Fact from Fiction: The Dire Fiscal Conditions of Our Schools

Published: Wednesday, September 21, 2011

To the Editor:

Let the propaganda begin! That was my thought as I read Stephanie Donaldson's letter portraying the temporary wage freeze by the Worthington City Schools employees as a "sacrifice" for the community ("Voters should remember district workers' sacrifices," Aug. 31 issue of Worthington News).

While I give Ms. Donaldson an "A" for effort, to present this as anything other than a ploy to gain support against Issue 2 (SB5 referendum) is simply ludicrous.

With SB5, school employees stand to lose their ability to strike, an advantage that has allowed them to demand unsustainable raises, unreasonable benefits, unbelievable pensions, and guaranteed employment ... all while the rest of the community has endured numerous sacrifices over many years. With the loss of this game changing bargaining chip on the line, a short-term wage freeze is a small price to pay to maintain dominance over the negotiating process.

In terms of "sacrifice," when you consider this wage freeze in the context of what the private sector has had to endure, it is really no sacrifice at all.

Here's the comparison:

While millions in the private sector have joined the ranks of the unemployed, Worthington teachers have continued to have their jobs guaranteed.

While the private sector has had to absorb salary cuts, Worthington teachers' salaries have increased to an average of $75,000 for nine months work.

While the private sector has had to live with minimal pay increases at best, Worthington teacher salaries have increased by more than 7 percent the last two years.

While private sector employees now shoulder 25 percent of healthcare costs, Worthington teachers continue to pay a mere 14 percent ... and taxpayers even fund the majority of the teacher's medical deductibles.

Finally, how many in the private sector do you know who will retire at an average age of 58, and collect a pension of $5,000 to $6,000 per month for 20 or more years in retirement?

In the end, the wage freeze will have little impact on the huge compensation disparity that now exists between the Worthington City Schools employees and private sector residents. What is needed to solve Ohio's "school funding crisis" is real collective bargaining reform and that means a "Yes" vote on Issue 2.

Guy Molde

As claims fly on SB5, websites offer voters facts on government pay, perks

Ohioans are about to be bombarded with political ads as the state approaches a Nov. 8 referendum on Ohio Senate Bill 5, which curbs collective bargaining for 360,000 public employees.

With public-employee salaries and benefits at the heart of that issue, two websites are performing a public service with easily searchable databases of government salaries and pensions.

The first one, which went up in April 2010, is a treasure trove of information from the Buckeye Institute, a free-market public-policy group based in Columbus.

Last week, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel unveiled his redesigned website, which piggybacks on information collected by the institute.

“Every day, citizens throughout Ohio go to work and work their butts off. They have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent,” Mandel said.

Such efforts are a boon to citizens, allowing them to better monitor government and providing information that helps them cast an informed vote.

After Mandel publicized his database, which credits and links to the Buckeye Institute, the number of visits to the institute’s website soared. On Thursday, it had 316,000 searches of the salary database. That’s 96,000 more searches than the site typically draws in a month.

A series of links on the homepage, www.buckeyeinstitute.org, show salaries gleaned through months of public-records requests to local, state and federal governments, as well as to public universities and the Ohio Department of Education.

Curious what a teacher earns in a particular district? The information is a click away, just by typing in the teacher’s name and school district. Even better, the Buckeye Institute’s site has features that allow taxpayers to compare how their salary stacks up against their public-sector colleagues. And it calculates estimated pension payouts. Comparable Social Security pensions for private-sector workers also are included.

Buckeye Institute President Matt Mayer said the project allows taxpayers to draw their own conclusions as the rhetoric heats up over Senate Bill 5.

So when a state worker looks into a television camera and claims he gets a lower-than-market salary in exchange for better benefits, or supporters of Senate Bill 5 point to compensation packages they say are out of whack with today’s economic reality, voters don’t have to accept either side’s word; they can check for themselves.

Mayer said the information came directly from public-records requests and was not changed, other than to convert it to a format that could be posted on the Web and to use the numbers to calculate pensions.

