Had Enough Yet?

The Michigan-based Education Action Group posts billboards in southwestern Ohio asking, “Did you get a raise for not dying this summer?”
Ohio gubernatorial candidate John Kasich tells an audience, “We need to break the back of organized labor in the schools.”

And now, as governor-elect, Kasich says, “the public-employee unions, particularly the teachers union, you know how I feel about them, . . . but for the unions that make things, I’m going to sit down with them.”

Oprah Winfrey lends her reputation to the film Waiting for Superman, and provides its producer with a virtual infomercial for charter schools and union-busting.
Have you had enough yet?
  • If you are a public educator in Ohio, you sit squarely in the crosshairs of a movement which has decided that you are the problem.
  • If you are a Republican public educator, your party has walked away from you. With relatively few exceptions, Republican candidates refused to meet with the educators serving on our screening committees for this year’s elections.

But wait, it gets worse: the Republicans aren’t the only party we’ve lost. The Obama administration’s embrace of merit pay, union-busting, and charter schools tells us that a “D” after the official’s name doesn’t reliably label a friend.

Republican and Democratic attitudes toward public education aren’t the same, to be sure; but the nuances of their attitudes toward us are a topic for another day. if the Republicans hate us and the Democrats disrespect us, what does that mean? Are we – gulp – alone?
Yes.
Long before we lost the Republicans and the Democrats, we lost our fellow citizens. We have a big persuasion job to do with society at large: too many think that ripping on public employees in general, and public educators in particular, are fine ideas. We’ve done little to tell them otherwise.
Worse yet, our own members are unreliable supporters of public education. Here’s what I mean.
  • Far too many of our colleagues don’t believe us when we tell them about the peril they’re in. If the Republicans are smart, they’ll treat us right and show that all the fear we’ve been mongering among our members is just hysteria. But I don’t anticipate that; that would be far too subtle, and subtlety isn’t the strong suit of politicians of any stripe.
  • Too many of our colleagues support public education only when it suits them. They support public schools in the suburbs but not in the cities. They support the public schools where they work but not the ones where they live. Or (I’m a parent, and I know this is problematic) they send a message to their neighbors by sending their own kids to nonpublic schools.
  • Unfortunately, many public educators belong to locals whose presidents don’t deliver the organization’s message. So we keep preaching to the saved but we never get a chance to preach to the rest.
We are in danger from the new Republican government of Ohio, but not just because they share their party’s loathing of public employees. When they attack us, they’ll be supported by many of our fellow-citizens. And many of own members will be right there with them.
Ho, ho, ho, indeed.

Linus’s Law and County Government

On Tuesday, November 3, Cuyahoga County voters will face one of the most important county issues in our lifetimes. I’ll be voting for Issue 5 and against Issue 6. Here’s why.

If you live in Cuyahoga County, you almost certainly know that several government figures have been accused of corruption within the past few years. The FBI conducted raids in July 2008, and some of the smaller fish are already in jail; the suspected largest fish haven’t been indicted yet, but suspicions are numerous.

The corruption probe gave new immediacy to proposals for reorganizing county government, and that’s exactly where the mischief lies. In northeastern Ohio, new government reorganization plans are introduced about as often as Browns quarterbacks; so some prominent public officials met, dusted off some plans, added a few new features, and over 53,000 signers–looking, understandably, for anything that would change the status quo–put Issue 6 on the ballot. Issue 6 is a new county charter, all wrapped up and ready to go.

Issue 5, by contrast, isn’t a new charter: it’s a process for developing a new charter. I’m supporting it because a new charter should be developed by a public charter review commission whose meetings are held in public under sunshine laws. Years ago, I served as a member of the charter review commission for the City of Bedford; and although few residents knew or cared that we were meeting, the fact is that they could have known if they wanted to. That’s very different from a group of Great Men meeting to decide the county’s future, which is how we got Issue 6.

Hence my reference to Linus’s Law. Named by Eric S. Raymond in honor of Linus Torvald, the inventor of the open-source operating system Linux, the law states that “Given sufficient eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” Ungainly as the phrasing may be, it applies to more than just software: “eyeballs” refers to the number of people involved in the drafting process. Since Issue 5 is an open process, the charter it would produce would draw plenty of eyeballs; Issue 6 is the result of a closed process, and the bugs are already evident.

The first bug is Issue 6’s lack of campaign finance reform language, which is pretty ironic, given that it’s touted as an answer to corruption. The second is that in its rush to throw out the bums, the new charter calls for special elections which The Plain Dealer reports would cost taxpayers an additional $4 million in special election expenses. What other bugs lay hidden in its 28 pages? (You can look for them here.)

If, after an open review process, it appears that the county organization plan embodied in Issue 6 is so good, the charter commission can submit it to a vote in 2010. If it’s not, they can submit something better. Cuyahoga County government didn’t get screwed up so quickly that one year will make that great a difference; but a rush toward an ill-considered change could make a very great difference indeed.

So I’ll vote against Issue 6 and for Issue 5. While I’m at it, I’m going to vote for the charter commission proposed by the Issue 5 group, “Real Reform.” Some 29 names appear on the ballot in one big group; they don’t appear as distinct slates, although that’s how they filed. The names of the pro-Issue 5 group are:

  • Harriet Applegate
  • Bill Cervenik
  • Mark Davis
  • Ann Marie Donegan
  • Mike Foley
  • Stuart Garson
  • Ron V. Johnson, Jr.
  • Dr. Gus Kious
  • Jazmin Torres-Lugo
  • Rev. Marvin McMickle
  • Nick (Sonny) Nardi
  • Betty K. Pinkney
  • Patrick Shepherd
  • Sandra Williams

On the face of it, Issue 6 seems to have the better chance of passage. It has the support of the Cuyahoga County business community, and a campaign budget about ten times that of Issue 5. It has the air time and the lawn signs. But it’s a bad idea. It was developed without sufficient eyeballs, and its bugs are deep.

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.