Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
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.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > April > 02
Friday, April 2, 2010
Ellen Belcher: Us vetting candidates might help you make choices
If I had a dollar for every time someone told me they wanted my job, I wouldn’t need to work.
That doesn’t happen so frequently when elections roll around. Not many people relish the idea of spending hours and hours with politicians.
It’s not so bad. More candidates than you probably think run for office because they want to give back. Sure, there are plenty of people with big egos running for big offices. But there are many, many more who run for city council or school board, knowing they’re committing to late-night meetings, tough decisions and dinners that are fun only if you like hard rolls and iceberg lettuce.
One task we on the editorial page take seriously is making judgments about people who run for office. Maybe that sounds arrogant. But think about it: How many people have time to make it their job to look into the qualifications and backgrounds of the individuals who decide our tax rates, make our laws and even send people to jail for life?
Do you have time to do that?
Voting requires a certain amount of homework if you’re serious about making informed choices. I’ve made decisions about whom not to vote for based on commercials. But I can’t think of a 30-second spot that has sold me on somebody.
Every election season the Dayton Daily News editorial board makes recommendations about selected races and issues. With the May 4 primary coming up, we started running our recommendations Friday; more are coming. We’ll be commenting on 18 races and issues.
Not an election goes by where we don’t get requests asking us to take a stand on a contest or issue because someone is doing something dastardly — at least in the opinion of the caller. But we also get complaints that we should stop telling people how to think.
There are scoundrels out there, and newspapers have a long record of exposing them. We like to think that one way to keep corrupt or inept people out of office is to shine a light on their views, ask them tough questions and dig into their backgrounds.
To those who think we should keep quiet, our response is easy: We offer our recommendations not because we’re trying to rule the world, but because judgments have to be made. Our views are just one source you can turn to.
Whether you’re buying a car or choosing whom to vote for, you invariably consider others’ opinions. If you think those opinions make sense, if you’ve come to trust someone’s thoughts, you’re likely to see that information as helpful. It’s certainly not a threat.
So how do we choose candidates and issues?
There are always more contests and issues than we can investigate. We consider things like the number of people who will be affected and the responsibility associated with the position; whether there’s been controversy about the office; and whether there’s a real contest.
Who decides whom we’ll recommend?
The editorial board includes Kevin Riley, our editor; editorial writers Martin Gottlieb and Scott Elliott and myself.
How do you decide?
We invite all the candidates to a question-and-answer session that can last well over an hour. We ask questions, we watch them interact, we read their resumes, we contact others who know them.
The process isn’t scientific, but you’d be surprised how much you can tell about a person in this setting. Candidates often say they’re grateful for the give-and-take.
Regarding issues and levies: We interview proponents. We check out their claims. If there’s organized opposition, we invite critics to the table, too.
How much do you pay attention to a candidate’s political party?
A person’s political party will tell you something about him or her, but certainly not everything. Plenty of elected officials diverge from their party’s positions on issues. We’ve recommended Republicans whom we didn’t agree with because they were the best qualified; same for Democrats.
Competence, intelligence and experience count for more than party affiliation.
Don’t you just endorse Democrats?
At the state level, we recommended Republican Bob Taft for governor in 1998 and 2002 and Republican George Voinovich in 1990 and 1994. In U.S. Senate races, we recommended Republican Mike De-Wine in 1994, 2000 and 2006; and Voinovich in 1998 and 2004.
At the local level, the Republicans we’ve recommended are way too numerous to even begin to list.
In presidential contests, we have consistently sided with Democrats.
In the end, our votes don’t count any more than yours. But we hope you’ll find our opinions and research helpful and worth your time.
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Elections, Ellen Belcher
TweetEditorial: Flyers’ win is right good-bye for NIT
Chris Johnson was the perfect Dayton Flyer to hoist the Most Valuable Player trophy Thursday in the wake of a championship victory over North Carolina.
Three years ago, Johnson was a mostly overlooked, skinny senior at Columbus’ Brookhaven High School. University of Dayton Coach Brian Gregory saw in the now quickly maturing sophomore the primary attributes he seeks for his players — athleticism, basketball skills and heart.
With whispers growing louder about Johnson’s professional basketball prospects, he won’t be overlooked anymore. Ironically, the impending demise of the just-conquered National Invitation Tournament means Dayton won’t be overlooked anymore either.
It was fitting that the Flyers should win what was almost certainly the last NIT title. The legendary event, with its showcase championship game at Madison Square Garden, first propelled Dayton basketball to national prominence.
