a large company’s headquarters. Unless, of course, that company “grows up” here.
Large, publicly traded companies view their headquarters as power and knowledge centers. They tend to be located in big cities with international cachet and big airports. Companies also want easy access to consultant pools and Wall Street analysts. That’s not us. But we are the kind of place that a lot of companies would consider if they are looking to expand and need an old-fashioned Midwestern work ethic, a place with established infrastructure or lots of clean water.
Also, the high-tech work at Wright-Patt is a huge opportunity to attract researchers and scholars who create intellectual synergy that’s important to businesses.
We’re seen by site selectors as a second- or third-tier, mature city transitioning from a traditional manufacturing economy. Our region offers an easy and high-quality lifestyle. But because we’re similar in that regard to so many Midwestern cities, a low cost of living and easy commutes don’t differentiate us in a site selector’s mind.
So what kind of company might be interested?
For sure, the ones that already have a presence here.
One consultant also mentioned that a foreign company looking to expand its manufacturing to the United States would be a good prospect for a region like Dayton. It would be a big fish in a small pond and get lets of support and attention, similar to the story of Honda in Ohio.
That’s more like the kind of story we have to work to tell.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Economy, Kevin Riley, Local Business
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Twin pediatricians case sets mind to whirring
All by itself, the story of Dr. Mark Blankenburg of Hamilton is a stunner, at least to his community.
Now in his early 50s, he has spent his career serving Hamilton as a pediatrician, only to be discovered to be an abuser of boys. He was convicted this month on 16 charges relating to having sex with underage male patients and paying them with money and drugs to keep them quiet.
It was a heck of a trial. The handful of alleged victims nearly all had credibility problems. One is in prison, perhaps for the rest of his life, for almost killing a police officer. Others admitted to getting illicit drugs from the doctor and to having sustained a relationship with him after the first sex act.
But the jury apparently had difficulty giving credence to defense arguments, including that the reason Blankenburg gave out money ($250,000 in one case) and drugs was that he was being extorted with the threat of exposure for things he had never done.
The trial — which I didn’t personally attend — was a lesson in how certain young psyches disintegrate. A boy might be shaken to his core by the first unwanted sexual experience, but he’d become hooked on the money and the drugs, and come back to the doctor for more. Disturbing stuff.
And yet, we haven’t gotten to the real stunner yet: The doctor has a twin, also a doctor, also a pediatrician, but in Fairfield, rather than Hamilton. They apparently shared the hobby of photographing high school sporting events. And the brother is charged with the same kinds of crimes, minus the drug angle. Specifically, he faces 22 counts and a trial in April.
The prosecutors had wanted to try the brothers in the same trial, because the charges overlap, involving some of the same victims. But the courts decided that jurors could be confused by the similar appearance of the two defendants and other factors.
The case raises fascinating questions about the origins of evil deeds, if the second brother is convicted. If two men with the same genes can live eerily similar lives, even to the point of a pattern of committing eerily similar sexual crimes, the notion that they are under the control of an awfully strong compulsion is stronger than if there’s just one perp. One has to wonder if they weren’t somehow destined to do what they did.
That point is not made here with an eye on punishment in these cases. Obviously, the accused have to be judged and punished according to the law.
But, with an eye on the future and how to avoid these kinds of horrors, the role of compulsion — of an internal force driving a person — has to be understood.
Of course, one pair of cases doesn’t prove much. In truth, if two people with the same genes act the same way, that doesn’t mean that genes are the reason, if they’ve also had the same experiences. Maybe the experiences are driving the situation. (Even in that case, though, the compulsions might be just as strong.)
Stephen T. Holmes, co-author of “Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior,” a 2008 textbook, says he suspects that experience is the crucial factor uniting the brothers, not biology, if, indeed, they’re guilty of very similar crimes. He says he can’t say what experiences they had, or where.
Studies show that if one identical twin has a pattern of criminal behavior, there’s a 60 percent chance the other will, too. For fraternal twins, the figure is 30 percent. (Holmes is quick to point out that these numbers don’t suggest for a second that twins are particularly given to crime. They certainly aren’t.)
Twins who commit crimes don’t necessarily commit the same crimes. Holmes says he has never seen anything remotely like the Blankenburg case, as charged.
There’s a new book called “Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How they Shape Our Lives,” by Nicholas A Christakis and James H. Fowler. You might have heard about its point: if the people in your circle are overweight, for example, you are more likely to be overweight. People reinforce each other.
In the same way, two brothers going in the same direction might reinforce each other. Soon, one has to guess, there’ll be a book about the Blankenburg case itself.
Pending whatever enlightenment that might offer, here’s an exercise that has set a lot of minds whirring over the years:
Imagine that you were separated at birth from your identical twin and grew up in a different environment. Then ponder which of your characteristics seem to you so ingrained in your makeup that you suspect your twin would share them.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Health Care, Martin Gottlieb, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Even if casinos are called for, Issue 3 isn’t
2009 ELECTIONS
Whenever there’s a gambling issue on the ballot, discussion turns, as it should, of course, to the specifics of the plan at hand.
In the case of Issue 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot, the plan collapses in appeal upon inspection. It is designed to give specific companies what they want: the casinos they want; the sites they want; the tax rates they want; you name it.
This is an utterly preposterous way for a state to do business, a preposterous way for Ohio to enter the realm of casino gambling, even if one supports casino gambling.
But what about casino gambling itself?
What about the big picture? Is a state better off to have four casinos than none?
The case for casinos these days starts with the fact that other nearby states have casinos. This results in Ohioans spending their money elsewhere, while no one is bringing this kind of money to Ohio.
One seldom hears this downside of putting casinos in Ohio: If casinos are even more prevalent — more convenient — more people will gamble. And people who already gamble will gamble more. Nobody can seriously dispute either assertion. The honest advocates of casinos don’t even try.
Not only would more people gamble, but more people who shouldn’t gamble would gamble. That is, more people who have a gambling problem. Resisting a temptation to drive to Indiana is one thing. Resisting a drive downtown is another.
To expand gambling opportunities is to make a conscious decision to add to society’s social problems, to weaken families, to undermine more lives — whatever alleged good a casino might also do.
The most common rebuttal to that point is that a free society has to put adults in charge of their own lives. Nobody, after all, will force anybody to gamble. People ought to have the option. Adults who can control their impulses should not have their freedom infringed upon because some other people — a minority — can’t.
This is an argument that must be taken seriously. Virtually all Americans have embraced the call to individual freedom about one controversy or another: guns, speech, alcohol, pornography, tobacco. Sometimes it prevails. Sometimes it doesn’t. (Drugs, prostitution.)
In some areas, the possibility of banning enticement to self-destructive behavior by adults is never taken seriously. (Sugar, fast food.)
With regard to gambling, society has taken what might be called a middle ground. Some forms of gambling are legal and/or prevalent, and others aren’t. State lotteries are everywhere (wherein governments not only allow gambling, but encourage it). Racetracks are all over Ohio. Internet gambling proliferates. Private poker games are common. Nonprofits use gambling to raise money. And, of course, many states have casinos.
The result is a virtual absence of restraint on the right of highly motivated gamblers to gamble.
So the strength of what might be called the libertarian case for casinos in Ohio — that adults ought to be free to waste their own money — is minimal. People have that freedom.
If, as society seems to have decided, a balance is to be struck between the good and bad effects of gambling, then all logic points to the need for considering the specifics of any proposal.
That is, the decision is made that, for some reason, nearby casinos should be added to the mix — a dubious notion itself — then sharp attention must fall on the specifics, on how to allow for casinos.
At that point, surely all reasonable people can agree that the way to do it is to allow for a casino (or a certain number) under certain regulations (including state-set tax rates), and then allowing for bids, for competition among developers. The best way is obviously not to allow certain developers to put their own proposals into the state’s constitution.
Permalink | Comments (15) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics, Sports and Recreation
TweetEditorial: Locals can’t wait for others to fix housing collapse
Dayton has had a problem with its houses for as long as a lot of people can remember.
A quarter century ago, home-owners were leaving the city. Sometimes they found buyers for their houses, sometimes not. Sometimes they kept up the houses they left behind, sometimes not. When they rented them out, sometimes their tenants were responsible, sometimes not.
Even then, the city was looking for people to take over houses — at a very low cost — that were empty and in decline.
So when the foreclosure crisis started to hit Dayton — not in the middle of this decade, when most of the country noticed it, but at the beginning — not much decline was necessary to create a crisis.
The city tried to combat the problem with legislation — instigated by Commissioner Dean Lovelace — to regulate the predatory lenders who were pushing mortgages that forced many trusting and responsible homeowners into default.
The state shot down that legislation, only to pass its own years later, when it finally realized what Dayton (and other cities, too) had been trying to tell it about sleazy lenders.
Too little, too late.
Now, things are so bad that banks are not even repossessing some properties they have foreclosed on. They don’t want to pay the taxes or put out for even minimal upkeep. But the people who lived in the houses are gone, forced out.
That leaves a house just sitting, unclaimed, untended — with no prospect for being owned, because of the legal hassles of establishing who can sell it or give it away.
City officials have proposed creating a “land bank.” Under that program, which other cities are trying, the city takes over property that nobody else wants and tries to identify new owners and new uses. That requires money. So far, Columbus has not allowed cities the size of Dayton to establish the kind of cash-flow that might make the project work (although Cleveland has been allowed to experiment).
Still, Dayton is moving ahead, trying to tear down nuisances. Trying to let neighbors have access to these properties for a pittance. Trying, with the help of Montgomery County, to minimize the number of properties that are abandoned.
County Recorder Willis Blackshear, who long ago took the initiative to alert people who might be the target of foreclosures, now is trying to get the word out to people who are getting foreclosure notices not to leave immediately. Leaving their home may not be necessary, and it’s certainly not good for neighborhoods, maybe not even for the mortgage holder.
Meanwhile, John Carter, a Dayton housing inspector, has taken upon himself the task of finding out who actually holds particular mortgages — no easy task in these days of complex financial dealings — and is insisting they do some upkeep. Lo and behold, he has had some success.
Ultimately, Dayton needs fewer buildings. The reduction is hard to paint as progress. But if the city is to have a rebirth, it has to remove the blight, take down what can’t be saved.
The problem at hand is national. But Dayton and, increasingly some suburbs, can’t just sit back and wait for Washington, Columbus and the mortgage industry to get their acts together or for the economy to improve. That much is obvious.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Editorials, Martin Gottlieb
TweetGary Leitzell: Editorial was sexist, didn’t tell truth
Gary Leitzell, candidate for mayor of Dayton, wrote the following in response to the Dayton Daily News’ recommendation of Mayor Rhine McLin.
I am not surprised by the DDN’s recommendation of our incumbent mayor. She is part of the political machine that the newspaper is expected to support.
However, the DDN fails to print the truth.
It states that I am not ready because I speculate that our business regulation ordinances are outdated and I don’t cite examples. Every business owner whom I have talked to agrees with me, and I have spoken with more than 100.
The DDN says I am disconnected from the real-world problems at city hall. Yet I have attended hundreds of city meetings during the last 10 years, and I can honestly state that no editor of the DDN attended any of those meetings.
So I ask, Who are you to state that I am disconnected?
If City Hall became customer-oriented years ago and reconnected with the taxpayers, it would have fewer real-world problems today.
The DDN is sexist when it mocks me as a “stay-at-home father” and is narrow-minded when it adds “who paints miniature figurines to add to the family income.”
No one from the DDN has ever questioned my role in the miniatures gaming industry. They may be impressed my credentials. Since I work from home, I stay at home.
My work takes skill. Writing opinions does not.
My house blog (www.thisoldcrackhouse.blogspot.com) is mentioned in many national magazines and newspapers. It provides inspirational information to the do-it-yourself home remodeler.
I own rental property. I teach my child. I run a neighborhood association, I have maintained a monthly newsletter for seven years. I chair a priority board.
The latter position is elected — not exactly the things you would expect a “house husband” to do.
The DDN states, “Nothing in his background suggests readiness to be mayor of a diverse, complex, troubled city.” The editors have a copy of my resume. That resume is viewable at www.GoGaryGo.net.
It documents considerable sales, marketing and management skills. I have excellent people skills. The DDN failed to list the information the resume contained.
The incumbent mayor has 20 years of political experience, but is she better qualified? You can have all the experience in the world. It does not make you good at your “job.”
Experience is simply a term we give to our mistakes. If the quality of one’s work sets the standard for experience, I excel. Twenty years of my life exceeds one year of political experience 20 times.
Look at how the “leader in tough times” markets herself. Count the number of green/white/black signs you see on vacant lots. Quality marketing?
I hope the DDN will hire the mayor to market its paper since the editorial board feels she is the “best” choice. My feeling is that she will need a job.
Vote Nov. 3 for the candidate who will move Dayton in a positive direction and make it a quality place.
By his own hand and in his own words.
Permalink | Comments (80) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Elections, Guest Columns, Miami Valley Politics
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Leitzell cites Reagan, Thatcher; what’s it mean
Two columns for the price of one:
In this business, one meets new candidates for political office all the time. One ponders how to get a fix on them. You can — you do — ask them a bunch of questions about specific issues in their races. But you sometimes come out of a session like that with the feeling that you haven’t really gotten to what makes them tick.
You can ask them to place themselves along the liberal-conservative spectrum. But you’re likely to get a lecture about the dangers of labels, especially in local races, where ideology doesn’t really count for much.
I’ve found that asking people whom they admire in public office often yields a lot. Name someone whom we are likely to have heard of whom you think does the job right.
So last month, Dayton mayoral candidate Gary Leitzell was at the paper. He’s a first-time candidate.
