Blame Conservatives for Ohio's Issue 2 Loss

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." Lord Acton - The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877

Much ink and bandwith has been spilled analyzing the reasons Ohio's collective bargaining reform law, Issue 2, failed to survive Tuesday's referendum.  Many suspect it was the millions of dollars poured into the anti-Issue 2 campaign by the out-of-state Big Labor groups and the blatantly deceptive ads that ran constantly on radio and TV stations across the state. Those were certainly major factors in the outcome. Some say that Governor Kasich and the Republican legislature overreached by including police and firefighters - that they should have been exempted from the reforms because they gave opponents ammunition for the aforementioned despicable ads that implied that police and firefighters would be in danger as would everyone else in Ohio. Again, that was a factor in the outcome. 

But the real reason Issue 2 went down on Tuesday is that conservatives voted against it. Tea Party members, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives - conservatives of every stripe in Ohio  voted save their "benefits" and the "benefits" of their union friends and relatives.  

The Ohio Constitution has an unfortunate provision that allows citizens to both amend the constitution and to call for a referendum to stop a new law from taking effect - a citizen's veto. While all this "We the People" language sounds good on paper, the reality is that it shifts the power to make laws from the legislature to special interest groups and uninformed citizens, most of whom don't bother to actually read the laws, let alone understand the implications of them. It has the effect of turning the state into a direct democracy.

When SB5 became law, Big Labor immediately went to work to gather enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot so Ohio voters would have the opportunity to veto the legislation that the duly elected state legislature had passed and the duly elected governor had signed into law. From there, it was just a matter of convincing enough people that this new law would cost them money and cost their beloved "public servants" money. 

I began to see the trajectory this past spring when a teacher told me she had signed the petition to put SB5 on the ballot. She said they had passed it around at school  and "everyone" had signed it.  This was a conservative teacher from a conservative school in a district where most people would never dream of voting for a Democrat. As we headed into fall I began to see the anti-Issue 2 signs springing up amid the falling leaves in the yards of union members in our small town.  This is a town where it's rare to see a Democrat on the Village Council or school board and 56% voted for Governor Kasich. Hardly blue country, but the township voted down the collective bargaining reforms 61-39%.  These same voters (65% of them) overwhelmingly said they wanted Ohio to be protected from Obamacare. Again, hardly blue country. 

The unpleasant truth is that union members- conservative union members - voted with their pocketbooks. They saw (or most likely heard from their union bosses) that SB5 would cost them money and they voted to preserve the status quo. Their friends and family members also voted in solidarity with them. It's quite an easy thing to say we're Tea Party members and believe that we're 'Taxed Enough Already,'  but when it becomes personal and we're forced to have some skin in the game, how many of us would give up part of our paycheck or some of our benefits to help our state's bottom line? 

Issue 2 could not have passed without strong support from Republicans and conservatives. The state's 300,000 public employees (and 655,000 union members overall) barely made a dent in the 2 million votes against the measure.  Consider that more Ohioans voted against Issue 2 than voted for Governor Kasich (1,889,186) or Governor Strickland (1,812,052) in the last election.  

This was a big test for the conservative movement and Tea Party values and I'm disappointed to say we failed miserably.  As much as I dislike the direct democracy component of the Ohio Constitution, it does give us some insight into whether conservatives will put their money where their mouth is.  Human nature is such that men and women will, if given the opportunity, vote against measures that hit them in the pocketbook. Never mind that eventually, all Ohio taxpayers - union and non-union alike - will be paying for these gold-plated benefits for generations to come. At least those Akron public employees still don't have to pay anything for their pensions and healthcare this year. 

All of us who call ourselves conservatives need to do some soul searching in the wake of this huge loss in Ohio. While most of us in the private sector have had to deal with austerity measures in the workplace, for the most part, it hasn't been voluntary. We need to ask ourselves if we're willing to have skin in the game to help our country (or our state or our city) begin to dig out from the overwhelming burden of debt we find ourselves in. 

Or is the modern conservative movement merely slogans and academic discussion? 