“The data is only as good as the government entity that provided it,” he said, adding that the institute does not put its thumb on the scale in any way. “We don’t muck with the data; I have no interest in having bad data. The data speaks for itself.”

Mandel and the institute have provided a useful tool to voters. And by the way, Mandel, according to his own website, will earn $106,304 this year.

by Van D. Keating director of management services

Over the years, the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) has introduced me to several new words or phrases that end up becoming extremely important in the world of collective bargaining. Historically, when SERB surprises us with new terminology, it is because it is using it as a basis for a decision, such as a ruling on an unfair labor practice charge. The new jargon is then studied by management and labor to guide their future strategies and actions.

This would all make some degree of sense if SERB actually defined the new phrase so all parties could clearly understand and apply it in a prospective manner. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to happen. For example, “ultimate impasse” is a phrase that is not strictly defined by Ohio law, yet is required to have been met by SERB when an employer seeks to implement terms and conditions of employment. To make matters worse, while SERB has created and applied some standards to this phrase, it has often used a “we’ll know it when we see it” rationale and made decisions on a “case-by-case” basis. This leaves employers and employees alike with very little guidance on implementations, but ultimately favors unions, because if ultimate impasse was clearly defined and understood, then employers would know exactly what steps to take to make it work every time and in every situation.

A similar situation is evolving with another phrase new to Ohio’s schools: “exigent circumstances.” Again, it is a phrase neither defined nor required by Ohio law, but has begun to figure prominently in several recent SERB decisions, most notably the Rootstown Decision (SERB Opinion 2011-004). I strongly suggest everyone get a copy of this decision, available at www.serb. state.oh.us/opinions.html, read it and consider its implications.

Simply stated, the crux of the situation involved the Rootstown Local (Portage) Board of Education taking action to freeze employees’ salaries and wages due to exigent financial circumstances. This action would have prohibited employees not only from receiving a base salary increase, but also step increases unless increased through the collective bargaining process.

As many schools have experienced, steps automatically occur every year, regardless of negotiations, usually during the summer. In a negotiations year, many boards have proposed an absolute wage freeze (no base increase and no step advancement), but because of long-standing SERB precedent, the terms and conditions of an expired contract must continue until there is either a new contract or ultimate impasse has been reached and the employer implements terms and conditions. Unions appreciate this, and by simply drawing out negotiations, they know (and tell their members) they can and will receive their steps, regardless of the board’s proposals.

Rootstown’s board anticipated this strategy and took action to preempt the union from getting anything automatically. Since the district could not afford steps or base salary increases, the board based its action on “exigent circumstances,” which SERB previously had allowed in a decision involving Toledo City (SERB Opinion 2011-001). But in Rootstown’s situation, SERB decided to once again defy predictability and eschew clarity by overruling the hearing officer’s recommendations which had been in favor of the board, instead finding an unfair labor practice had been committed and ruling in favor of the union.

In reading the opinion, it becomes evident that SERB chose to reinforce the sanctity of the collective bargaining process above all else. SERB relied on its own precedent and insisted that the status quo ante rule prevails until the parties reach a successor agreement or until ultimate impasse. SERB then carefully stated that exigent circumstances can exist only in mid-term bargaining situations and that an employer could not be held to the terms of an expired contract ad infinitum by a union because the status quo exists only until ultimate impasse is reached.

Undoubtedly unions will applaud this decision because it maintains their practical upper hand when it comes to negotiating wages. If unions can manipulate the tempo of negotiations, then time tends to work in their favor. Long negotiations may not always result in base salary increases, but it usually will result in step increases, thanks to the requirement of maintaining the status quo. School boards will lose any proposal on step freezes if they do not reach ultimate impasse (or implementation) before the automatic advancement date. And once steps have been granted to employees, it is extremely difficult to take them away later and be repaid the excess monies.

Arguably, SERB addressed the issue of unions holding negotiations hostage until their members receive steps by stating that status quo ante cannot continue forever: presumably, if a board could actually prove that a union was doing so, it would be an unfair labor practice. However, solid proof is hard to come by and unions are very adept at disguising this motive among a hundred others as to why a settlement can’t be reached. No union representative in his or her right mind would ever tell the board that he or she is just holding things up so the members get steps and “then we can settle.”