At one point, I asked him about money or other help coming from the Republican Party. He said that people shouldn’t read too much into the fact that he has the Republican endorsement. He emphasized that, while he appreciates the endorsement, he is all about the independent label.
Well, sometimes the word independent signifies somebody who finds the two major parties equally offensive; but sometimes it means somebody who is to the left of the Democrats or the right of the Republicans. It can mean just about anything.
So I went to my question: Tell me somebody in political life whom you really admire. He thought for a while, and said, “Ronald Reagan.”
Hmmm, I started to say, you’re kind of throwing me a curveball.
“OK, Margaret Thatcher,” he said. (Remember, Leitzell grew up in Britain.)
Like I say, hmmm. Two conservative icons.
The discussion quickly found its way back to local issues and the candidate’s biography, partly because it was clear he wasn’t there to sell Reagan or Thatcher.
Now, I don’t believe that Leitzell’s answers suggest that he has a hidden agenda of tax cuts, privatization and union busting, or that he necessarily plans to join the Republicans upon election.
My interpretation is that he mentioned two people he sees as having come into bad situations and made them better.
Certain kinds of political advisers would have warned him against naming two icons of the conservative Republicans when he’s seeking election in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. I’m not really sure there’s much danger. But it generally doesn’t take much danger to instill political caution.
My sense was that Leitzell just isn’t enough of a political junkie to have thought in those terms. Which can be either a good or bad thing.
LIMBAUGH AND THE NFL
OK, let’s talk about this Rush Limbaugh football stuff. Everybody else is, or was, last week.
I have no opinion on whether he should be an owner of a National Football League team. Just this observation:
Though something he said about a black quarterback is often mentioned as the heart of his problem in getting approved, clearly there’s more to it.
Here we have a guy who goes out of his way to make himself hated by an awful lot of people, over politics. In his business — the polarization business — being hated by many is the other side of being loved by many.
He has taken up the role of the enemy, not just of a school of thought, but of the people who adhere to it. He paints them as all things ugly, as people who hold ordinary people and their values in contempt, who hate the country, who are peculiarly mendacious in the way they conduct politics, habitually dishonest and hypocritical, not to mention dangerous because they are dripping in money and in control of institutions.
He foments hatred, then asks, Why do people hate me?
Permalink | Comments (21) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Columns, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
TweetEditorial: Compton, Cline, Singer best for Centerville
2009 ELECTIONS
Centerville residents have to eliminate someone who is running for city council.
Three incumbents want to be re-elected; a newcomer, who says she respects each of her opponents, would like to move one of them off.
Brooks Compton, 55, and James Singer, 75, are running as a team. Mr. Singer, an engineer, has been on council for 32 years; Mr. Compton, an attorney, has nearly 18 years of experience (though the service isn’t consecutive). Together, the men have close to 50 years of time in their positions.
Doug Cline, the youngest of the candidates, at 51, has been on council since 1999. Knowing the level of experience she is up against, Joy Brush’s pitch is that she would bring fresh ideas to the table.
There’s no case for throwing out the incumbents. All three are dutiful and engaged in the community and the city’s business.
Mr. Compton was deputy mayor for six years and has been on numerous city government committees, as well as groups that promote the community and its amenities. He was co-chair, for instance, of the “Yes for Rec” levy campaign.
Mr. Singer, too, has been deputy mayor. He’s worked on issues relating to the big picture, sitting on the Financial and Long Range Planning Committee. He has also focused on specific problems, serving on the Storm Waster Drainage Task Force.
Mr. Cline has been deputy mayor since 2004. An investment adviser, he co-chaired the “Create the Vision” task force and a committee designed to modernize development rules and restrictions.
Ms. Brush, 63, is not new to Centerville’s civic scene. She has been president of the Centerville/Washington Twp. Americana Festival, a major community event. She has volunteer activities to her credit and owns Mobile Health Services, which screens individuals applying for life insurance.
Centerville’s controversies are small and easy as compared to the problems many other local governments are having. As ugly as things have gotten with Sugarcreek Twp. about how much tax revenue each jurisdiction will get from the development occurring at the Dille property, and even as tense as relations have been with Washington Twp. over the question of merging, Centerville is financially stable.
Things may not always be so simple, though. All of the candidates are worried that many Centerville properties are too pricey for young families, a reality that impacts the schools and the kinds of businesses that will locate there.
The candidates also are sensitive to the fact that Centerville can’t offer young professionals some of the housing options they want — small, affordable places that allow people to walk to shop and even to work.
Meanwhile, as the community ages, property taxes, especially for the schools, are not cheap.
With Montgomery County putting on the pressure for Washington Twp. to pay the sheriff more for police service, it will be interesting to see whether Centerville and the township can work out an arrangement that gives Centerville that responsibility.
Centerville administrators have been predicting this day would come. If Centerville ends up providing police protection for both communities — while the township already provides fire service for Centerville — you have to wonder why in the world the two local governments don’t merge.
Centerville is lucky in so many ways, not the least of which is having good people who are interested in the city government.
Mr. Compton, Mr. Singer and Mr. Cline are assets and deserve voters’ support.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Voters should know if a candidate can hold office
With it up in the air whether city council candidate Edward Jones can serve if elected, West Carrollton residents could be throwing away their vote by supporting him.
That’s a situation the Ohio legislature should fix. The rules should be clear about who is eligible to hold public office. Candidates also should have to disclose if they have felony convictions, so a determination about their eligibility can be made before ballots are printed.
On the question of whether Mr. Jones is an appropriate candidate for city council, voters should steer clear of him because of the nature of the crime he was convicted of only last year.
Mr. Jones’ eligibility to serve on city council is unclear because he was convicted of receiving stolen property, a fourth-degree felony. Police said Mr. Jones received merchandise stolen from a local dollar store, which ended up being offered for sale in a store owned by his ex-wife, Jody Jones.
Ms. Jones sits on West Carrollton Council. A grand jury did not indict her. In all, $8,000 in stolen merchandise was found in her store.
Mr. Jones, who was seen on surveillance tapes gathering merchandise in the dollar store and leaving without paying, pleaded no contest, was found guilty, performed community service and paid $2,244.29 in restitution.
West Carrollton Law Director Lori Kirkwood’s view is that, as a convicted felon, Mr. Jones has forfeited his privilege to hold public office under Ohio law. If he is elected, she said she’ll go to court to bar him from taking a seat.
A spokeswoman for Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray said that office does not issue opinions in cases such as this unless formally requested to do so. But she pointed to recent opinions, including one from 2006, that appears to support Mr. Jones’ view that he can serve.
Commenting on a case in Clermont County of an ex-felon seeking a seat on a zoning appeals board, that Ohio Attorney General’s opinion said:
“… a person convicted of a felony under the laws of Ohio is restored the privilege of holding an office of honor, trust, or profit, which had been forfeited by operation of R.C. 2961.01, when the person is granted a final release by the Adult Parole Authority…”
Since Mr. Jones has completed probation, this opinion favors him.
Still, there is no guarantee the law would be interpreted the same way this time. Other cases, with somewhat different circumstances, have disqualified potential officeholders. Only lawmakers can eliminate any ambiguity.
West Carrollton voters should know when they enter the ballot booth that all the candidates are truly eligible to serve. They can’t be sure of that in this case.
Meanwhile, Mr. Jones’ record is disturbing, so much so that he shouldn’t be in a position of trust. Six people are running for four seats. Voters have other choices.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Elections, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Dayton-Xenia ramps should stay open
If it follows its normal protocol, the Ohio Department of Transportation will close the partial interchange at Dayton-Xenia Road as part of an upcoming project to widen U.S. 35.
That’s a mistake. Greene County leaders and citizens who have raised objections are absolutely right. The good news is the state has the flexibility under its own rules to make a sensible exception.
The general rule for highway construction is to bring interchanges up to today’s standards anytime there is major remodeling of the nearby roadway. That’s the reason some of the smaller on and off ramps along Interstate 75 are being closed as part of its major renovation. The approach has worked well on the I-75 project.
In general, the feeling today is that highways should only have full interchanges, and that the partial interchanges create confusion and safety problems. The concern is valid.
At Dayton-Xenia Road, an off ramp from eastbound U.S. 35 requires quick deceleration to exit the highway, and the ramp’s close proximity to the interchange ramps for I-675 sometimes confuses drivers.
It’s not a perfect situation. Cars driving on Dayton-Xenia Road can merge onto U.S. 35 going west via an on ramp that also is very close to the I-675 interchange.
But closing the ramps creates new problems. Beavercreek officials say about 7,000 cars a day travel the Dayton-Xenia road ramps. Businesses along the route, and even farther along Dayton-Xenia Road on the east side of Beavercreek, depend on foot traffic from those vehicles. They could be hurt badly by the ramp closings.
If the ramps are closed, that decision also creates problems for drivers who need to come to Dayton from that area of Beavercreek. They’d either have to access U.S. 35 from much farther away or travel a long stretch of Linden Avenue until they reach the U.S. 35 interchange with Woodman Drive. That would increase traffic in front of Carroll High School, especially during morning rush hour, which could create a new safety concern.
A couple changes could resolve much of the safety problems with the ramps in question.
Better highway signs alerting drivers to the Dayton-Xenia Road exit and distinguishing it clearly from the I-675 ramps could reduce driver confusion. Widening the highway, coupled with a Bevercreek city project that will widen Dayton-Xenia Road and add a lane, should also make access going both ways smoother.
Construction won’t begin for several years. The transportation department has been doing its homework. It has held public meetings and solicited feedback on the plan and already has heard a lot of complaints.
It should heed the calls to leave the Dayton-Xenia ramps open.
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities, Transportation
TweetJennifer Brunner: Fixing residency laws could prevent confusion
As discussion continues to swirl about the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court on former House Speaker and Ohio Sen. Jon Husted’s residency, I offer more food for thought.
When I received the high court’s decision, I said: “Whether it’s a decision by a Democratic secretary of state or an all-Republican Supreme Court, someone will question the motivation behind such a decision.”
And precisely that has occurred.
Husted has called my decision on the Montgomery County Board of Elections’ tie vote on whether he could vote in his district a “witch hunt,” while Ohio GOP Chair Kevin DeWine has called me a “dimwit.” This is not how government is supposed to work, and it doesn’t benefit voters.
Here are the problems with the court’s decision, and here are things the Ohio legislature can do to change it.
As Husted said during the board of elections’ hearing: “… look, I’m a lawmaker. I can change a law anytime I want.”
• The court limited its decision on Husted’s residence to treating him as a Montgomery County resident for “election purposes.”
• The court mistakenly said the secretary of state canceled his voter registration, when the board had not yet taken action after my tie-breaking vote. Husted never lost his right to vote.
• The court simply ordered the board of elections to find that the state senator is a resident of Montgomery County in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and to keep his name on the county’s registration rolls.
• The court allowed only this state senator to have his case judged by a higher standard in determining his residency, then said that that standard could not be met because the law has conflicting sections. More troubling is that the court specifically declined to apply that higher standard to ordinary Ohioans who may find themselves in the same situation as Husted.
• The court failed to overrule a harsh case that stripped a Kelleys Island councilman of his voting rights that was strikingly similar to the state senator’s case. That was the case I was required to rely on.
• The court pointed out that “the secretary determined that the record submitted to her was insufficient, and so she obtained additional evidence and then returned the matter to the board for its consideration,” and did not characterize my actions as an abuse of discretion or a “witch hunt.”
• The court stripped boards of elections of the authority to cancel a voter registration on a simple investigation and now requires an extra administrative step to cancel a voter registration, essentially making it harder to fight voter fraud.
Now Husted is raising money on claims that he has fought harder than anyone else for the right to vote. I think he should revisit history in 1920 and the era of women’s suffrage and the 1960s turmoil of the civil rights movement to get his facts straight.
He stated under oath at the board’s hearing that he lives with his family in Franklin County, his children attend school in Franklin County, his Senate paycheck is deposited into a joint account with his wife in Franklin County, and documents show that his wife votes in Franklin County and his utilities are sporadically and rarely used in Montgomery County.
Husted should act on his assertions that he can change the law anytime he wants to. He should work in a bipartisan fashion to create a legislative bright line to determine residency. Ohio’s residency laws are inconsistent and do not promote a clear understanding of voting rights that encourage participation.
Jennifer Brunner is Ohio secretary of state. She currently is running for the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Guest Columns
TweetEditorial: McLin better for tough job
2009 ELECTIONS
As the City of Dayton has lost people and jobs, the role of mayor of the region’s center has gotten woefully smaller.
Once upon a time, the job came with a portfolio that, depending on the person in the position, could be leveraged. Partly because downtown was an important center of things — with most of the region’s big businesses there — the mayor had a bully pulpit and was a spokesperson for more than the city.
Not so much today.
Rhine McLin isn’t a natural spokesperson, and she does not have the reflexes of either former Mayor Paul Leonard or former Mayor Mike Turner that would allow her to parlay her office into something larger. Eight years into the job, she struggles to be a force in the room and in the wider community.
Absolutely, the mayor has fine relationships with many people and other elected officials. (It would be a problem if she didn’t, or if she tried to roll over others as was frequently Mr. Turner’s style.) But it must be said: she is not an initiator or a born leader.
What she does have are some good instincts.
She is intuitive about what won’t sit well with citizens and the unintended consequences of decisions that would disadvantage Dayton. Often when the cameras aren’t rolling, she can wittily and insightfully sum up bone-headed ideas. Despite her foibles, she is more astute than many give her credit for.
When prepped and convinced of the need for a hard decision — telling public employee unions “no,” laying off workers, supporting gay rights — she does the right thing.