Cross-posted at RedState

Ohio Issue 2 - A Proper Redress (Part 3)

[Read Part 1 to see the reasons I believe the reforms in Issue 2 are needed]


[Read Part 2 to see how SB 5 affects safety forces]


In this post I'd like to discuss how Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) if enacted, will affect teachers. As I said in my previous post, there has been tremendous pressure to "support teachers," with the implication that a YES vote on Issue 2 is analogous to disrespecting teachers or being ungrateful for the work they do. In reality, the opposite is true.


SB 5 will affect teachers in significant ways and it's understandable that they would be concerned. In Part 1 of this series, I explained the new requirements for health care (15%) and pension (10%) contributions. For many teachers, this won't be a change at all, since they're already paying these amounts or more. 


The other game-changer in this piece of legislation is the elimination of automatic step-increases for public employees. Instead, they will be evaluated and paid, in part, based upon their performance.  Nearly everyone in the private sector earns raises based upon performance and they're permitted to continue on the job based upon performance. For public employees in Ohio, there are currently step charts dictating exactly how much each employee makes based upon things like length of service and education level. So each year, they receive a predictable raise, whether or not they have performed well.  Good teachers are paid exactly the same as bad teachers. Layoffs are made based only upon seniority. 


In the new system, teachers would be evaluated and compensated based upon the following:

Sec. 3317.13 (B) Each teacher shall be paid a salary based upon performance as described in this section: 

(C) For purposes of this section, a board shall measure a teacher's performance by considering all of the following:

(1) The level of license issued under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code that the teacher holds;

(2) Whether the teacher is a "highly qualified teacher" as defined in section 3319.074 of the Revised Code; 

(3) The value-added measure the board uses to determine the performance of the students assigned to the teacher's classroom; 

(4) The results of the teacher's performance evaluations conducted under section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or any peer review program created by an agreement entered into by a board of education and representatives of teachers employed by that board; 

(5) Any other criteria established by the board

Here's a video that describes how such a multi-faceted system works in the D.C. school system:

See Part 2 and Part 3.

School boards would use evaluations to make decisions about compensation, nonrenewal of employment contracts, termination, layoffs, and professional development.

The first thing to understand is that no salaries are changed by this law and teachers will still be negotiating wages through collective bargaining. The big change is that teachers will no longer be awarded raises just for showing up to work for another year. 


There will be a model assessment framework created by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE). This will be an open and transparent process as SBE meetings are open to the public and all proceedings are subject to Ohio's Sunshine Laws.  Local school boards may use the SBE's model assessment or create their own, based upon the requirements of SB 5. 


Each board, in consultation with teachers, will create an evaluation system that:

(1) Is evidence-based and uses multiple measures of a teacher's use of knowledge and skills and of students' academic progress;

(2) Is aligned with the standards for teachers adopted under section 3319.61 of the Revised Code;

(3) Provides statements of expectation for professional performance and establishes specific criteria of expected job performance in the areas of responsibility assigned to the teacher.

(4) Requires observation of the teacher being evaluated by the person conducting the evaluation on at least two occasions for not less than thirty minutes on each occasion;

(5) Requires that each teacher be provided with a written report of the results of the teacher's evaluation that includes specific recommendations

Each teacher will be evaluated on the following, once each year in April:

The framework shall require at least fifty per cent of each evaluation to be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the department of education. When applicable to a teacher, those measures shall include student performance on the assessments prescribed under sections 3301.0710 and 3301.0712 of the Revised Code and the value-added progress dimension prescribed by section 3302.021 of the Revised Code.

(1) Quality of instructional practice, which may be determined by announced and unannounced classroom observations and examinations of samples of work, such as lesson plans or assessments designed by theteacher;

(2) Communication and professionalism, including how well the teacher interacts with students, parents, other school employees, and members of thecommunity.

(3) Parent and student satisfaction, which may be  measured by surveys,questionnaires, or other forms of soliciting feedback.