Another troubling aspect of this decision is that SERB seems to be revising its earlier theories — and practicalities — when it comes to exigent circumstances. If you were to consider the realities of school finances, exigent circumstances have and will occur at many times other than at mid-term. Schools have subscribed to the theory that negotiations are the best opportunity to discuss budget situations with unions, but if a union is simply going to say “no,” then what other choice does a board have to quickly resolve its personnel costs? I daresay there are numerous school districts that would argue that exigent circumstances have nothing to do with “mid-term” bargaining or any other type of bargaining. But in both the Toledo and Rootstown decisions, SERB appears to carefully restrict exigent circumstances to narrow situations that, again, provide little guidance to practitioners.

The only solace a board can find in this decision is that, like in the definition of ultimate impasse, there is no clear-cut way a board can count on using exigent circumstances to its advantage in negotiations, which I think is really what SERB intends. Both concepts could be used as shortcuts in negotiations that would place unions at a disadvantage, and Ohio’s current collective bargaining law is still to be interpreted liberally and in favor of unions. However, the terms exist and SERB will continue to deal with interpretations and clever applications until they are precisely defined. So, study the decisions and put your thinking caps on.

By: Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent

The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. The creation of Wisconsin's largest teachers union -- "WEA" stands for Wisconsin Education Association -- WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way.

The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA Trust was charging significantly higher rates than the school district could find on the open market. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees. On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. "I could never get a definitive answer on that," says Schilling.

Changing to a different insurance company would save Hartland-Lakeside hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on key educational priorities -- especially important since the cash-strapped state government was cutting back on education funding. But teachers union officials wouldn't allow it; the WEA Trust requirement was in the contract, and union leaders refused to let Hartland-Lakeside off the hook.

That's where Wisconsin's new budget law came in. The law, bitterly opposed by organized labor in the state and across the nation, limits the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. And it just happens that the Hartland-Lakeside teachers' collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30. So now, freed from the expensive WEA Trust deal, the school district has changed insurers.

"It's going to save us about $690,000 in 2011-2012," says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students.

But the effect of weakening collective bargaining goes beyond money. It also has the potential to reshape the adversarial culture that often afflicts public education. In Hartland-Lakeside, there's been no war between union-busting bureaucrats on one side and impassioned teachers on the other; Schilling speaks with great collegiality toward the teachers and says with pride that they've been able to work together on big issues. But there has been a deep division between the school district and top union executives.

In the health insurance talks, for example, Schilling last year began telling teachers about different insurance plans, some of which, like United HealthCare's, required a higher deductible. "We involved them, and they overwhelmingly endorsed the change to United HealthCare," he says. But even with the teachers on board, when school officials presented a change-in-coverage proposal to union officials, it was immediately rejected. The costly WEA Trust deal stayed in place.

Now, with the collective bargaining agreement gone, Schilling looks forward to working more closely with teachers. "I would say the biggest change is we have a lot more involvement with a wider scope of teachers," he says. When collective bargaining was in effect, "We dealt with a select team of teachers, a small group of three or four who were on the bargaining team, and then the union director. Any information that went to the teachers went through them. Now, we feel that we will have a direct dialogue."

It's not hard to see why union officials hate the new law so much. It not only breaks up cherished and lucrative union monopolies like high-cost health insurance; it also threatens to break through the union-built wall between teachers and administrators and allow the two sides to work together more closely. The old union go-betweens, who controlled what their members could and could not hear, will be left aside.

Hartland-Lakeside isn't the only school district that is pulling free from collective bargaining agreements that mandated WEA Trust coverage. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the Pewaukee School District, not far from Hartland-Lakeside, will save $378,000 by next year by leaving WEA Trust. The Menomonee Falls School District, farther north, will reportedly save $1.3 million. Facing state cutbacks, the districts can't afford to overpay for union-affiliated coverage.