In very many ways, Mayor McLin is more suited for service in the legislature, where she served before being mayor. When she was one of 33 members of the Ohio Senate, she wasn’t as high profile, except when she chose to be. She liked having a choice, and she was a force to be reckoned with because of the easy and sincere way she relates to people.
It goes without saying that being mayor is much harder — especially in a city that has been so battered.
The city fathers who decided after the flood that Dayton needed a professional city manager form of government couldn’t have foreseen the spot Dayton would be in today. But their decision is now serving the city well.
With so many people having left for the suburbs, the line of people stepping up to serve on the five-member city commission — as mayor or commissioner — is often short or mostly unimpressive.
Maybe if the city had a strong-mayor form of government, more people would be interested in this demanding and mostly thankless work. But that view is only a theory or a hope.
Notwithstanding its shrinking size and its financial and social challenges, Dayton has been lucky to consistently have competent professionals advising the politicians.
When it comes to respecting the professionals, Mayor McLin can’t be faulted. She has shown excellent judgment in helping to pick, and then deferring to, City Manager Jim Dinneen, and then Rashad Young. She and the other commissioners demonstrated especially good judgment in tapping Tim Riordan to step in for Mr. Young, who left in October.
There is every reason to believe that when Mr. Riordan presents her with the awful choices that the city’s projected $17-million deficit in 2010 will require, the mayor will, to the best of her ability, explain, defend and act.
Then she will accept the inevitable politically pounding.
Dayton is not as poised for the renaissance that Mayor McLin, in her exuberant moments, wants voters to believe. That said, it has pockets of hard-won redevelopment and strategic-minded reinvestment.
Downtown’s Tech Town, which is an emerging business park on the old Harrison Radiator site, falls into that category. CareSource’s commitment to downtown was a win.
The University of Dayton’s aggressive investments in its campus, and Dayton’s hospitals’ commitment to expanding their complexes and revitalizing nearby neighborhoods, have been critically important to the city’s well-being.
With old, hulking manufacturing plants a thing of the past, the mayor is right when she says that the city’s and region’s future is in nurturing Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, area universities and the myriad small businesses that hire people by the dozen, not the thousands.
Mayor McLin’s opponent in the November election is Gary Leitzell, chairman of the Southeast Priority Board and the Walnut Hills neighborhood association. Give him credit for making the race. It’s not easy for a newcomer; he’s giving voters a choice, and there’s always something to be said for making the incumbent sweat.
But Mr. Leitzell is not ready. For example, he says Dayton’s business regulation ordinances are outdated, while admitting that he doesn’t really know that for sure and without citing examples.
He thinks half of the city’s projected $17 million deficit can be made up with new revenue, which amounts to a denial of the foremost challenge facing the next mayor and City Hall.
He talks much of a “disconnect” between the city and its neighborhoods, people and businesses. But there is a disconnect between him and the real-world problems of a city hall.
He is a stay-at-home father who paints miniature figurines to add to the family income. Though his neighborhood activism is a start, nothing in his background suggests readiness to be mayor of a diverse, complex, troubled city.
The most important task Mayor McLin and the administration have is managing Dayton’s ongoing downsizing in a responsible, smart way. She and the commission must keep the city solvent and focused on public safety and essential public services that protect citizens’ investments in their homes and businesses.
Delivering those services in the most cost-effective way has never been more important.
Even if Dayton does all this well, the city’s ability — on its own — to seed new initiatives, to put up money for new amenities and to do favors for business prospects will be sharply limited.
Mayor McLin has the unlucky responsibility of being in a job that is as difficult as it has ever been in modern history. Her experience and her commitment to doing what must be done make her the better choice on Nov. 3.
Permalink | Comments (119) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, City of Dayton, Editorials, Ellen Belcher
TweetEllen Belcher: Casino backers way worse than your kids
2009 Elections
This is every mother’s confession:
Once you have kids, there’s a lot in life that you can’t help but see through the prism of that experience.
The temper-prone idiot at work looks a lot like your 2-year-old.
The rude clerk sounds just like your pre-teen.
The bullying boss could pass for the kid who keeps tripping your son at recess.
Your melodramatic best friend sounds a lot like your overwrought 16-year-old daughter.
It’s true; there’s a lot about children and their life cycle that prepares you for dealing with the adult world. (I digress, but I’m totally convinced that women are much more likely to notice this than men. Fellows, now you know our secret.)
All of this brings me — no kidding — to Issue 3, the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow a casino in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.
For the fifth time in two decades, you’re being asked to allow casino gambling. Four times you have said no. But “the kid” — the gambling industry — will just not give it up.
“He” keeps asking, begging, bribing, whining until you swear you’re going to slap him to sleep.
“Everybody’s doing it,” goes the argument, “Please, please, please.”
Gag me. Been there, heard that stuff for longer than I want to remember.
So enough with the metaphors. Here are the reasons to hold your ground, to not give in, to not be worn down, to not say “yes” because you’re tired of fighting the fight.
Issue 3 was written by the very two outfits that would own the casinos. They decided their own tax rates. They decided who would benefit from the low taxes they’ll pay and in what amount.
They decided what their license fees would be. They decided there would be no competition in the state, even though they are poised to rake in money in perpetuity. For-ever.
Remember, we’re talking about changing the Constitution here. And also keep in mind that the typical slot machine takes in about $100,000 a year. The casinos could have thousands at each site.
I’ll admit it: No matter who wrote the rules, you probably could never get my vote to allow casinos. I’ve been in one exactly twice, two decades apart. Once was in Reno, in 1995. This year I went to one of Pennsylvania’s new “racinos” in Erie.
The picture was the same: Hundreds and hundreds of people, many of them obviously not well-off, sitting around drinking, smoking and losing money hand over fist.
Obviously, people are free to spend their money and time how they want, but there’s something wrong with government wanting people to entertain themselves with discounted drinks and machines that are quite literally “one-armed bandits.”
There’s also something wrong with businesses getting filthy rich off an enterprise because they’re so rich they can stack a public-policy debate in their favor. Issue 3 would require Ohio’s casinos to pay 33 percent of gross revenue in taxes. But Pennsylvania’s rate is 55 percent; Illinois’ is 50 percent; Indiana’s is 35 percent; Michigan’s is 34 percent.
Why should Ohio be demanding such a small cut? Because Ohio isn’t demanding anything. To repeat: the casino developers wrote the proposed amendment for themselves.
The last time you were asked to approve casinos, the pitch was that practically all of Ohio would get scholarships from the proceeds. This time, the argument is that Ohio will be swimming in jobs.
Are we really that gullible? More than half of the projected jobs are construction jobs that will disappear after the casinos are built, and a lot of the others are for blackjack dealers and cocktail waitresses. Now there’s a future for your children.
Casinos also are built to be self-contained. That is, they don’t want gamblers going out to nearby restaurants or visiting other tourist sites or seeing the town. That means casinos will put some other businesses out of business. But that loss of jobs isn’t talked about.
Next month, be the grown-up — again. Say no to Issue 3.
Permalink | Comments (18) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Columns, Elections, Ellen Belcher, Ohio government, Ohio politics
TweetEditorial: MetroParks levy funds more than you know
2009 Elections
If you haven’t been to Marie Aull’s garden, or Carriage Hill Farm, or the Butterfly House at Cox Arboretum, you’re missing out. Thanks to Five Rivers MetroParks, these places are yours to enjoy.
And there’s much, much more — at Germantown MetroPark, on the Mad River Recreation Trail, at the National City 2nd Street Market, RiverScape and Wegerzyn Gardens, just to name a few more MetroParks sites.
In fact, MetroParks has 25 parks covering almost 15,000 acres. Its 168 full-time employees and an almost equal number of part-time employees, interns and apprentices (not to mention dozens and dozens of volunteers), are caretakers of fabulous places where we teach our children, get away from our worries, revel in nature or just have a good time. (Did you miss the Garlic Festival last weekend?)
To keep the parks, trails and facilities in good order, Montgomery County voters have supported a property tax levy that will expire next year. MetroParks wants to replace that 10-year 1.8-mill levy with one of a like amount and duration.
(The last levy has been rolled back to 1.45 mills under a law that prevents property tax levies from automatically raising additional revenue as inflation pushes up property values.)
Currently, the owner of a $100,000 home pays $44 per year for the levy. The new levy would raise that amount to $55, less than a dollar a month more. The tax would raise $17.9 million.
There was a time when park districts consisted of maintaining picnic shelters and playgrounds. But progressive park programs have evolved into more expansive roles.
Today they’re conservators of green space, participating in the purchase of easements, for example, that make it worth property owners’ while to hold on to their farms and wilderness areas.
They’re stewards and guardians of waterways.
They’re rejuvenators of downtowns like Dayton’s that have rivers running through them.
They’re organizers of nature, environmental and entertainment programming for everyone from kids to seniors.
They’re professional managers of places that are best operated not by cities or counties, but by public organizations that have a singular focus on protecting nature and making it accessible.
They’re partners in communities’ economic development efforts by creating and marketing amenities that attract talented workers and their families, making them feel connected to a place.
MetroParks is doing all these things and more. The current Metro Parkways catalog of events for three months runs 51 pages. Yes, there’s some duplication, but if you can’t find at least three or four activities that you’d like to participate in, or that you think are valuable, you’re awfully difficult to interest in the world around you.
The Dayton community’s interest in its parks is not stagnant. The number of people riding MetroParks’ new mountain biking trail, backpacking on its hiking trails, taking kayaking classes and then showing up on the river and attending festivals at RiverScape is hard to measure with accuracy. But if you’ve been to these places, you know the facilities and amenities are appreciated.
Though MetroParks sites are by no means just for the young, today they’re especially important to mobile young professionals who have choices about where they can live and will choose where to stay based, in part, on the sorts of opportunities for fun they have after work.
The levy is a bargain. On a purely financial basis, many voters probably already have gotten their tax money back in enjoyment, but, if not, check out www.metroparks.org.http://www.metroparks.org/
The myriad choices you’ll see will surprise and overwhelm you — and they’ll convince you the levy is an investment.
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Elections, Ellen Belcher, Montgomery County, Sports and Recreation
TweetEditorial: Issue 3 is a stacked deck; casinos set own taxes
2009 ELECTIONS
If you’re confused about where Ohio is headed on allowing casinos, don’t feel badly. You aren’t alone.
Here is the important thing to keep straight when you vote Nov. 3: Even if you would like to gamble in the state, Issue 3 is a bad deal.
It is a constitutional amendment that would allow one casino in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. The proposal was written by and for the very developers who would own the casinos, down to the details of what tax rates they’d pay.
Wouldn’t you love to decide your own taxes?
Not shockingly, the deal is sweet. The casinos would pay 33 percent of gross revenue in taxes. Pennsylvania’s rate is 55 percent; Illinois’ is 50 percent; Indiana’s, 35 percent; Michigan’s is 19 percent.
The casinos would also pay one-time $50 million license fees, but other states have charged $250 million to $500 million.
The self-dealing isn’t just brazen; it’s shameless.
Two outfits stand to gain under the amendment:
Penn National Gaming and Dan Gilbert, who owns the Cleveland Cavaliers.
In other states, gaming businesses have had to compete by submitting bids to operate casinos. Penn National’s and Mr. Gilbert’s plan is to award themselves a monopoly and skip any competition.
The possibility of having a monopoly — and paying so little in taxes and fees — is how Penn National and Mr. Gilbert can afford to spend so much money in their campaign to fool voters about their initiative.
Their pitch is all about creating jobs — 34,000, they contend. But don’t be snookered. Nineteen thousand of those are construction jobs that would be temporary and would go away once the casinos were built. Many of the remaining other positions would be low paying, even part-time, hospitality jobs.
If Ohio wanted to give two specific businesses the sweetheart tax deal Penn National and Mr. Gilbert have cooked up, it wouldn’t give it to companies that would contribute so little in the way of meaningful job development.
Meanwhile, make no mistake about it: Gambling opportunities are so ubiquitous that people are not going to be flocking from outside of Ohio to play blackjack here. The state would capture some money it’s losing when Ohioans gamble in other states, but there won’t be any huge infusion of spending from outsiders.
The tax revenue from the casinos would be divvied up in the following proportions:
• 51 percent to county governments, according to population • 34 percent to schools, according to student population • 5 percent to host cities • 3 percent to a casino regulatory commission • 3 percent to support Ohio’s horse racing tracks • 2 percent to support treatment for problem gamblers • 2 percent to pay for law enforcement training.
Two observations:
Here we go again with proponents of gambling trying to use schools to line their own pockets. If the casinos are allowed, they’d raise about $200 million for schools. But the state spends $6.5 billion on K-12 education each year. The gambling money would be a drop in the bucket.
Giving law enforcement a cut of the money is a transparent effort to buy the Fraternal Order of Police’s support, a move that sadly worked.
Right now, the polls show Issue 3 passing. Many people seem to have decided that Ohio, though it has defeated four previous gambling measures, needs to join the crowd and capture some of the money that gamblers will spend somewhere.
The problem with that logic is that it overlooks the fact that allowing gambling comes with social costs and costs for governments and local communities. Issue 3 would let two companies run off with the biggest part of the profits, and leave Ohio paying expensive bills.
Issue 3 isn’t a gamble. It’s a rip-off.
Permalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements
TweetEditorial: State can afford Issue 1, bonus to veterans
2009 ELECTIONS
Issue 1 on the November ballot would give a little money to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, including the Gulf War of 1991.
Specifically, war-zone veterans would be eligible for up to $1,000, depending on how long they served ($100 for each month). Veterans of other places would get half as much. Families of war fatalities would get a $5,000 death benefit.