In the 1950s and ’60s, the Flyers were fan favorites for New Yorkers as almost annual contenders for the title at a time when the NIT, not the tournament run by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, was the dominant college basketball championship.
But the NIT is now owned by the NCAA, which later this month will consider a plan to expand its championship basketball tournament. ESPN and other national media are reporting that expansion to a 96-team NCAA tournament, and the demise of the NIT, is a certainty.
The expanded NCAA tournament is a win for Dayton and other local college basketball programs like Wright State and Miami.
As a consistently good, but usually not first-place, team from outside the power conferences, the Flyers are perpetually on the bubble for selection by the NCAA. Too often, including this year, the Flyers have been good enough to make the field, only to be edged out by middling teams from major conferences. That won’t happen with an expanded field.
Perhaps the fantastic run of the past few weeks — during which the Flyers beat good teams from four major conferences — will happen on the big stage next time.
Still, many fans think the NCAA is making a mistake. The 64-team bracket has produced magic since the field was expanded in 1985, propelling the tournament to become a national obsession. The NIT, which evolved into a consolation bracket for those left out of the “Big Dance,” at least offered the excluded teams a real banner to shoot for.
It’s easy to feel a touch of nostalgia for the NIT after witnessing Dayton’s triumph. The team’s seven seniors include five key players — Mickey Perry, London Warren, Rob Lowery, Marcus Johnson and Kurt Huelsman — who together pushed the program to a higher level by playing hard, never giving up and sticking together.
After last year’s NCAA success (defeating now Final Four-bound West Virginia in the first round), hopes for a repeat performance this year didn’t work out. This year’s squad lost too many close games.
But the brand of basketball the seniors brought to Dayton — enthusiastic, relentless and high-flying — re-energized the program.
Watching them celebrate a well-deserved championship was a treat.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Higher Ed, Scott Elliott, Sports and Recreation
TweetEditorial: Without levy, cuts coming to Kettering
2010 ELECTION
Kettering schools face an increasingly tough challenge: How do you afford an academic program that ranks among the area’s best even as the number of poor kids, who invariably need special help, keeps growing?
In an effort to stick with things that have kept achievement high, the district has so far taken off the table painful possibilities for saving money.
It could, for instance, close Moraine Meadows Elementary School, which has just 160 kids, compared to 300 or more at the other elementary schools. That would save the district about $400,000 to $500,000 a year. But doing so would upset a neighborhood school tradition that school leaders believe is a key part of the district’s success.
The school board could also cut things that are not required, such as its successful alternative school, which nurtures kids in danger of dropping out to successful completion of high school. The program, with its excellent 90 percent graduation rate, costs about $200,000 annually.
School leaders have resisted moves like these. Instead, they’ve relied on strategic cuts — such as trimming $7.6 million from an $82 million budget over the past four years. That has included not replacing 57 people and slowing hiring to just a few positions a year.
The district has not been adding many new programs. School officials say those that have been added — such as new International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement classes or programs for children who are learning English as a second language — are crucial to ensuring students of all abilities have challenging work.
But keeping the district’s wide-ranging academic program intact is expensive. The district is on the May 4 ballot asking voters for a 6.9-mill additional levy, which would raise $9.1 million annually and cost the owner of a $100,000 house $211 a year. Without the new money, the district projects a $4.3 million deficit by 2012.
Voters last passed a 4.9-mill additional levy in November, 2007. Kettering is back on the ballot early. School officials pledged in 2007 not to ask for new money again for four years. But, they say, the reality of a deep recession, which has driven down property tax revenues and kept state aid flat, has forced a return after just two and a half years.
Still, this levy is not terribly out of line with the common school district practice of asking for new levies about every three years.
Kettering has, indeed, been hurt by the recession. GM’s assembly plant in Moraine is among the many employers that have cut back or even closed. Poverty in the district has risen fast — 35 percent of Kettering kids are poor enough to qualify for free and reduced lunch, up 12 points from just five years ago.
Despite the increasing poverty, Kettering schools have continued to rank among the best local districts as measured by state tests. That’s an achievement.
If the levy fails, school leaders say they’ll try again in November and that by then, they’ll be considering more drastic cuts.
Kettering voters should want to keep high-quality schools. The district has a strong case that its kids are getting the fine education they deserve.
Permalink | Comments (21) | Post your comment | Categories: 2010 endorsements, Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
Tweet