Look for the unions to fight back with everything they have. If the Wisconsin situation has shown anything, it is that organized labor views the collective bargaining fight as a life-or-death struggle. If the unions lose in Wisconsin, the clamor for change could spread to other states. What happened in Hartland-Lakeside could become a model for other schools looking for new and better ways to do business.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com.

I am responding to the letters about Charter schools published June 11th and June 21st that express the opinion they are a waste of money.  It's no surprise that the letter writers are from Upper Arlington and Dublin, respectively, two school systems where the children are unlikely to need an alternative to the regular public schools.

My son just graduated from Summit Academy, a school specializing in educating kids with ADHD/low spectrum autism. He started there in 6th grade, after a horrible experience with a 5th grade public school teacher who dragged me into meeting after meeting with the principal, school psychologist and counselor because she did not like how my son behaved in school.  They deftly avoided providing an IEP for him and insisted that he needed medication. This led to side effects that included what the doctor called a "tick" which caused him to pick at his skin until it bled. He was zombie-like in the mornings, antsy in the evenings and emotionally explosive when the medication wore off.  The teacher insisted that he was doing it "on purpose", apparently to aggravate her.  I was so grateful she retired that year I wrote her a thank you note.

After the school year was over, I took him off all medications and enrolled him in Summit, where they used therapeutic martial arts,  small classes, a personalized curriculum/IEP for each child, mentors and classes on social skills to help the students manage their issues. Medication was a personal choice the parents made, not the result of an argument with the school staff.  They took a real and personal interest in my child and worked wonders. His "tick" was gone by the end of his first school year there, he made real friends for the first time and learned how to focus, control his impulses and keep his temper. All without medication. They never treated my child like a problem to be solved, they treated him like a person who needed help to solve his own problems.

He passed the OGT the first try, volunteered at the Mid-Ohio food bank and got job training in the summer through Tech Corps. Some of the kids attended vocational school downtown, others took classes at Columbus State.  At the graduation, when the staff spoke, we could all tell that they really knew our children. They didn't have to make generalizations, they could tell specific and detailed anecdotes about each and every graduate.

My son would never have had this kind of positive experience in a Columbus City school where the emphasis is on herding the kids through classes and making sure they don't cause any trouble. My experience with my younger son, who attends a Columbus City high school, is a complete unwillingness to work with us on behavior in favor of punitive measures such as suspension.  That really just gave him time off school during which he learned nothing at all. For that reason, I chose to pull my daughter out of Columbus schools and put her into Horizon Science, and during her two years there not a single child has been in a fight, gotten caught with a gun, or had to have the police called on them at school.

So Ms. Upper Arlington and Mr. Dublin, I really don't appreciate being told charter schools, and by implication the children who attend them, are a waste of money while you look down your noses and tell us what's "best".  Maybe the kids in your community don't need choices, but ours do.

Kandi Hopkins, Columbus

Published: Monday, August 29, 2011

To the Editor:

As this paper publishes back-to-school stories, I want to remind Worthington parents and residents of the stories it reported on in June regarding the employees of Worthington City Schools agreeing to wage freezes.

Since the new contracts were ratified and approved by the Board of Education in early summer, many Worthington parents and families may not be aware of the commitment that the school administrators, teachers and workers made to the Worthington community. Administrators agreed to a wage freeze for the next two years; Worthington teachers -- 750 professionals -- agreed to freeze salaries and step increases over the next three years; and 450 classified Worthington workers -- bus drivers, cafeteria staff, secretaries, janitors and maintenance staff -- agreed to a pay freeze with no step increases.

In this economy, this is a sacrifice. Step increases for Worthington classified workers range from 30 cents to $1.30 an hour. Classified positions are not high wage to begin with and yet the classified workers in the district agreed to a pay freeze. And for all the talk about the average teachers salary in Worthington being approximately $75,000 a year, both my son's first-grade teacher and my middle school daughter's algebra teacher made less than $45,000 last year and both were exceptional at their job. My children are better students and better citizens for having them. In addition, both of my children's teachers live less than a mile from my home; they work, live and pay taxes in Worthington and they are an integral part of our community.