The issue would authorize up to $200 million in funding, financed by the sale of bonds. That’s equal to less than 1 percent of the money the state spends in a year.
The idea of the state offering a bonus has never been controversial since then-state Treasurer Richard Cordray made it in 2007, after hearing from troops that other states have such bonuses.
After all, Ohio has offered bonuses to veterans of other wars. Some observers have noted that those wars typically had a lot of draftees, whereas the recent ones have been fought by people who volunteered for, at least, reserve status.
Most people probably don’t see that distinction as important. So it hasn’t been important to the politicians. That’s just as well.
Many of the “volunteers” haven’t chosen a military career, or even a military stint, but have only made a decision about how to make financial ends meet, only to find their lives disrupted and jeopardized by more than one call-up.
The only real controversy in Columbus has been about how to pay for these bonuses. Basically, some lawmakers wanted to take the money out of regular operating revenues, rather than float bonds. That way, there would be no interest costs.
When the issue first arose, the only operating funds the Republicans could point to was the state’s rainy-day fund. Gov. Ted Strickland did not want to spend that money, saying that it might be needed for a rainy day. That decision looks pretty good now, given the ensuing budgetary monsoons.
Going the bond route has one advantage that isn’t often noted: It involves a decision by the voters of Ohio to reward the veterans. It’s more a people-to-people thing, not a politicians-to-people thing.
The politicians, of course, can take credit for putting the measure before voters. Not shockingly, that vote was overwhelming — after the governor had vetoed the attack on the rainy day fund.
At this stage, there’s no point in debating how to do this. If the bonus is a good idea at all, the time has come to act. So many veterans are already back. Once the measure is passed, delays will be inevitable in getting people their money. Ideally, Ohio should get to the point where veterans receive their money almost as soon as they return.
As for interest costs, again, the time to act is now, while interest rates are low.
One way or another, Ohio can afford this gesture to those who have gone into harm’s way for their country while so many of us have been completely unaffected by the long wars.
Caring for and rewarding veterans has always been understood as a federal responsibility, for obvious reasons. But nobody has ever said that states and voters can’t show appreciation, too.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics, Wright Patterson Air Force Base
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Leitzell, McLin did most of what they could in debate
2009 ELECTIONS
Debates are Rorschach tests for viewers. What you take away depends a lot on what you bring.
Well, bringing the particular baggage of a political animal who has been watching one candidate — the challenger — for a month and the other for years, my reaction to the Dayton mayoral debate was that both candidates did about as well as they could have hoped to.
Gary Leitzell still had to cross the first hurdle of a first-time, unknown candidate: to show that he’s not a joke. He did that, presenting himself better than I’ve seen, standing up to an incumbent and not being blown off the stage.
He did give the other side some future lines of attack, but he didn’t make the audience laugh at the wrong times or squirm in embarrassment for him.
Mayor Rhine McLin, who, despite a lifetime in and around politics, doesn’t relish this sort of political combat, had one overriding job: to make clear that she and the city commission have not been sitting on their hands for the past four or eight years as bad things have happened.
She did it. She had lists — perhaps too many — of programs that are under way, of efforts being made to counteract the national tides at work against Ohio and cities.
If the candidates had engaged in some give-and-take, her opponent might have said that somebody listening to her might get the impression that things are going fine in Dayton. That wasn’t her point, of course, but her enthusiasm came close to suggesting that.
At one point early on, she had a moment that brought to mind a certain vice presidential candidate of the recent past: stringing together phrases without an apparent sentence. But she quickly recovered with a couple of quite strong answers. Not the most polished politician in her use of the language, she did communicate.
Both the candidates managed to keep talking even when they couldn’t offer a direct answer to the question at hand. That’s a basic job requirement.
Leitzell said some things that would typically be considered impolitic:
• His home-schooled daughter would be bored in the Dayton public schools.
• Crime in Dayton is typically of a petty sort and, sure, you could avoid it by moving to the suburbs, but that would cost you a lot more. (He seemed to be settling for high crime as a reasonable trade-off for cheap housing.)
• The problem with the Dayton public schools is not the students, teachers or administrators, but the parents. (It’s a variation on a point that even Barack Obama makes. But making it even as you introduce yourself to those parents in their capacity as voters is tricky.)
These are the kinds of things that an experienced or trained candidate would be less likely to say. But perhaps some people will give Leitzell some credit for speaking his mind forthrightly.
Less forgivably, he speculated — as he has before — that Dayton’s business regulations date back to the 1950s or 1960s, when a few big businesses ran things and didn’t want any competition. There’s no excuse for a person in his role speculating. His job is to know, if he’s going to raise the subject.
Still, he had some good lines (“First in Flight” has taken on a whole new meaning for Dayton.) He pounced on some obvious weaknesses in the city’s record. And he presented a respectable alternative for a newcomer.
His specific policy ideas — selling city services to nearby communities, for example — seem unlikely to bring people to his side. But they’re enough to justify some people in saying a respectable alternative is at hand, if they are so inclined.
(Leitzell has wisely modified his proposal on regionalism, saying “baby steps” are needed, backing off the city-county merger he seemed to be calling for earlier.)
Typically, debates are seen as an opportunity for the challenger, but only a potential pitfall for the favored incumbent. But the Democrats behind McLin are hoping the debate will help to convince their people that there’s an actual race going on, and that they have to get to the polls.
The race had such a low profile until now that the Wednesday debate might almost be considered the beginning. Now come the mailings and the charges and countercharges. It could get unpleasant. Awakening potential voters sometimes entails (over)dramatizing a threat.
Debates like this are often criticized for being too controlled or having too little give-and-take. But, as often happens, this debate could turn out to have been the highlight of the campaign season.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Columns, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
TweetEditorial: Young, Paulson, Berry best choices for Washington Twp.
2009 ELECTIONS
Politics in and around Washington Twp. is returning to something like normal these days, in the wake of turmoil about “the merger,” that is, whether the township and Centerville should merge.
The idea was rejected overwhelmingly by township voters in 2008. The township doesn’t have an income tax, while Centerville does.
The issue will keep bubbling in one form or another, just because merger makes so much sense, and the township can’t keep asking for property tax increases to fund services. But, certainly, for the near term, the idea is dead.
Non-merger issues:
Not long ago, the south end of Montgomery County had no bigger problem than managing growth. Those days are gone.
The area has a special problem attracting young people, because of the price of real estate and the relatively big size of single-family lots — an acre being common.
Meanwhile, the township government is facing the kinds of budgetary problems faced by all levels of government these days.
The township has three trustees. All are on the ballot, in two different races. In one contest, incumbents Joyce Young, 74, and Lee Snyder, 74, are opposed by Scott Paulson, 33. The top two vote-getters take office.
Ms. Young has been a particularly visible participant in community affairs for decades, not letting the polio she contracted at 18 stop her even now.
Mr. Snyder owns Snyder Concrete Products, a major supplier of bricks. In 2006, he was alleged to have an interest in a condo development he had voted on, and to have voted on two other projects that involved his company.
It was a messy situation. The charges came from a township employee who was put on leave the day he made the allegations, then returned to his job.
The allegations also involved then-Trustee (now state Rep.) Terry Blair. They were found to be without merit by the township law director, after which the case was sent to the state ethics commission. No charges have been brought.
As a 2006 Dayton Daily News editorial said, there is no evidence of favoritism, much less corruption. Mr. Snyder is a respected community servant.
But there’s a recurring problem, if not a legal one. Mr. Snyder says he has to recuse himself on “four or five” votes a year. There are other judgment calls. Not an ideal situation.
Mr. Paulson doesn’t raise the issue. He is running as young blood. He says the township could use a younger face, with an eye particularly on the problem of attracting younger people.
(In the other race, all the candidates are in their 60s.)
Mr. Paulson’s appeal is somewhat undercut by the fact that he has only been in the township four years.
But he is serious about community involvement. He’s volunteered for the art institute and the March of Dimes and has gone through the Dayton Chamber of Commerce “Leadership Dayton” program.
A 1999 graduate of the University of Dayton, he is a partner at Advanced Engineer Solutions.
His call for a little age diversity makes sense. And Mr. Snyder’s occupation has to weigh in here.
Ms. Young and Mr. Paulson are the best choices.
In the other race, Dale M. Berry is the incumbent, by appointment of the other two trustees when Rep. Blair went to Columbus. There were about 20 applicants for the opening, some quite well qualified.
Now Mr. Berry is running for the final two years of that four-year term.
A self-employed real estate agent, he has been active in community affairs, both at the township level (on the zoning commission) and in the broader community (including as president of the board of realtors).
He has an especially good fix on the lack of housing for young people.
He has two challengers. Harry Drain is a former five-year trustee. His background is similar to Mr. Berry’s, including service on the zoning commission. He is in aerospace sales.
Also challenging is Kenneth Parks, for 34 years the township fire chief.
Any of the three would be a good choice. They are on the same wavelength on issues. The challengers make no particular critique of the incumbent. Mr. Berry is the best choice.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Schrimpf, Spolrich best for Kettering City Council
2009 ELECTION
Kettering is in a relatively good place right now. Its tax burden isn’t too high and it offers solid community services.
The big question is how to keep the momentum going at a time when the local economy is in decline and the city’s once-strong manufacturing base is a shadow of its former self.
Two at-large seats on the city council are on the Nov. 3 ballot. Four challengers have joined the two incumbents in the race.
The incumbents are Frank Spolrich, a retired Kettering principal elected to council in 2006, and Amy Schrimpf, who formerly worked for the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce and the Montgomery County Transportation Improvement District. Ms. Schrimpf, who was appointed to replace Peggy Lehner who went to the statehouse last December, left her job at the Transportation Improvement District to focus on this race.
The four challengers are:
• Timothy Allison, a supervisor at Kroger’s Springboro store;
• Ed Smith, a Dayton attorney;
• Debbie Waker, a teacher and former bank administrator;
• Ashley Webb, operations manager for a flooring distributor. While some of the challengers are good candidates with strong resumes, Mr. Spolrich and Ms. Schrimpf deserve to keep their council seats.
Mr. Webb and Ms. Waker argue that the city should be more hospitable to business. Ms. Waker, in particular, talks about the hurdles she faced helping her husband launch a small company in Kettering. She may have a point about the need to nurture small business more directly.
But the city overall has been proactive in pitching itself as a good place for business, especially by marketing its business parks at the former Defense Electronic Supply Center and in Research Park on the city’s east side.
A deep understanding of the local business community and its needs is a strength for Ms. Schrimpf. In her former role at the chamber of commerce, she worked closely with businesses. She was also deeply involved in developing the Austin Pike interchange along I-75. Those experiences should help her serve as an economic development ambassador.
Council picked Ms. Schrimpf from a pool of 28 applicants that included Mr. Webb, Ms. Waker and Mr. Smith. Given her chamber of commerce contacts, she was politically well-connected. But she was also a good choice.
Mr. Spolrich brings a long history of community service to the job. He is focused on quality-of-life issues — maintaining strong basic services, as well as assets that distinguish the city, such as quality parks and recreation.
Beyond his 40 years as an educator in both public and private schools (he was principal both at Fairmont High School and St. Albert the Great Catholic School), Mr. Spolrich has served on community boards in support of parks, youth health and the city’s annual Labor Day festival. He has demonstrated a deep commitment to the city and his knowledge of its people and institutions inform his decisions on council.
In this race, the incumbents are the best picks.
Permalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Hadley, Jarvis, Wallace are top picks for Beavercreek Council
2009 ELECTION
If there’s one issue that gets everyone’s attention in Beavercreek, it’s taxes.
The city is one of just a handful in the state that does not have an income tax, with voters having repeatedly rejected the idea.
At the same time, Beavercreek is a growing city, and its relationship to the surrounding Beavercreek Twp. is a major question, with the possibility of a merger always bubbling in the background.
The decisions ahead — whether the city should try again for an income tax and whether it should seek a merger with the township, and when and how those efforts might happen — are difficult. They will require city council members who can balance residents’ concerns with the practical financial realities of running a city.
On Nov. 3, Beavercreek voters must choose three council members from a field of six candidates. They are:
• Scott Hadley, a printing company owner, the former mayor and a council member since 1994.
• Brian Jarvis, a quality assurance manager for a military contractor who was appointed to a council seat in February and is seeking election for the first time.
• Linda Borgert, a paralegal.
• Tony Corvo, a research scientist for an aerospace company.
• Debborah Wallace, who runs her own insurance and financial services brokerage. Steve Stratton also is on the ballot, but declined to be interviewed by the Dayton Daily News editorial board, saying he has decided to no longer make the campaign a priority. Voters should support Mr. Hadley, Mr. Jarvis and Ms. Wallace.
Mr. Hadley has had a bumpy last term. As mayor in 2007, he was dismissive of criticism that he had a conflict of interest when it became public that his company did printing work both for the city of Beavercreek and for The Greene, a major development that sought services and financial incentives from the city.
Mr. Hadley’s company ultimately did discontinue that work, even as he argued that he did not do anything wrong. Nonetheless, he apologized, and no charges resulted from a state investigation.
While Mr. Hadley should have known better, those incidents should not negate his many contributions. He is deeply knowledgeable, having served on committees that helped bring about the incorporation of Beavercreek and write its charter. He’s also had active roles in selecting good personnel for key jobs like city manager and police chief. The council benefits from his input.
Mr. Jarvis, in his short time on the council, has impressed others with his study of issues and good judgment. He is especially practical in his approach to taxes, recognizing that any income tax discussion would require lots of parties at the table. He and Mr. Hadley said new proposals for a merger or income tax could come in 2011 or 2012 if there is enough community support.