Those of you who work in the private sector will likely read these requirements and find them familiar; this is how the majority of workers in Ohio are evaluated for raises and promotions. They certainly don't seem unreasonable. Those of us with children in the public schools would like to know our children's teachers are on the job because they are competent teachers, not merely because they have a degree and a teaching license. 


It's important to understand that "student performance on assessments" is only used as an evaluation method "when applicable." So, for example, it would not be part of the art teacher's evaluation because there is no current achievement test for art. The same for kindergarten. However, there would still be a requirement to measure "student growth" with a "value-added" dimension. For those not familiar with education lingo, this means that rather than a pass/fail system on mandated tests or assessments, the student's growth from year to year is the measure of success.  Who could argue with that?


Here's my take: If you're a good teacher, you're already doing all of this and you have nothing to fear from these reforms. If you're a great teacher, you may even be better-compensated for your efforts. If you're terrified that this new law will punish you in some way, then a little soul-searching is in order. Perhaps you're the reason we need performance pay.


There are a couple other items that might be of interest to teachers (and those who care about them).  The first is the provision that continuing contracts (tenure) will be retained for those who have already attained that status (ORC 3319.1). However, going forward, this will be eliminated. 


The other is a new provision that will ban forced fair share dues to unions. If teachers (or other public employee at a union-represented workplace) decides that they don't want to continue to fund the Ohio Education Association's liberal political agenda - namely funding the Ohio Democratic Party - they can now opt out without being forced to pay fair share dues. 

In most cases, paying fair share dues is the same as paying union does. In either case, the employee still receives union representation in contract negotiations. See here for an example of the differences.  The union bosses hate, hate, hate this provision because they know many people aren't thrilled about about its leaders, who pull in six-figure salaries and run an organization rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse. They know that if given the opportunity, union members will bolt and the money will dry up. But it's great news if you're a conservative teacher and you're tired of being shaken-down for union or fair share dues.


I realize this is a tough sell to teachers. I've heard stories of young teachers who have been pressured at work to sign the petitions and work for a NO on Issue 2. I also realize there's a conflict for some between an ideology of fiscal conservatism and a need to provide for one's own family. In a sense, this is where the rubber meets the road.

If you are a teacher, please understand that we don't all think you're greedy or that you've single-handedly bankrupted the state. We appreciate what you do for our kids. But also please understand that these adjustments you are being asked to make are the same ones we in the private sector have been making for years. Our family's health insurance costs have skyrocketed in recent years to $700/month. 


A couple years ago, Sherwin-Williams, where my husband works, cut back their contribution to his 401K from 6% to 3% due to the economic downturn. While we were disappointed by the reduction, we were glad that it wasn't a layoff notice and glad the company is fiscally responsible - that they haven't had to make layoffs when many other companies have (they reinstated the the full contribution this year).  For that matter, we're grateful that they contribute anything at all.  Many private sector employees don't have retirement funds at all and, like my mother-in-law, will depend entirely on a meager Social Security check in retirement. 

I hope teachers and those who want to support them will consider voting YES on Issue 2. In addition to giving school districts tools to control their budgets and help avert layoffs, it will help to keep and reward the best teachers, which is best for the kids. 

Ohio Issue 2 - A Proper Redress (Part 2)

BLOG UPDATE:  I've re-decorated and re-named my blog. I've also moved it. See here for the details.  I'll continue to post at both blogs for a short time, but I'd appreciate it if you'd follow me over to the new place and update your subscriptions and feeds.


****************************************************************




[Part 1 - Why reforms are needed]
[Part 3 - Teachers]

If you live in Ohio, you know about Issue 2, which is a referendum to stop the union/public employment reforms enacted by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Kasich. The airwaves have been filled with emotional ads featuring teachers, firefighters, nurses, paramedics, and police officers. 

Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric has seemed personal. If you say you are voting YES on Issue 2 (voting for the reforms), you're told you are trying to "destroy the middle class" (even if you are middle class yourself), you want to put safety forces in danger, and you want to see your child's teacher unemployed (and poor). It's no wonder there are very few Yes on 2 signs in Ohio yards. Who would want to admit to all that? 