Last school year, I heard Superintendent Conrath, on several occasions, tell parents and the community that in order to continue Worthington schools' standard of excellence, it was going to take sacrifice -- sacrifice in reductions from the administration, sacrifice in contract negotiations with the teachers union, and sacrifice from the community in the form of a future levy/bond issue. Reductions in state school funding, the loss of the tangible property tax revenue to the district, declining property values -- all of these factors have created the need for sacrifice

In the upcoming year, with the possibility of a levy-bond issue being placed on the November 2012 ballot, I hope Worthington parents and residents will be willing to share in the sacrifice in supporting our students' educations. Superintendent Conrath told our community that in order to be successful, all three -- operating reductions, union concessions, and support for a levy-bond issue -- would have to occur to counter the loss of revenue the district is currently facing. Two of those factors -- cuts and reductions in positions and agreements to wage freezes and an increased share in health insurance costs with the district staff -- were accomplished over the summer.

I am thankful for the sacrifice that school employees agreed to over the summer, I am thankful that my children have returned to Worthington schools, and I am thankful that I am a member of a community that supports excellence in education.

Stephanie Donaldson

To the Editor:

As the former executive director of the Ohio Education Association, Ohio's largest teachers' union, it is easy to figure out Bob Barkley ("Comparison between public, private sector 'rotten fruit,' " Worthington News, June 1) and his union's motivation. It is money, pure and simple.

That is the union's primary function -- to do everything possible to obtain more. That is why the unions were thrilled with former Gov. Ted Strickland spending us into a $4 billion annual deficit and ignoring fiscal reality.

Now that Gov. John Kasich has been elected, he has the sobering -- and constitutional -- responsibility of balancing the budget, and the unions and their co-conspirators, the Democrats, go ballistic. They plan to spend millions of dollars fighting Senate Bill 5 to make sure their generous union contracts are maintained.

Imagine the outrage if anyone were to ask these unions to spend that money on, say, better education for our students, instead of more compensation for our teachers.

One might remember a proposed constitutional amendment a few years ago that would have effectively offered public education a "blank check" from the taxpayers to fund it. Thankfully, it failed. But actions like that do give the impression that the union doesn't know the meaning of the word 'enough.'

The union's heated opposition to collective bargaining reform claims to protect the "middle class." However, as we approach November, more and more Ohioans will get a clear view of the unsustainable demands placed upon them by the public-sector unions.

And Ohioans may come to realize that they themselves have become the servants of the unionized "government class."

Cheryl Shirk

Thursday, June 16, 2011 03:07 AM

I am amazed by all of the rhetoric on collective bargaining. For those who dislike Gov. John Kasich for fulfilling his constitutional responsibility to balance the budget, it’s as if they wanted Ted Strickland back in office to blissfully add another $8 billion to our debt. Are these the same people who, when faced with a $10,000 credit-card bill, simply apply for another credit card?

As for the unions that are working hard and spending millions to repeal Ohio Senate Bill 5, would it be so difficult for them to propose legislation of their own that recognizes the reality that rising government spending is no longer sustainable?

I agree SB 5 isn’t perfect, but can anyone show me an alternative to combat the monstrous liability of public-sector collective bargaining?

I do remember their proposed constitutional amendment a few years ago that would have changed education funding, and it was generally considered to be a blank check to public-school employees.

It isn’t the middle class that these unions are trying to protect; it is the status quo that they desperately want to preserve — and that we no longer can afford.

JOHN HERRINGTON

To the Editor:

As I read the letter provided by Jeanne Melvin, "Wrongs don't make right; SB 5 won't fix state's woes" (Worthington News, June 1), my initial thought to her misguided series of messages was "Were do I begin?"

Melvin starts her anti Senate Bill 5 argument by questioning the legislation's morality. If there is a lack of morality, it lies with the public-sector unions. The ability to strike, as provided through collective bargaining, is the equivalent of allowing union negotiators to "bring a gun to a knife fight." Unfortunately, they have leveraged this intimidation tactic to its fullest, all at taxpayer expense.