Mr. Jarvis preaches patience with the process and said there must be an ironclad connection to reduced property taxes if the city moves forward with an income tax. Ms. Wallace shares those views. A former budget analyst for the city of Dayton who has a master’s degree in public administration, she has shown a deep commitment to Beavercreek in a variety of roles.
Ms. Wallace serves on Beavercreek’s planning commission and previously was a member of the board of zoning appeals. She is also active in the chamber of commerce. She would be a good fit for the council.
Mr. Corvo and Ms. Borgert also have constructive thoughts on a merger and taxes. But Mr. Hadley, Mr. Jarvis and Ms. Wallace give Beavercreek the best chance to successfully overcome the challenges ahead.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Turner impressive on missiles, but wrong
Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, has achieved some national visibility as a voice of Republicans opposing President Barack Obama’s missile defense policies.
The president has undone a decision made by President George W. Bush to stage defense against missiles from Poland and the Czech Republic. The Obama decision has made big headlines in Europe.
Rep. Turner, as ranking Republican on the strategic forces subcommittee, has raised an alarm on cable talk shows and in speeches, as well as in Congress.
He comes off as obviously knowledgeable, a capable spokesman. He must be building a reputation among his colleagues for knowing some complex defense issues.
This is nothing to take for granted. True, he’s been in Congress long enough — since 2003 — that he should be emerging as an important player. In fact, however, some other legislators from southwestern Ohio could never perform this kind of role.
Whether he’s actually right, though, is another question.
The issue, though complex, pretty much comes down to an old-fashioned hawk-dove thing. The congressman is raising an alarm about the Obama administration spending too little money and making unrequited concessions to Russia.
But the administration’s position — carved, strangely enough, by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was also behind the Bush plan, as defense secretary — looks perfectly hardheaded. It’s largely a matter of modernizing.
When President Bush decided to put missile defenses in Eastern Europe, Russia objected passionately. It said Washington and Europe were treating Russia as an enemy, trying to minimize its role in its own neighborhood, and threatening it with systems that might be made offensive. That was among several issues that caused presidential candidate Barack Obama to say he wanted to press the reset button on U.S.-Russian relations.
Rep. Turner presents that goal as a primary reason for the new Obama plan.
But the administration says its new plan — largely to place certain defensive missiles on ships, instead — is mainly about recognizing the most pressing, most real threat: short-range missiles from Iran.
The administration says Iran has been making the most progress in the short-range realm, which the Bush plan was not focused on. The current White House says it can get the right defenses in place sooner its way. (The Bush administration hadn’t put systems in place, just announced the plan. )
Rep. Turner says the Obama plan gives too little attention to the possibility of Iranian long-range missiles. He says the plan wouldn’t have anything in place to combat them until 2020, some years later than the Bush plan.
But the Pentagon says it has defensive systems in place in California and Alaska to handle long-range missiles.
In response, Rep. Turner says the administration has cut funding in Alaska by one-third (which he unsuccessfully opposed in Congress).
He also notes that Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to take the American missiles at some political cost, given relations with Russia, only to turn out to have paid that price for no reason.
This is true. President Obama has some fence-mending to do.
To a certain degree, the overall debate comes down to technical issues, like how reliable are the missiles in Alaska. That’s difficult for a lay person to sort through.
But the Obama plan is widely reported to have the support of the top military brass, not just Secretary Gates. True, the generals have to confront an era of limits on spending, making some choices they don’t like. But if they have great qualms, they know how to make them heard.
Ultimately, Rep. Turner is complaining that missile defense spending is being limited at a time when all manner of other spending is increasing. It would be a stronger complaint if Obama’s plan really seemed imprudent.
The issue will continue to evolve as Iranian technological progress is monitored, and as American systems develop. For now, though, the Obama plan is standing up to capable scrutiny.
(To see an online collection of Rep. Turner’s television and other appearances relating to defensive missiles, see his Web site at www.turner.house.gov and click on “Mike on National Security.”)
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
TweetEditorial: Electing justices outdated; hurts court’s standing
The Ohio Supreme Court gave Sen. Jon Husted the benefit of the doubt.
In the fight over whether he is a resident of Kettering and can vote in Montgomery County, it said:
“Because of the sometimes conflicting nature of these sections (of voter-residency law), when multiple sections are applicable — as here — it is difficult to find by clear and convincing evidence that a person is not a resident of the county claimed.”
In other words, yes, there are sections of law that suggest that Sen. Husted is not a resident of Kettering; but other sections suggest he meets the standards.
The court was right to give him the benefit of the doubt. It had plenty of legal reason. And legislators should have a lot of leeway in these matters. Sen. Husted married a Columbus woman while serving in the House of Representatives and served as speaker of the House, an especially demanding job. He lived as one might expect under the circumstances. That shouldn’t deprive him of the right to vote in his district.
Still, we have here an awkward situation. Sen. Husted is a Republican, as is the entire court. Indeed, every Republican who has voted on the Husted matter has voted in his favor, while all the Democrats have opposed him.
Moreover, legitimate qualms can be raised about the court’s decision. The decision never mentions the main precedent that Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner cited in her decision against Sen. Husted. And the court embraces the view that he intends to return to Montgomery County, even though he is running for statewide office and his wife is from Columbus.
When Secretary Brunner ruled against Sen. Husted, he and other Republicans said the reason was partisanship. Now that the court has ruled, Democrats are saying or implying that the reason is partisanship. Nobody can put those concerns to rest.
This case arises in the wake of other high-profile decisions by the state’ top court. The court shot down Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to open racetracks to slot machines without a vote by the public.
It also rejected a challenge to part of the CAT (commercial activity tax), a central part of the state’s economic structure.
Inevitably at a time like this, attention focuses on the fact that the court is entirely Republican and that its members are elected.
In truth, the court is not on a partisan toot. Its decision about slot machines seems obvious. Gov. Strickland was claiming too much power to extend gambling.
The CAT was passed by the Republicans in 2005. Yet Democrats wanted this ruling as much. Few in Columbus wanted yet another budget crisis now.
If not a partisan toot, what these cases do suggest is that the court has a crucial role. And, therefore, minimizing the amount of cynicism about court decisions would be a good thing.
As Dayton Daily New Columbus correspondent Bill Hershey reports in Sunday’s paper, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer worries that the court’s credibility is undermined by the importance of money in court elections, especially because most of the money often comes from groups with clear financial interests in court decisions: insurance companies, trial lawyers and the like.
Justice Moyer promotes some sort of “merit selection” process to pick justices without an election, which many states already have. (To keep a role for voters, justices might be subjected to voter disapproval after serving a term.)
Such a process does not completely eliminate all concerns about partisanship. But it does give courts more credibility than the Ohio Supreme Court has.
It also reduces the advantages to a candidate with a well- known name or a lot of money or a background in elective office.
It reduces the burdens on voters to learn about multiple races, which they often fail to do. And it reduces the role of vacuous, misleading television ads.
The chief is right. Ohio needs this reform.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
TweetEditorial: Xenia, Cedarville voters should say yes to bond issues
2009 ELECTION
Two Greene County school districts have tremendous opportunities to improve their school buildings at a deeply discounted cost that voters should not pass up.
Xenia is asking voters for $34.6 million for the local share of the cost to build five new elementary schools on Nov. 3. The issue (including a half-mill for maintenance of schools) would equate to 3.2 mills and would be collected over 38 years beginning in 2013. The cost in new taxes for the owner of a $100,000 home would be $16.70 a year for the first three years for the maintenance levy alone and $98 a year beginning in 2013 when collections begin for the bonds.
For Cedar Cliff, which serves Cedarville and its surrounding area, a proposed 8.5-mill bond issue for 28 years would cost the owner of a $100,000 home $260 annually. It is coupled with a 0.25 percent income tax hike for the same period. The package would fund the local share of a new $11.7 million K-12 school for about 670 students.
In both cases, the state will use money from Ohio’s share of the national tobacco settlement, which has fueled school construction in Ohio for a decade, to pay for about half of the construction costs.
In Xenia, the state’s share is 46 percent of the cost for five new schools. For Cedar Cliff, the state is paying 52 percent of the tab for its new districtwide school.
In Xenia’s case, this fall’s bond issue is dramatically slimmed down from the two previous failed bond levy tries last November and May. This version of the levy drops plans for a new high school, cutting the request by more than half.
The $60 million Xenia project will build five larger elementary schools, replacing seven smaller schools in operation today. Superintendent Jeffrey Lewis said extensive surveying showed the community rejected the notion that a new high school was needed but largely agreed that the elementary schools should be replaced.
This will be Cedar Cliff’s first request to voters for funds for a new school. The original portion of its school was built in 1917, followed by four more additions through the years.
The new school would be built on the same site.
In both communities, the new schools should serve the district’s students for generations. And to pass on the state money could result in the districts having to build new schools on their own some day at a much higher local cost, when current buildings deteriorate to the point when repairs become too costly to maintain them.
The Ohio School Facilities Program has put state-of-the-art school buildings, with the latest technology and learning tools, all over the Dayton area. The kids in Xenia and Cedarville should not lose out on the opportunity to learn in facilities equal to their peers’.
The state and the local school districts are combining to offer voters a great bargain. Voters should say yes to both bond issues.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Education, Rural Communities, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetKevin Riley: Swedish visitors impressed by Dayton
A group of officials from Sweden visited Dayton last week, traveling halfway round the world to find out about the Miami Valley’s waterways.
The Swedes met with folks involved with caring for and planning for our rivers — and even spent a little time paddling down the Mad River in kayaks.
Watch a video of their trip down the river
So why exactly were they here?
The group included representatives of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, local governments and farming industry.
In their part of the world, there is great concern over pollution of the Baltic Sea, they said.
Sweden has a long coastline along the Baltic. The unique nature and geography of the Baltic make it especially vulnerable to pollution. Matters are further complicated because at least nine different countries border the sea and five more countries are within the Baltic Sea’s watershed.
The Swedes believe they must find innovative ways to protect the water’s health.
The Baltic’s oxygen levels — and ability to sustain marine life — are being damaged by discharges and runoff from wastewater treatment plants, agricultural operations and other industry.
We have similar challenges in the United States in important watersheds — the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico or Great Lakes, for example.
It’s an issue long ago recognized in the Great Miami River Watershed, and the Swedes were here to understand a program we have in place to protect the water through cooperation of the interests involved — and a free-market system.
The system is called the Great Miami River Watershed Water Quality Credit Trading Program. OK, it’s a mouthful — and I didn’t ask how you say that in Swedish.
It’s also a little complicated to understand — and you can pass over these next few paragraphs of explanation, but still get the ideas behind the Swedes’ visit.
Obviously the local program is getting international attention. It works like this:
- The goal is to reduce overall pollution “runoff.” Much of that runoff comes from farmers’ fertilizer and manure that gets into rivers and streams.
- Farmers agree to change their operations to reduce runoff; they get the money they need to finance the changes.
- The money comes from wastewater treatment plants downstream from the farmers. The plants receive credit for expected reductions in pollution.
- By getting credit for the reduced pollution, wastewater treatment plants hope to spend less money to upgrade equipment needed to treat the wastewater and meet government standards.
- The farming changes provide better environmental results over a larger area and in more rivers and streams than the wastewater treatment plant improvements would provide.
The Dayton-area program is considered a big success. Part of the trick is to get people working together when they’re not used to it.
For example, farmers — often independent sorts, suspicious of government and regulators — can believe they bear too much of the blame for environmental problems.
Wastewater treatment plant operators are reluctant to invest large sums of money in equipment that will only provide a partial solution.
According to Dusty Hall, of the Miami Conservancy District, the Swedes’ agenda had them spending time with the EPA, government officials, farmers and the people who run wastewater treatment plants.
They also met folks at the University of Dayton’s River Institute, a unique program that seeks to engage students with the region’s rivers.
A highlight of the visit was a kayak trip down the Mad River from Eastwood Lake to downtown, courtesy of Whitewater Warehouse.
The Swedes were chatting as they paddled down the river, clearly impressed by both our waterways and our methods for protecting them.
Almost on cue at one point during the trip, a great blue heron glided over the group as one member fumbled with a camera, hoping to get a picture.
As Linda Karlsson of the Swedish EPA put it: “You get a whole different view from the water.” The group saw things about us that we sometimes overlook.
Karlsson said she came away with a positive view of Dayton, and said the Rivers Institute concept was one the group would take back to Sweden.
“We’re impressed by the community … how everyone is working together on improving the rivers,” she said.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment |
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Dayton candidate nights not exactly town halls
2009 ELECTIONS
In New York City last week, they finally managed to give the proverbial election to which no one came. In scores of districts (out of 6,100), literally nobody voted.
At stake citywide were the Democratic nominations to jobs called public advocate and controller. It was only the primary, but in New York City, that’s the big election.
This event is mentioned here with an eye on the pending election in the city of Dayton.
Mainly, Mayor Rhine McLin is being challenged by neighborhood activist and first-time candidate Gary Leitzell.
The best bet is that some people will, indeed, vote. And yet anybody who has seen some of the “candidate nights” has to wonder if maybe the poll workers should bring something to read on Election Day.
Candidate nights are those well-intentioned events — frequently held at schools — where voters are invited to see the candidates in person, to hear their spiels, to ask them questions. It’s a chance to size up the candidates when they are next to each other, and to do so without the media intervening. One never knows about those media people, after all.
Sometimes, media people do come, too. In such cases, they are the ones in the least pain: At least they’re being paid to be there.
Don’t picture anything like those town hall meetings about health care that you’ve heard so much about. We’re talking about excruciatingly dull recitations. The recitations come one after another after another — if the organizers have decided to combine all the races on the ballot into one evening.