To ramp up the emotional blackmail appeal, the AFL-CIO is now running ads with firefighters who served our country as soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In one ad, a Columbus firefighter and war veteran says:

"I never expected to have to fight our own government… to have a voice in my own safety and work conditions."

From the AFL-CIO blog:

“We didn’t expect this kind of homecoming when we came back,” says Columbus fire fighter David Jarvis, who served in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and served in Operation Desert Storm during the first Gulf War."

The claim that public employees will not have a "voice in their own safety and work conditions" has been repeated throughout the campaign and I suspect it will convince a lot of people to vote to strike down the reforms in SB5. We've been told that not only will police and firefighters be in danger, but our own families will be as well.  One radio ad featured a 911 call with the dispatcher telling a frightened family with a robber in their home that the police wouldn't arrive for 20 minutes because they were short staffed.  Listeners were told this is what we should expect if Issue 2 passes. 


But is it true?


The answer depends upon which question you're asking. Let's try to unravel a few of them.


First, let me take a minute to explain exactly what Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) is. Many of its opponents have claimed that it's 300 pages long and very confusing.  The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio said, "This 300 page bill is very complicated and proposes to make numerous, substantial and interrelated changes in the law." That's a half-truth, at best. 


The introduction to SB 5 says, 

"AN ACT To amend sections [then it lists dozens of sections] of the Revised Code to make various changes to laws concerning public employees, including collective bargaining, salary schedules and compensation, layoff procedures, and leave."

The vast majority of the 300 pages of this Act, which became a Bill (SB 5) and then became a law (remember School House Rock? I'm Just a Bill?), are sections of the Revised Code that have remained unchanged. The entire text of each section that has even one word changed must be included, which means that a LOT of ink is spilled when ever there is a new law passed!  Here's an example:

(C) Unless a public employer specifically agrees otherwise in an express written provision of a collective bargaining agreement, nothing in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code impairs the right and responsibility of each public employer to:

(1) Determine matters of inherent managerial policy which include, but

are not limited to areas of discretion or policy such as the functions and

programs of the public employer, standards of services, its overall budget,

utilization of technology, and organizational structure;

(2) Direct, supervise, evaluate, or hire employees;

(3) Maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of

governmental operations;

(4) Determine the overall methods, process, means, or personnel by

which governmental operations are to be conducted;

(5) Suspend, discipline, demote, or discharge for just cause, or lay off,

transfer, assign, schedule, promote, or retain employees;

(6) Determine the adequacy of the work force;

(7) Determine the overall mission of the employer as a unit of

government;

(8) Effectively manage the work force;

(9) Take actions to carry out the mission of the public employer as a

governmental unit Hire, discharge, transfer, suspend, or discipline

employees;

(2) Determine the number of persons required to be employed or laid

off;

(3) Determine the qualifications of employees;

(4) Determine the starting and quitting time and the number of hours to

be worked by its employees;

(5) Make any and all reasonable rules and regulations;

(6) Determine the work assignments of its employees;

(7) Determine the basis for selection, retention, and promotion of

employees;

Wherever something is crossed out, it means something has been removed from existing law. When something is underlined, it has been added. Text with no markings is current law that remains unchanged. If you take a minute to skim through the new law, you'll see that the majority of it remains unchanged. Opponents of SB 5 would have us believe that the Republicans add 300 pages of new laws. That's simply not true.


Now back to the issue of safety forces. At issue is this:

(B) The following subjects are not appropriate subjects for collective
bargaining:

(5) The number of employees required to be on duty or employed in any
department, division, or facility of a public employer

 (F) Notwithstanding division (C) of this section, equipment issues
directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.

If you've been following along, you noted that this is underlined, so it's been added to existing law.  So it's true that public employees will not be allowed to collectively bargain for staffing levels.  However, claims that it would be "illegal" for public employees to talk to their employers about staffing levels are merely hyperbole. No firefighters or teachers will be thrown in jail for expressing their opinions about staffing levels and exercising their First Amendment rights. The new law just says that it can't be a subject of the "official" collective bargaining process. 