Melvin then identifies Senate Bill 5 as an assault against the middle class. The fact is that Senate Bill 5 is the saving grace for the middle class.

Melvin must recognize that it is the lion's share of the middle class that is footing the bill for the public-sector excesses. As one who has had to shoulder four school levies and two local payroll tax increases over the last decade, I look forward to the relief that it will provide.

Finally, Melvin defends public-sector excesses by criticizing private-sector businesses, accusing them of offering "shabby" benefits. This is an unfortunate argument and representative of a belief amongst public-sector workers that there is no limit to taxpayer funds and that they are entitled to a never-ending stream of increased compensation.

As a private-sector employee, I have no complaints about my benefits. I have come to realize that concessions are necessary in these tough economic times and have been willing to make them. Instead of continuing to ask for more, perhaps those in the public sector ought to realize the financial hits that we private-sector taxpayers have taken and show a similar a willingness to accept the implications that come with an economic downturn.

When all is said and done, Senate Bill 5 is essential to the private-sector taxpayer. It levels the negotiating playing field and will save Central Ohio taxpayers $74 million in its first year alone, according to an article in a local daily. All that I can say is that it's about time!

Guy Molde

To the Editor:

In her letter, "Teachers don't get 'cushy' healthcare plan as claimed," (Upper Arlington News, April 27), Lampe asks taxpayers to feel sympathy for the fact that her husband has to pay a healthcare deductible and part of his own prescriptions. While many residents could simply say "welcome to the club," the community deserves to know the rest of the story.

The Upper Arlington teachers' contract (available at uaea.ohea.us/myuaea/Contract.html) shows that while they do have a $2,300 health care deductible, the UA taxpayers contribute the first 75 percent of the teacher's deductible ($1,725) and this is over and above the generous union-negotiated salary (and, by the way, the Worthington union contract does nearly the same thing).

And speaking of salaries, if you want to look up any teacher's salary and pension benefits in Ohio, go to buckeyeinstitute.org/teacher-salary.

In addition, UA taxpayers are contributing 95 percent of her husband's health insurance premium, somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,200 per month.

Finally, if her husband meets the average, it is likely he will collect over $1.3 million in pension benefits. Not bad for only 30 to 35 years worth of work in a job that grants 14 weeks of vacation every year. This compares to 45 years of work for a Social Security recipient who will collect $370,000 in lifetime benefits.

If taxpayers and writers of letters to the editor knew what was in the union contracts of their respected and valued teachers, they might conclude that it all adds up to the very definition of "cushy." In fact, if you multiply it by Ohio's 130,000 unionized teachers, it adds up to "unsustainable."

John Herrington

UA officials: New five-year forecast, state cuts point to levy

By RiShawn Biddle

Friday, June 3, 2011 03:06 AM

The layoff of five teachers of the year in the Pickerington Local School District emphasizes the reason we need Ohio Senate Bill 5 (“Even top teachers fall victim to budget,” Dispatch article, Sunday).

It is ridiculous to have a union contract that dictates a “last in, first out” policy to decide whom to lay off.

It should never be about tenure. If you want the best educators in place, base it on performance. How sad it is to lose quality teachers, from any school district.

STEVE OFFUTT

Westerville

Saturday, May 28, 2011 03:07 AM

The Columbus Dispatch

Leading business organizations are supporting passage of the state's two-year budget bill through Ohio's Campaign for Jobs. For some, this is a departure from the practice of remaining neutral on budget bills. Why do we now take the extraordinary step of supporting policies in the budget as diverse as teacher retention, Medicaid funding and prison reform?

Because this budget - the Jobs Budget - puts a singular focus on creating the best possible climate for private-sector investment and job creation in Ohio. It puts taxpayers ahead of special interests. It rejects the way things have always been done in Columbus in favor of transformative change. It insists government at all levels spend less and provide better value. And it does all this without increasing taxes that would further impair Ohio's job-creation efforts.