The candidates are given a few minutes to introduce themselves. Then a question is asked, the answers to which are likely to consume 20 minutes or more, which isn’t necessarily so bad, depending on the question.
But the question is likely to be something like, what would you do to make Dayton better. In that case, the audience squirming starts at about five minutes.
The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth speakers have to compete for attention with the audience’s thoughts about escape. Suddenly aware of how uncomfortable the seats are — and that there’s no way to exit without becoming a spectacle — people become fascinated with their watches.
Sometimes a teacher brings a bunch of kids, which must seem like a good idea at the time, but ends up causing others present to fret about a whole new generation being turned off to democracy.
Turnout at some neighborhood candidate nights this year has been slight. The candidates, their friends and relatives come close to outnumbering the neighborhood people (really).
One has to wonder if the explanation for low turnout is that the word didn’t get out about the event, or that the word did get out about how boring these things are.
The blame for the boredom shouldn’t be put on the organizers. They’re just pitching in, doing their civic duty when most others won’t, making decisions about format that seem to make sense at the time.
If a race is dull, it’s just dull. If candidates don’t strike a chord — don’t grab the audience — what’s an organizer to do?
As mid-October approaches, turnout might improve at these events. Differences might sharpen. Interesting things might happen. But it’s getting late.
Conventional political wisdom would hold that the pattern so far is good news for the Democratic incumbents. An uprising against incumbents is what brings life to local campaigns.
The county’s Democratic organization can, presumably, get a certain number of the people to the polls. In a low-key, low-visibility race, that’s typically enough.
If the incumbents are, indeed, coasting in, that wasn’t to be taken for granted at the beginning. The circumstances seemed right for an uprising, given Dayton’s economic problems. But the city government hasn’t fed those circumstances through major embarrassments — scandals, obvious screw-ups, whatever. And, anyway, nobody was well positioned to take advantage. There was no obvious challenger, and there’s no real two-party system.
So Leitzell — though he surely started with a hard-core anybody-but-McLin base — had an uphill battle to gain credibility and generate enthusiasm.
It’s not clear, however, that he has even generated curiosity.
The Democrats can’t assume that everything one needs to know about how the election is going can be known from a look at the candidate nights. But from their perspective, there are worse things than boredom.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
TweetEditorial: Miller, Thomsen, Anderson best picks for Springboro schools
2009 ELECTIONS
Springboro’s voters have not made life easy for their school board.
Four consecutive levy defeats have put an ever-tightening squeeze on the district’s finances, forcing the board to make very difficult choices among not very good options. The board, to its credit, has mostly made the best of those tough calls, especially in the last year.
On Nov. 3, two incumbents are among four candidates for three seats.
The incumbents — Don Miller, a civil service finance manager for the U.S. Air Force, and attorney Ira Thomsen — deserve re-election. For the third open seat, bank manager Scott Anderson is the best choice.
Kelly Kohls, an expert in nutrition who runs a business offering wellness services, is also a good candidate. She has some good ideas and has leveled some fair criticisms at the board. Mr. Anderson’s resume is stronger for school board.
Springboro is one of a class of Ohio school districts caught in a school funding trap. State funding increases have primarily been directed toward low-income urban and rural districts, leaving suburban areas that have high average incomes on their own to keep up with inflationary costs through local taxes. On top of that, Springboro is a high-performing district that attracts new families and ever-growing enrollment, which only adds new costs.
Yet voters have been skeptical. Critics say the district is not aggressive enough with its belt tightening. They point to administrative salaries and perks.
There are some areas where some additional savings could be made. Ms. Kohls points out, for instance, that Springboro pays not only the state-mandated equivalent of 14 percent of each administrator’s salary into a state retirement fund, it also pays an additional 10 percent that is intended to be the employee’s share. That costs about $178,000 each year.
Board members point out that administrators have been in a pay freeze for two years, and every other Warren County district also covers the employee’s share for retirement. They say Springboro needs to keep up to be competitive.
In good times, that might be true. But in financial crisis, it seems more than fair to ask administrators to pay their share of a very generous retirement. In fact, other Warren County districts ought to follow the same example. Ms. Kohls has a fair point.
Mr. Anderson’s big concern is busing. Eliminating bus service for homes within two miles of a school has saved Springboro $371,000. Anderson thinks bus service should be restored for safety reasons. School officials say efforts to arrange carpools have fallen flat, which they believe suggests that only a few kids are having difficulty either finding transportation on their own or walking to school.
For a district with a $42 million budget, big cuts require bold moves. The board made such a move when it followed the state auditor’s advice by closing an elementary school. This wasn’t an educationally sound idea, but it became a financial must when the last levy was defeated.
All told, Springboro has cut more than $6 million, a big bite of its budget. Mr. Thomsen (who has done some legal work for the Dayton Daily News) and Mr. Miller have been key players in those tough calls.
Mr. Anderson, who is leaving city council to run for this seat (as his wife runs for council), should bring a sensible new voice to the board. He is in step with the need to address the fiscal realities facing the district, but he also wants the board to do better at engaging the community and to reconsider the impact of some cuts on students.
Ms. Kohls has potential. Hopefully she will continue to get more involved in district affairs, which could lead to a greater role down the road.
In this race, Mr. Thomsen, Mr. Miller and Mr. Anderson are the best picks.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Williams, Whaley easily best for Dayton commission
2009 ELECTIONS
This year should be a tough election for incumbents on the Dayton City Commission. The city keeps shrinking in population, keeps having to make painful budget cuts, has seen record numbers of home foreclosures, loses NCR, shows up near the top of embarrassing lists and faces periodic crime sprees.
In truth, though, Dayton’s government is managing to do more than struggle from crisis to crisis. It has neighborhood revitalization programs going. It’s managed to maintain a solid bond rating, nothing to be taken for granted these days. It’s on track to do something about all the empty houses resulting from foreclosures.
It has the Tech Town development project on the move. It has won a state designation as an aerospace hub and, with Montgomery County, has a well-conceived project going with Israel that seems likely to bring some new jobs to the region.
The city commissioners divvy up jobs among themselves, functioning basically as a Democratic team. Some might see them as too cozy, which is a good and fair point, but at least there’s not a lot of posturing.
One incumbent seeking re-election is Joey Williams. He’s been on the commission or the Dayton school board for the better part of two decades. As president of Chase Bank for Dayton and Cincinnati, he brings a voice from the business community to a commission that includes others who are especially tight with labor or come out of neighborhood activism or the party. That mix is good.
Commissioner Williams’ colleagues credit him with helping keep the city on sound fiscal ground . He’s been less successful in his effort — with Commissioner Dean Lovelace — to find solutions to self-destructive violence among the city’s young people. But give him credit for taking on the toughest of problems.
Commissioner Nan Whaley, seeking her second term, came up through the Democratic Party. She has, among other projects, led the city’s effort toward “land banking,” that is, taking control of abandoned and neglected property with the goal of reusing it someday.
Unfortunately, the state legislature has not passed the legislation that would create a revenue stream for such projects. But the city has demolished hundreds of buildings and is aiming for 1,500 more. Demolition is necessary to prevent these places from becoming eyesores and magnets for crime.
Despite Dayton’s problems, the city commission race hasn’t generated much action. That’s partly because a lot of people who might put together a strong candidacy have left for the suburbs. Other would-be candidates failed to get enough signatures to be on the ballot.
The only challenger to the two incumbents is multi-time candidate David Esrati. He runs a Web site discussing city issues. He has somewhat smoothed the rough edges on his highly abrasive act that has never won him many votes. Still, though, the task of disagreeing agreeably appears to be a painful, difficult stretch for him.
And his ideas are strangely bad. He faults the city commission, for instance, for intruding too much on the domain of the city manager. In fact, however, City Manager Rashad Young had plenty of authority, and used it well.
At times in Dayton’s history, the charge might reasonably have been made that elected officials over-intruded on the city manager. Think Mike Turner or Paul Leonard. But neither Mayor Rhine McLin nor any other commissioner is in that mold.
Also, Mr. Esrati, in the good name of regionalism, wants the city to give up its authority to run Dayton International Airport. He points out that the airport’s role is regional.
True enough. But he can’t point to any complaints from suburban officials about how it’s run. And the airport is one of the city’s few assets. He wants to fix something that ain’t broke.
Incumbents Joey Williams and Nan Whaley have been steady, responsible voices. They have better judgment about the issues and personalities better suited to governance. They are the best bets for Dayton voters.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, City of Dayton, Editorials, Martin Gottlieb
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Columbus, Washington, Ds, Rs all stymied
Last week, when Gov. Ted Strickland was defending his latest approach to the state government’s budget problem, he mentioned one piece of good news, almost in passing — but not really.
He said that over the last three months, the state’s expectations about revenue have been met. That is, as much money has come in as was projected.
That might not sound like a big deal. In normal times, it isn’t. But right now, this is big.
Again and again over the last couple of years, the state has had to cut its budget because revenues have not done as well as projections said they would do.
That fact has pretty much dominated the politics of Columbus and the headlines coming out of it.
So, now, as Columbus confronts the hole that has materialized in the budget resulting from the Ohio Supreme Court’s kibosh on slot machines at racetracks, at least the hole isn’t growing even bigger.
These days, the absence of bad news qualifies as good news.
But, of course, there’s some bad news about the economy. September saw yet another drop in the total number of jobs in the nation, by 263,000, and an increase in the unemployment rate, from 9.7 percent to 9.8. percent.
The country needs to gain well over 100,000 a month just to keep up with population growth.
The stats gave Republican partisans an opening. House Republican leader John Boehner, R-West Chester, having just announced that he can’t find anybody who supports the proposed public-option health insurance plan (though polls show majority support), and having somehow found a reason to criticize the president for trying to land the 2016 Olympics, felt the need to pounce one more time.
“The president himself has said that job creation is the ultimate measure of economic performance,” Boehner said in a written statement. “With roughly 3 million private-sector jobs lost since the ‘stimulus’ was enacted, Americans can’t be blamed for asking, ‘Where are the jobs?’”
He called on the president to abandon his stimulus — and, of course, the rest of his legislative program, specifically in energy and health insurance. (You can see his statement online at gopleader.gov, clicking on news, then press releases.)
The rejoinder in kind would be that Boehner represents the people who got the country in this mess and should, therefore, abandon everything he believes in. But the rejoinder would be equally useless. Let’s be grown-ups.
The president did, indeed, say that job creation is the ultimate measure of economic performance. He said it very recently, well after everybody had concluded that job creation would be the hardest, slowest part of any economic recovery.
Good for him. That suggests he’s still looking for something new to do about the problem. But what?
Having gone almost as far into debt as it dares, Washington is talking only about relatively modest steps: extending unemployment compensation and other safety net programs, and looking at tax benefits for employers who hire people.
As for Columbus, here’s the sort of thing going on:
Strickland has created an Economic Growth Cabinet to “focus on creating jobs and increasing economic growth opportunities.”
He created this unit in the fall of 2008. How’s that for timing?
One of the three early goals of the Growth Cabinet was to monitor the progress of economic development. Remember that kind of optimism?
Now the Columbus Dispatch reports that the Growth Cabinet has only met three times. The Strickland administration responds that the measure of its work is not how often it has met, but what it has done.
They say, for example, that 2,119 government rules have been scrutinized to see if they might hinder job creation, and 1,223 were modified and 176 were eliminated. Job growth ought to be right around the corner now, huh?
Actually, economists project that unemployment will continue to rise, perhaps into the middle of next year, presumably to more than 10 percent. And the truth is nobody in Columbus or Washington knows what to do now to make the predictions not come true. It’s pretty much a matter of waiting and coping.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Economy, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics
TweetEditorial: Arnold, Carter, Grant best candidates for Beavercreek schools
2009 ELECTION
Beavercreek’s school board is an ambitious bunch. The district, already one of the Dayton area’s high performers, seeks a place among the very elite, measuring itself against stalwarts like Centerville and Oakwood.
At the same time, Beavercreek schools face extra challenges. The education-focused community consistently attracts new families, which has stretched its older facilities to the max. Although a bond issue for new construction finally passed in 2008, Beavercreek’s enrollment growth continues to press the district to capacity even as new schools come on line.
Voters in the community care about schools, but also are budget hawks. They demand that tax money is spent efficiently. School board members must aim high, manage well and communicate clearly to succeed.
On Nov. 3, voters must pick three from among five candidates for the board.
Two candidates are incumbents. Peg Arnold, an acquisition specialist for an Air Force contractor, is seeking her third four-year term. Joyce Carter, vice president of human resources at the University of Dayton, seeks election for the first time after she was appointed to the board in June 2008. Both deserve voter support.
The final open seat is being vacated by board President Richard Eckhardt, who is not seeking re-election. Three newcomers are vying for it — Kim Grant, a sales and marketing expert at Children’s Hospital; Donna Dempsey, a Greene County sheriff’s deputy; and Robert Dotson, a regional manager for a manufacturing company.
All three bring strengths. Ms. Grant’s marketing background could be useful for the board’s levy campaigns. Ms. Dempsey is strongly in touch with community sentiment and does much volunteer work. Mr. Dotson, with two special needs children, is knowledgeable about many of the practical issues facing the district at the classroom level.
Any of the three would make a good board member. But Ms. Grant is the best fit for the board in this group. She has been active in the schools as a PTO leader and her professional talents can help the board improve its community relations.
In her eight years on the board, Ms. Arnold has been smart and sensible and emerged as a leader, having served as board president for a time. The district has benefited greatly from her careful study of the issues, her thoughtful guidance and her strong will. She is a first-rate school board member.