Note also that safety forces can collectively bargain for safety equipment. This is a new right that they did not have before SB5.  Apparently the unions are not telling their members this, because I've seen comments all over the blogs saying they will not have this right if SB5 is enacted. 


However, the more important question is whether that will make them (and us) less safe. Since individual police officers, firefighters and paramedics won't be deciding on staffing levels, it will be left to the discretion of management - that means fire and police chiefs. Of course, they will have to work within the budget dictated by the local government unit, but why wouldn't they be competent to make intelligent, informed decisions about staffing levels? They have years of experience in their areas of expertise and are well-qualified for this task. 


Opponents of Issue 2 would have us believe that miserly city councils and township trustees would immediately slash budgets and cut safety forces down to skeleton crews in order to build new dog parks.  What motive they supposedly have for putting their constituents and their own families in danger, I do not know. 


The truth is, there is not an unlimited pot of money from which to pay safety forces, though Ohio governments have lived in that fantasy land for many years now. In the past, when unions would show up at the bargaining table to demand more, more, more, an impasse could result in binding arbitration, where the recommendation (and mandate) might be for the city to borrow money to meet the demands.  SB 5 gives local governments tools to control their budgets including controlling staffing levels, eliminating binding arbitration, and requiring public employees to pay minimal amounts toward their health care and pensions. 


The result of not enacting these reforms is the real danger. With bloated budgets and unsustainable projected deficits in cities across the country, layoffs will be necessary. That is a far more serious concern than trusting fire chiefs and police chiefs to decide staffing levels based on actual, realistic budgets. The money pot has run out and cities need these tools to keep us safe and to keep us from fiscal disasters. 

Ohio Issue 2 - A Proper Redress (Part 1)

I'm going to be writing a series of blog posts over the next few days, addressing the specific issues related to Ohio Issue 2/SB 1. For today, I'd like to share a Letter to the Editor I sent to the Daily Record (Wooster) today. I had to heavily edit to keep it from becoming a manifesto with a length rivaling War and Peace.  I plan to address some of these issues with more specificity in the coming days. 

Those of us who are voting YES on Issue 2 have been accused of everything from wanting to destroy the middle class to putting the lives of our firefighters in danger.

The truth is, most of us are just concerned citizens who see the budget crisis on our doorstep and realize that reforms are needed. While many public employees already pay 15% of their health care and 10% of their pensions—some even more— many do not. The average city workers in Ohio pay 9% for their health care, compared to 23% for the private sector. Akron’s teachers and city workers pay nothing toward their own health care. A YES on Issue 2 would require public employees to pay 15%, still well below the state average for the private sector. (And they’ll still be able to bargain for safety equipment, wages, terms, and conditions.)

In Columbus, the city pays both the employer (taxpayer) and the employee portion of the pension for city employees—they don’t contribute a dime toward their own pensions, a practice called pension pickups. Pension pickups cost Columbus $36 million in 2011. A YES on Issue 2 would stop the practice of taxpayers footing the bill for the public employees’ portion of the pension contribution.

Obviously, these perks are completely out of line with the private sector. We must remember that all Ohio taxpayers pay for these gold-plated benefit plans through our state tax dollars, which are redistributed to municipalities and school districts across the state.

This isn’t personal—the hard truth is that these benefit packages are no longer sustainable. School districts and municipalities across the state are projecting huge deficits over the next five years. The Akron City Schools are projecting a $142 million deficit by 2015, when personnel costs will consume 93% of the district’s budget. (Find your district’s projections here.) This will certainly lead to massive teacher layoffs and this scenario will be repeated in school districts, cities, and counties across the state.

Vote YES on Issue 2 to save jobs and put us back on the road to balanced budgets in our school districts, our cities, our counties, and our small towns. If you need to know more, www.iVoters.com is a great non-partisan website for information on all three of Ohio's ballot issues.


[Part 2 - Safety Forces]    [Part 3 - Teachers]