StgCoach – Page 62 – Oh, Contrarian!

Charter Shools Should Report to Elected Boards

(Before heading off to San Diego, I sent the following to The Plain Dealer, which added it to their online blog page.)

Many of the problems separating House and Senate negotiators working on a new budget is a difference on the funding of Ohio’s charter schools. The House budget imposes new oversight requirements on charter schools and, perhaps anticipating that many will not be able to meet those requirements, provides less money for them. Those increased oversight provisions for Ohio’s charter schools are appropriate and necessary.

As a teachers’ union leader in two local school districts, I spent many years advocating for my members, and those activities frequently led me into conflicts with boards of education. And as a taxpayer in my home district, I have sometimes found it necessary to contact members of my local board of education regarding their public decisions. So although I have never served as a member of a local school board, I have had reason both as an employee and as a taxpayer to criticize the work done by members of local boards of education.

That said, I believe that their governance by elected boards of education is an important characteristic of public school districts and offers an example of the ways in which charter schools should be held more accountable. Many of the issues for which charter schools are sometimes criticized would be eliminated if the law required them to operate as public entities, and specifically, operating under the same open-meeting provisions as public boards of education.

One of the reasons for the creation of Ohio’s charter schools back in the nineties was the perceived need for schools that could innovate without excessive governmental interference. As worthy as this idea was, most voters want charter schools to be held accountable to the public in general and not just to the tiny community of families who avail themselves of their services. Because they are spending public dollars, charter schools should be subject to the same accountability provisions as traditional public schools. Their reporting to a locally-elected board of education conducting its business in public would be an important way to bring transparency and accountability to the operation of these schools.

Those that can’t operate accountably shouldn’t be allowed to remain in operation.

Letter to Bishop Lennon

(text of a letter sent to Bishop Richard Lennon, Diocese of Cleveland, April 20, 2009:)

Dear Bishop Lennon:

I am a parishioner at St. Mary Church in Bedford. Until 2000, when I began a new career which limited my time for parish activities, I served as a member and chairperson of Pastoral Council and as a member or chair of several parish groups including a School Task Force (1989), the parish component of the Diocesan Liturgical Review (1990), and a School Futuring Committee (1997). In addition, for over twenty years I directed a contemporary music group at St. Mary that assisted at weekly liturgies, and I continue to assist there as a cantor and substitute organist as the need arises and my schedule permits.

Although I was unable to participate in the parish cluster activities leading up to the recent preliminary decision to merge three Bedford-area parishes into one, I understand that the parish has filed a timely appeal of that decision. Meaning no disrespect to the teams that developed the cluster plan, I would respectfully suggest three reasons why merging all three into one parish housed at the present St. Pius X church is a mistake.

As a musician who has played at all three parishes, I can witness that the worship space at St. Mary is by far the best of the three. (As a parishioner, I believe that this is at least partly because the staff and parishioners there have made liturgy a priority.) St. Mary has newer instruments and is both above ground and accessible to worshipers with special needs.
If one worship space is to remain, the one located at St. Mary is better situated within the geographic area, being more central within the parish cluster. The current St. Pius X buildings are relatively close to parishes to the north and northwest, but the plan ignores a huge swath to the south and southeast. The space between St. Pius X and the nearest remaining parishes to the east (St. Rita), south (St. Barnabas), and southeast (Our Lady of Guadalupe) would be six, ten, and ten miles respectively.
This distance between worship spaces will accelerate the movement of Catholics residing in this cluster to suburbs further out, encouraging sprawl and decimating the Catholic presence in these inner-ring southeastern suburbs.

The task set before the parish leaders, you, and your staff, is a difficult one. I respectfully suggest that keeping open the worship space at St. Mary would be a better way to reconfigure the parishes of this cluster.

Payday Loans, 391% Interest, and Issue 5

I’ve concluded that I’ll vote “yes” on Issue 5.

Like so many of these statewide ballot issues, this one is confusing, especially if all you look at are advertising messages. That’s because virtually all the advertising has come from one side: the payday loan industry, which obviously has a stake in seeing this issue go down.

Issue 5 is a referendum on a provision of a state law (HB 545) that passed this spring with bipartisan support, capping the interest rates that payday lenders can charge. The 391% figure commonly cited by opponents reflects the most common way that these loans work: a two-week, $100 loan with a fee of $15. The payday loan industry worked hard and successfully to keep mention of the 391% figure out of the ballot language.

Once again, the language of this issue is confusing. A “yes” vote on the ballot is necessary to uphold the law. A “no” vote removes that portion of the law and permits the high-interest payday loans to continue.

Almost the only advertising you’ll see on TV consists of messages opposing Issue 5. That’s because the payday loan industry is the party that will lose money if the issue passes, so they spent plenty to get it on the ballot and they’ve invested heavily in encouraging people to vote against keeping the law. You can see a pretty good ad at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtStucEk6zo.

One of the most disturbing things about this campaign is the scare tactic in which opponents talk about the vast database of information that the state will supposedly have to develop in order to enforce HB 545. Enforcement of any law is pretty much impossible without a mechanism to monitor compliance; the same argument could be made regarding the enforcement of virtually any regulation. I don’t see anything special about this one, but this appeal probably works with voters who instinctively oppose all regulation.

All that said, there’s a legitimate argument to be made for a “no” vote: that banning high-interest payday loans removes a financial option that people should be able to choose for themselves. In general, I agree that the principle of caveat emptor should rule the marketplace. But taken to extreme, that principle would abolish virtually all consumer legislation, and experience suggests that people need some protections. The big question, I guess, is whether this provision of HB 545 is a protection that deserves to be repealed. I’m pretty skeptical of the wisdom of the present General Assembly, but on this issue I’m inclined to side with the legislators and not with the industry being regulated.

A website called “ballotpedia” provides some coverage of this issue at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_Issue_5_(2008). That coverage is, unfortunately, somewhat out of date, but some of the links are helpful. Especially unfortunate is that the website details the “no” option as “supporters of repealing BH 545,” confusing the yes-no question still more. A list of endorsements of a “yes” vote on Issue 5 appears at http://www.yesonissue5.com/documents/Issue%205%20Supporters.pdf.