Ms. Carter, in a short run on the board, has contributed well. Her expertise in human resources has been helpful as the board managed labor negotiations and personnel issues.
For example, when the board’s effort to hire Mark North from Lebanon schools as superintendent collapsed during the summer, Ms. Carter used her contacts to find a strong interim solution in the recently retired Gale Mabry, formerly of Northmont schools. Mabry has been well received, and the board is in talks to try to make his appointment permanent.
Beavercreek schools have issues on the horizon that will require a deft hand to manage. Ohio’s new all-day kindergarten requirement, for instance, will exacerbate crowding problems and require the budget to grow so more kindergarten teachers can be added. As an affluent suburb, the district is not getting help in the form of state aid growth. At the same time, board members want to add new programs, such as more elementary school language instruction.
With Ms. Arnold, Ms. Carter and Ms. Grant, Beavercreek’s school board will have the best chance to make the right choices that will keep academics the top priority for the city’s schools, while managing costs the way the community expects.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetGuest column: Act would limit small banks’ ability to cater to customers
This column is written by John J. Limbert, president of National Bank & Trust Co. in Wilmington.
I disagree with Richard Stock’s Sept. 8 commentary, “Bankers tying consumers to railroad tracks yet again.”
Stock must have left the theater early, because in many of those old movies, the “consumer” was rescued by good old Dudley Do-Right, or, in present-day terms, the community bank.
The Consumer Financial Protection Act that Stock is so passionate about would create a sweeping, powerful new government agency to regulate hundreds of thousands of businesses that either directly or indirectly extend credit and allow customers to pay over time, including through layaway plans and gift cards.
However, regulation of the lenders that are not depository institutions would still rest with the individual states, which failed to take swifter action to regulate the non-bank lenders that provided much of the subprime credit that Stock complains about.
In 2007, Ohio finally placed regulation on mortgage brokers and non-bank lenders. They are now subject to the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, which is among the toughest consumer laws in the country. Ohio’s attorney general is going after fraudulent lenders that are harming consumers, and he should.
Meanwhile, the proposed new regulator would do little to nothing to protect consumers. The new agency would, however, have the ability to determine what products are sold to whom, how they are sold and at what price. There will be no more entrepreneurship within the banking industry. We will all be forced to offer the same “vanilla” products at the same price.
Think about this when you shop at a local grocery or jewelry store that knows you by name and finances your purchases via its private layaway plan or private credit card. The unintended consequences will be staggering.
This new agency would have powers to regulate more than 45 industries, and add yet another layer of government bureaucracy to an already disjointed and dysfunctional system.
No one disagrees that consumers need to be protected from abusive practices. But community banks are not the problem. We operate fairly and honestly and always put customers first. That is what separates a local bank from the out-of-town suits at the mega banks.
Don’t take away my ability to meet the special needs of my customers. While community bankers didn’t get involved in the exotic financial products that got Wall Street in trouble, there are countless examples of local bankers offering non-standard loan products to help consumers. Under the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Act, a community banker would have a much harder time helping customers because of new regulatory restrictions, and costs to consumers would be higher.
My bank simply can’t absorb more fees and assessments, more paperwork and compliance costs, and further examinations from a new regulator. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank’s H.R. 3126 empowers the Consumer Financial Protection Act with nearly unlimited authority in each of these areas.
My bank is already well regulated and supervised and subject to robust consumer compliance exams by existing bank regulators. Community banks like mine don’t have the luxury that the mega banks do of having a fleet of lawyers and dozens of compliance officers to figure out how to shift these new costs around.
Call or e-mail your representative in Congress and tell him or her to not vote for H.R. 3126. It would be bad law.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Guest Columns
TweetEditorial: Ohio pension systems right to go after BofA
The purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America is a blur to most people. It was one of those gigantic things that happened all of a sudden last fall when the financial sky was falling.
Bank of America was already the nation’s largest retail bank, credit care issuer, mortgage lender and retail brokerage. Suddenly it became way bigger yet.
In the same week the purchase was announced, the government pumped $85 billion into AIG (it seemed like an awful lot of money back then) and asked Congress for a mind-boggling $700 billion banking bailout.
The purchase of Merrill Lynch was the good news.
Here was one pillar of Wall Street that wasn’t either going bankrupt or living on the dole. BofA was coming off as the good guy. The government was eager for the deal to go through.
That was then. Things went wrong. Stockholders of Bank of America, who voted to approve the purchase, complained that they hadn’t been told some crucial facts. Specifically, they said bank executives didn’t tell them about billions of dollars of Merrill Lynch losses and billions of dollars of bonuses that the company paid out. Now Bank of America’s CEO has resigned under a torrent of criticism.
Recently, too, has come the news that Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray will be the lead lawyer in a case designed to get billions out of BofA. A New York judge consolidated suits from Ohio, Texas and Europe, brought by entities that had lost huge money on BofA stock when the company’s new weaknesses became public.
The judge deemed Ohio the biggest player because two public pension systems are involved: public employees and teachers.
Mr. Cordray is in his element. He has never been one to see his job as settling for what happens to fall into his lap.
He ran for attorney general in the 1990s against incumbent Betty Montgomery, arguing that she had been too passive about injecting Ohio into legal subjects like the tobacco cases then raging across the country.
He won half a billion dollars for the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio in a case Merrill Lynch settled. The charge was that the company had artificially boosted its stock prices with misleading statements.
In the new case, the judge’s decision doesn’t make Mr. Cordray the only one going after Bank of America these days. The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission is reported to be preparing accusations. The FBI and U.S. Justice Department are looking at the Merrill Lynch deal. So is the attorney general of North Carolina, where BofA is headquartered. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is also involved, as is Congress.
But, still, Mr. Cordray has responsibility for what started as 30 different lawsuits.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the great financial collapse of 2008 would end up in the courtroom. So much is so murky, not only to lay people looking in from the outside, but to insiders.
So many people were so badly hurt that there may be a tendency to demonize any executive who was involved. That has to be guarded against.
And yet the public pension systems have a responsibility to aggressively protect the interests of employees and retirees. They have to advocate for their people, and let a court decide.
The fact that so many others institutions are raising basically the same set of legal issues suggests that the Ohio systems are not stretching too far.
And at least they won’t have to spend a lot of money on lawyers.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government
TweetEditorial: Maus, Gilmore, Bayless best picks for Kettering schools
2009 ELECTION
For Kettering’s school board, economic and demographic realities will make choices increasingly tough over the next four years.
Fortunately, there are five very good candidates for three open seats this fall. The incumbents — retired West Carrollton assistant principal Frank Maus, retired Kettering teacher Julie Gilmore and George Bayless, a retired banker — have helped guide the district to solid academic performance, with a few bumps in the road along the way.
The two challengers — retired West Carrollton teacher Mike Bock and James Brown, a retired marketing and sales manager and business owner — are impressive and are pushing the right issues.
Mr. Bock is pressing the board to engage the community on big picture issues of taxes and funding and to craft a plan for the district’s future. But he also rubbed some in the district the wrong way by campaigning against Kettering’s necessary renewal levy last May.
Mr. Brown wants a greater commitment to improve instruction for kids learning English as a second language and for those in special education. This would boost the district’s report card rating, so that it would be back among the best in the region. He is right that the board moved too slowly when its report card rating began to fall.
Overall, Kettering’s test scores are just as high as other top suburban districts in Dayton (meeting 29 of 30 state standards). But the state has punished Kettering severely for three years of low scores for small groups of kids in special education and English language learners. The district sank two levels down to the awkwardly named “continuous improvement” category.
The board has given new Superintendent Jim Schoenlein instructions to focus attention on those groups. Already, one new hire has been dedicated to the kids learning to speak English.
Financially, the board has managed the district well following the defeat of an operating levy in May of 2007. It cut millions from the budget, curtailed hiring and raised some class sizes, but otherwise stayed away from major classroom cuts.
That 2007 defeat was followed by a win for an identical levy in November of that year and a renewal levy victory last May. The incumbents told the Dayton Daily News that a new operating levy is all but certain in 2010. Mr. Bock reported on his blog that administrators told him it might be for as much as 7 mills, but the incumbents said they have not begun to discuss the levy’s size.
The incumbents have had useful debate on financial issues. The last teachers’ contract narrowly passed by a 3-2 vote. Mr. Maus, who voted no, said he worried that the recession and new state mandates, along with a 1.5 percent teacher raise in each of the next two years, could make layoffs a danger if the economy worsened.
Mr. Bayless and Ms. Gilmore voted yes, arguing that changes to health care saved enough money to make the raise affordable.
Kettering is no longer the rich district it was when the city was blessed with auto industry manufacturing and its associated tax revenue. Meanwhile, urban problems — most notably a steady uptick in the number of Kettering kids living in poverty — are creeping into this inner-ring suburb.
As the state moves toward all-day kindergarten, building space will be an increasing challenge, even though board members have guided the district through a successful construction program that built one new school and modernized the other school buildings. The district must figure out where to put those kids and how to pay for the estimated 14 teachers it will have to hire to implement the program.
The incumbents balance each other’s strengths nicely. Mr. Bayless has been a leader on construction and facilities. Ms. Gilmore and Mr. Maus have used their experience as educators as a good check on district administrators and their cost-cutting plans. All three have shown a long-running commitment to the district and a strong focus on kids and learning.
It was fortunate that Mr. Bock and Mr. Brown chose to run. They have made the debate in this race more fruitful. But they have not made a strong enough case that they would be better. The incumbents are the best picks.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Local offices attracting better slate than state
Election 2009
Signs of an election are springing up around the Miami Valley.
If not for the euphemistically labeled “yard” signs — often proliferating in spots that are not yards but unpoliced urban and suburban plats of wilderness — many people might be unaware that there’s an election looming in November.
At stake mainly are low-profile spots on the likes of school boards and suburban city councils. The candidates don’t have the money to buy advertisements on television or radio. And controversies seldom arise that result in a lot of news coverage.
But if voters were to find themselves with much information about these races, they might be pleasantly surprised. Many candidates are strong. Voters will have tough choices among good options.
An example is the Washington Twp. Board of Trustees. Six candidates are running for three seats. The three incumbents — Dale Berry, Joyce Young and Lee Snyder — all have long histories of service to the township and success managing the township’s affairs.
But the three challengers include Harry Drain, a former trustee and current head of the township zoning committee; Ken Parks, the township’s former fire chief for 34 years; and Scott Paulson, an owner of a local engineering company who is active in civic affairs. All have strong resumes and undoubtedly would also contribute much to the board.
Similarly, the races for school board in Kettering, Beavercreek and Springboro feature good incumbents matched against thoughtful, well-prepared challengers. It will be hard for voters to go wrong.
Truth is, there are lot more capable people seeking these local positions than sought seats in the state legislature last year, when many seats were open.
Most 2008 races for state representative and senator were heavily one-sided, to the point of being foregone conclusions. Strong candidates were paired against weak ones in November. Sometimes mediocre candidates were pitted against weak ones.
There was some action in the primaries, but not much, and not necessarily featuring strong candidates.
In some case, candidates for party nominations gave up after the official party organization endorsed somebody else. But even in those situations, parties did not find themselves with an embarrassment of riches.
By contrast, when Washington Twp. had a trustee vacancy after the 2008 election (to be filled by appointment by the remaining members), some 20 people applied. (The board picked former trustee Dale Berry.) Similarly, about 20 applied for an open seat on the Beavercreek school board in June, 2008, when the board picked Joyce Carter, a University of Dayton vice president who is now running for election to the seat.
Why are the local races — at least this year’s — so much more competitive?
To start, the simple fact is that a job in Columbus requires a higher level of commitment, job compromise and family sacrifice. There’s no getting around those obstacles to attracting good people.
Also, getting a job in Columbus frequently entails raising a lot of money. And the job gets a person all caught up in partisanship, and in nasty attacks, which are often avoided in local elected positions. A lot of good people have no taste for that stuff.
Another reason for hesitation has to do with how districts are drawn. Both parties have a vested interest in shaping legislative districts that overwhelmingly favor their candidates. Democrats in a Republican district who might be good candidates decline to run simply because their chances are so slim. It’s the same story for good potential Republican candidates in Democratic strongholds.
In the races for local office, however, party labels don’t appear on the ballot and are typically not an issue.
So the reasons are understandable.
Perhaps complaints about how the political system works at the high levels are heard often enough. Less often noted, however, but just as notable, is that the picture is often better elsewhere.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Elections, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetEditorial: Libraries took a hit, now they need you
2009 ELECTION
As access to information is eased by the spread of the Internet to more corners of life through ever faster computers, smart phones and other devices, some people might not need libraries as much. Still, for very many people, they’re essential or just a wonderful, free place to enrich themselves.
In response to deep state budget cuts, the Dayton Metro Library is among a half-dozen area libraries that will be on the Nov. 3 ballot. Dayton Metro Library is asking voters to replace an existing 1.25-mill, five-year levy with a continuing 1.75-mill levy. The new levy would add $18.53 a year in taxes for a $100,000 home.
That’s a reasonable ask that will simply help maintain services. It won’t even restore everything that was lost to the state cuts.
The same is true for libraries across the area. All are asking for modest tax hikes simply to maintain what they have or restore some of what was lost.
Besides Dayton Metro, seven others are on the November ballot, including:
• Springboro-Franklin: A new 1-mill levy for five years would restore many of the cuts instituted this summer that reduced library hours, book purchases and staff time. The levy would cost $30.64 a year for a $100,000 home.
• Oakwood: A new five-year, 0.5-mill levy is designed to replace revenue lost to state budget cuts. The levy would cost $15.31 annually for a $100,000 home.