Let's look at one example. The budget calls for Medicaid changes that could save $1.2 billion. Do these changes deny benefits to chronically ill children? Do they abandon the mentally ill? Do they prevent seniors from getting the support services they need? No. In fact, the budget contains reforms that improve services for these vulnerable Ohioans. The savings come from common-sense changes such as coordinating care so all medical providers treating a person can know what treatments and medications the others have prescribed. And the budget pays those providers for getting better results instead of by how many procedures they perform.

Similar cost savings for school districts, local governments and state prisons are called out in the Jobs Budget. This is about a new way of doing things, a way that respects the right of taxpayers, businesses and individuals to know that government is spending their money wisely.

In 2010, the Ohio Chamber and our state's eight metro chambers of commerce released a report titled "Redesigning Ohio." It offered suggestions to align spending with resources. The Jobs Budget fills an $8 billion deficit without new taxes, in part by adopting the types of change we identified as essential. We strongly urge the legislature to pass the reforms in the budget bill and put Ohio on a path to renewed greatness.

LINDA WOGGON

Executive vice president

Ohio Chamber of Commerce

Columbus

Thursday, May 26, 2011

The May 7 Dispatch article “Teachers union to fund SB5 fight” shows it’s business as usual for the Ohio Education Association: fill a war chest with more forced union dues.

Such a strategy — assessing active members a fee of $54 and support-staff members $25 — flies in the face of the OEA’s argument that its members can’t afford even a slight increase in pension and health-care contributions.

It’s about protecting its power and protecting the money-laundering scheme it has had with the Democratic Party all these years.

The Ohio Education Association and the National Education Association turn union dues over to Democratic candidates, who win election and then give the unions sweetheart deals.

BRUCE RICHARDSON

Kasich and House put Ohio on sustainable path after predecessors failed

Sunday, May 8, 2011 03:15 AM  The Columbus Dispatch

Considering the budget nightmare facing Gov. John Kasich and the legislature, the measure passed by the House last week is a remarkable achievement.

An $8 billion budget hole has been eliminated, and though the pain of cuts will felt throughout the state, Ohio will be on a sounder fiscal footing in two years when the next biennial budget is put together.

Equally remarkable - in a negative way - are those who slam this achievement. That's because some of them had a hand in digging the hole from which Kasich is trying to pull the state.

Former House speaker and now House Minority Leader Armond Budish criticizes the painful cuts included in Kasich's budget proposal.

But those cuts are necessary precisely because Budish and former Gov. Ted Strickland didn't do their job - truly balancing the state's budget - when they controlled the governor's office and the House two years ago.

Faced with a vast gulf between revenue and what they wanted to spend, Budish and Strickland should have been the ones making budget cuts in the 2010-11 budget.

Instead, they papered over the shortfall by grasping at every accounting trick and one-time revenue source available - and, in the stimulus-fueled environment, there were plenty - to avoid the fundamental restructuring that Ohio's budget needed.

That left their successors with an $8 billion time bomb.

Kasich and House Republicans deserve immense credit for producing a budget proposal that deals with that reality rather than finding yet another way to put it off.

Budish disagrees with Kasich's priorities, he says. When he was speaker of the House, Budish had every opportunity - the duty, in fact - to set the priorities he now claims to stand for.

Had he led a charge to reset government spending to align with the resources available, he could have influenced the future more to his liking. He didn't.

Budget cuts will impel governments at all levels to streamline and find innovative approaches to delivering the services.

Kasich has attempted to offer solutions along with the pain, by giving local governments more control over payrolls through collective-bargaining reform and encouraging long-overdue reform of public-construction bidding practices.

While this is a difficult time to hold public office, it also is a transformative and historic time, bringing with it the opportunity to shape a more sustainable relationship between taxpayers and the government they support.

Dealing with hard problems instead of kicking them down the road is leadership.

Budish's too-late carping adds nothing to the effort and sheds glaring light on his own negligence.

BUCKEYE INSTITUTE RELEASES AN ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 5 AND ON OEA'S PLAN TO INDOCTRINATE OHIO'S KIDS