• Tipp City: A new five-year, 0.75-mill levy would be the first ever local tax levy for this library. The library has closed on Thursdays and reduced staff hours by 20 percent. The levy would cost $22.96 per year for a $100,000 home.
• Troy-Miami County: A new 0.6-mill levy that would run for five years would help restore cuts to library hours, programs and services. The levy would cost $18.37 annually for a $100,000 home.
• Waynesville: A new 5-year, 1-mill levy that would help maintain afterschool programs for children is the library’s first tax levy request for operations. The levy would cost $30.62 a year for a $100,000 home.
• Greene County: The seven-library system wants voters to renew a 5-year, 1-mill operating levy that will not raise taxes. The levy annually costs $30.63 for a $100,000 home.
• Lebanon: A new 1-mill continuous levy would be used to pay for support staff and book purchases. The levy would cost the owner of a $100,000 home $26.28 per year. Voters should consider what they get for their money by supporting their local library.
All libraries run extensive programs for kids, especially preschoolers and early elementary school children who are just learning to read. They are invaluable resources for parents and child-care providers, filling an important educational role.
For many adults, the library also is a lifeline, especially in tough economic times. It’s not only low-income people who rely on libraries for Internet access. One estimate says as many as a third of Montgomery County residents aren’t online at home. Some are older people who did not grow up with computers; others don’t have jobs that require Internet skills.
The library is the one place where these folks can both get online and get help navigating the new world in which, for instance, many jobs can only be applied for via a Web site.
In fact, use of libraries has dramatically increased in the past five years, and that was occurring even before the economic downturn. During down times, library traffic tends to increase as consumers look to borrow, rather than buy, books and videos.
The libraries asking for money face serious cuts if their requests are defeated at the ballot box. Dayton Metro Library, for instance, would lose more than a third of its revenue if the levy fails. Added to losses in state aid, that would likely result in a layoff of half the staff, the closing of most branches and a reduction for those that survive to far fewer hours a week, said Tim Kambitsch, executive director.
Voters should support library ballot issues in their communities.
Permalink | Comments (15) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
TweetKevin Riley: DDN highlights flu risk, breast cancer month
Sunday’s newspaper contains a large package of stories and information about this year’s flu season.
Our goal in the newspaper and at DaytonDailyNews.com is to make sure you have all of the information you need to cope with the flu, which experts expect to be especially bad this season.
It’s already hitting our schools and workplaces. We’ve reported that area hospitals planned to prohibit children under 14 from visiting patients, in an effort to control the spread of the flu.
Flu coverage is one of two unique efforts we’re making this fall — efforts that are in line with bringing you the community’s stories and helping identify what’s really important to our readers and residents.
Our job is to provide you with information you can use to live better and create positive change in our community. That’s why we’ll cover the flu season and highlight breast cancer awareness this month.
Our flu coverage is part of a cooperative effort by Ohio’s eight largest newspapers. At a recent meeting of the newspapers’ editors, we realized that each newspaper was hustling to cover the flu season.
The newspapers have been working together for a couple of years, and we now routinely share stories with each other. For example, last week we funded The Ohio Newspaper Poll and reported on opinions about the upcoming state vote on casinos.
The eight newspapers have an important goal: to work together for the greater good of Ohio and its residents by providing the information they need.
Susan Goldberg, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, suggested we pick a “Flu Sunday.”
We agreed to produce stories that would help our roughly 4 million readers cope with the season and examine preparedness.
We hope it helps you, and we hope you’ll let us know what else we can do for you. At the Dayton Daily News, we’ve also chosen to highlight October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
We’ll provide special coverage of the disease, and we’ll provide the information you need to donate, get involved and understand the fight against breast cancer.
We kicked off our coverage last Sunday. Staff writer Mary McCarty wrote the moving story of the “Noble Circle,” a unique support group for women battling cancer that was founded by eight breast-cancer patients.
Each day in October, we’ll publish a story of inspiration about breast cancer survivors, their families and efforts to battle the disease. They will be available here.
Our readers tell us they want information that helps them do something about breast cancer and to help those affected.
We’ve made a commitment well beyond telling the stories of breast cancer. In this case, we find ourselves participating as part of the story. After all, our staff lives here, and many of their lives have been touched by breast cancer. We’ll be demonstrating a commitment to our community, not just by words, but actions, too.
We’re a sponsor of the Making Strides Against Breast Cancer walk on Oct. 17. Our goal is to make the walk, which starts at 10 a.m. at Fifth Third Field, the largest ever. You can register here.
And on Oct. 17, your Saturday newspaper will be printed on pink paper as a tribute to those affected by breast cancer.
Our advertising and subscription groups have committed to donating a portion of the money we receive from sales in October. And part of the newsstand sales of the commemorative “pink paper” will also be donated to the American Cancer Society.
You can find information about how you can get involved in our newspaper each day or online here.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Dayton Peace Prize book an eye-opener
You’ve probably had this experience:
You are so moved or fascinated by a book or movie that you tell others, “You’ve just got to check this out.” But then — months later — you have difficulty remembering exactly you did that.
So maybe there’s something to be said for waiting a few months after one has read a book before writing about it and recommending it. Gives you a chance to see if the emotions wither or change.
Well, several months after reading “A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery,” by E. Benjamin Skinner,
I find that what the book contributed to my understanding of the world — at an advanced age — isn’t going away. I still feel like I got slapped in the face.
Apparently the impact on others is similar. Skinner has won this year’s Dayton Literary Peace Prize for non-fiction.
Local “first readers” (including me) recommended it as a finalist. Then national judges selected it over, for example, Thomas Friedman’s “Hot, Flat, and Crowded,” which took second.
Skinner was once an aide to Richard Holbrooke, of Dayton peace talks fame. (The award stems from those talks, about Bosnia). Skinner is now at a Harvard human rights center.
But the book he wrote is journalistic. He traveled the world to examine slavery. Slavery. Not drudgery. Not low wages. He’s talking about people who are bought and sold, are kept through threat of violence and are paid nothing, unless you count what it costs to keep them useful.
Skinner says there are more slaves in the world today than ever, perhaps 27 million (though he isn’t the author of the number). He found them in Haiti, Eastern Europe, Africa, the Mideast, India, South America and even the United States. He writes about most of those places.
Sex slavery is common. Debt slavery is common, wherein people spend their lives paying off the debt — under a dollar — of an ancestor. Slavery is used as a weapon of war. Enslavement and sale of children is common.
India seems to have more slaves than anyplace, says Skinner. As parts of that country go modern suddenly, other parts see slaves used to break gravel into sand toward production of glass. That process that doesn’t pay off if you have to pay workers.
Skinner deals in the personal stories of the slaves, in the local circumstances that foster the horrors, and in the efforts of American officials and private organizations — including evangelical ones — to do something.
The problem becomes an obsession for some westerners, uniting people from the political left and right to a degree. Skinner says some highly dedicated anti-slavery forces on the right are unwilling to recognize poverty as the underlying problem fostering slavery; yet he is with them in insisting that the battle against slavery cannot await the elimination of poverty.
Though he credits some in government with the right kind of effort, he sees neither of President Barack Obama’s recent predecessors, nor Obama himself, putting sufficient focus on the problem. John McCain gave him a blurb for his book but also hasn’t been a leader, Skinner says.
My guess is that the most memorable part of the book for Americans is the part about the Haitian girl who became a slave to affluent Floridians from Haiti. Apparently, 14,000 to 17,000 people enter the country as slaves every year.
Skinner’s book deserves mention in the same breath as Samantha Power’s 2003 “A Problem from Hell.” That was a systematic look at genocide. She gave the reader a way to think about the issue in general, as opposed to thinking about the Holocaust or Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia. She provided a starting point.
Slavery, of course, has a lower profile than genocide. That gives Skinner a shot at an even more formative role in the discussion.
Recognizing his work with a prize that gets national attention is a contribution by Dayton.
If the book isn’t narrowly about peace, it’s about systems enforced by coercion and violence — first-cousin words to war. The slaves might as well have lost a war to a brutal power. The book is about the effort to change those systems without more violence.
As a result of Skinner’s work, no world leaders can say they didn’t know.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Dayton Peace Accords and Other Peace Initiatives, Martin Gottlieb
TweetEditorial: Strickland finally leads toward obvious
The solution that Gov. Ted Strickland now offers to the state’s latest financial crisis is so obviously sensible that the wonder is that it hasn’t been offered before. There’s no reasonable explanation for that. There’s only politics.
With the Ohio Supreme Court having ruled that he can’t put slot machines at racetracks without a vote of the public, he lost almost 2 percent of the money needed to fund the two-year state budget that has been enacted with much bloodletting. It’s a much larger percentage of discretionary spending.
And his office said the damage would be enhanced because Ohio would lose federal stimulus money if it put up less for education.
This resulted in the schools raising a frantic alarm — frantic even beyond the norm — about losing double-digit percentages of their money in the wake of cutbacks they’ve already made.
The governor has now ridden immediately to the rescue with a plan to increase state revenue without cutting taxes or raising fees, and without even counting on a better economy.
Sounds like magic. But all it requires is putting off the last year of income tax cuts that were scheduled in 2005.
At that time, the Republican regime in Columbus decided that Ohio’s graduated income tax was a drag on the economy, because people with money looked for friendlier states. The state passed a 21 percent cut over five years. Four years have passed.
Gov. Strickland has never wanted to tinker with the 2005 act (which went way beyond the income tax changes), even though it has reduced revenues.
At this stage, nobody can seriously argue that delaying the rest of the cut will significantly hurt the economy, given that there’s no tax increase, and given that the cuts haven’t noticeably helped.
And after all, the tax rate reductions that would be suspended are, at most, about one fourth of a percentage point, from 6.2 percent to 5.93 percent (in the over $200,000 income range).
The state would have been better off if it had enacted the new Strickland plan last summer, when it instead enacted the slot-machines-at-racetracks plan. That was a foolishly rushed, sloppy decision to change longstanding state policy with the goal of avoiding pain to taxpayers.
But the administration now says there will be no pain, even though the gambling plan collapsed.
Political atmospheres change. The governor apparently feels it’s one thing to propose the suspension of a tax cut after having tried something else, and it would have been another to propose it a couple of months ago.
OK. Whatever.
Now the legislators needs to get on board. The Republicans, who run the Senate, were destined to posture at first, calling the proposal a tax increase, reveling in the governor’s flip-flop.
However, Senate President Bill Harris, R-Ashland, played the grown-up, declining to call the proposal a tax increase. That’s good news.
The Republicans found a way to let the gambling plan pass while still pinning it on Gov. Strickland. They can do the same with the tax cut suspension.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
TweetEditorial: Ignore the propaganda; No on Issue 2
2009 ELECTIONS
Often when voters are confronted with a proposed constitutional amendment whose purpose isn’t obvious, they’re skeptical. They suspect something is up. That reflex is the right one when it comes to Issue 2 on your Nov. 3 ballot.
The proposal would create a Livestock Care Standards Board and give that group total authority over standards relating to the care of farm animals.
Why? Why do it at all, and why do it through a constitutional amendment?
Because agricultural interests in Ohio are scared to death
(NOTE: A misspelling in the headline of this post was corrected.)
that the Humane Society of the United States is going to come to Ohio voters next year and with a proposal to restrict the use of cages, specifically to prohibit farmers from keeping egg-laying hens, veal calves and pigs in tiny crates and pens.
If this year’s amendment passes, it would trump any future law on livestock care and complicate the Humane Society’s job.
Agri-business then would argue: Let the experts decide what are good farming practices. Voters just approved creating a panel to make these decisions. Let them do their job.
A couple of big points:
But agri-business shouldn’t get this sort of constitutional protection. Chances are good that the board would be dominated by farming interests and could become a rubber stamp for corporate farms especially.
The democratically elected legislature and the agriculture department shouldn’t be shut out.
Also, the way this amendment proposal was put forward smells. The idea of putting it on the ballot was rammed through the legislature in a matter of days. If the Ohio Farm Bureau and poultry and livestock associations are as dedicated to transparency and public accountability as they say they are, there was no need for the secrecy or the rush.
The Ohio Farm Bureau’s Jack Fisher wants to make this a campaign about extremists trying to impose their vegan ways on others. Speaking of the Humane Society, he has written, “They want no pet ownership, no circus acts, no biomedical research. And no meat, milk or eggs.”
Jeff Wuebker, the co-owner of a farm in Versailles, says he worries that if the Humane Society’s views on confining farm animals prevail, his sows will be hurt and even killed, because cages protect powerfully aggressive animals from each other.
He also complains that his cost of doing business will increase significantly. He says farmers can be trusted to do the right thing. They have every reason to want what’s best for their animals and their customers.
The other side — the Humane Society’s Paul Shapiro, specifically — says research shows that certain farming practices are not just inhumane for the animals, but dangerous to the food supply.
With arguments like this, you can picture the television commercials that will be coming your way as the election nears.
Turn off the propaganda — from both sides.
The issue voters have to decide is not whether livestock cages are good or bad, not whether farmers or the Humane Society are better Americans, not whether your bacon and eggs are going to cost more or make you sick.
The question is much less complicated:
Should Ohio have a board, set in the constitution, to decide agriculture policy, thereby insulating some decisions from the give-and-take that is required on other big and small public policy issues?
Sometimes the creation of a board is necessary, but this one’s power would be too sweeping. Moreover, no need for change has been demonstrated. After all these years without a special board, it’s a good bet the state can continue without one.
Vote no on Issue 2.
Permalink | Comments (80) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Elections, Ellen Belcher, Ohio government, Rural Communities
Tweet
