Betsy DeVos, the President's pick for the U.S. Secretary of Education, is a corporate politician - unlike her boss who many believe is a traditional republican. When Donald Trump was only a candidate for the Presidency, most corporatists began calling him the same profane-laced names as the democrats did. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, and many others said that a Trump presidency will be a disaster. Betsy DeVos, however, contributed heavily to the Trump campaign, so President Trump has remained loyal to DeVos.
This column/blog is about Betsy DeVos and her connections to Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives - and possible conspiracy with them. Remember, connections to lawmakers is not a crime, but "conspiracy" is a crime, especially if the players in question conspire to commit campaign fraud in the form of excessive campaign contributions and dark money ads. Betsy DeVos was the former Executive Director of the American Federation for Children (AFC), a "pro-private and corporate charter school" voucher group which typically "buys" congressmen in Washington D.C.. Mrs. DeVos gave up the AFC directorship when she was appointed to serve as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. It is a well-established fact that DeVos has donated huge sums of money to U.S. Congressmen, both privately and in behalf of the AFC (in order to provide motivation to "see things her way", and vote accordingly). This is probably one of the reasons that the U.S. Senate voted to "confirm" her appointment on January 31, 2017, as several senators received huge campaign contributions. Betsy DeVos is also connected to Oklahoma State Senators and House members through the state branch of the AFC, the Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund (OFCAF). This state "school voucher" group is just what its name implies - it provides funding for pro-voucher politicians to help get them elected to office. In other words, public school teacher candidates need not apply for OFCAF dark money. Oklahoma Watch, a public watchdog group, has identified several state senators and representatives who received almost $200,000 in financial support from the OFCAF. At least part of this total was used to discredit the public school teachers and officials who were candidates for office this last election season. The legislators and candidates receiving financial assistance included Elise Hall, House District 100, $3,177; Joe Newhouse, Senate District 25, $13,611; Rob Standridge, Senate District 15, $2,489; Kyle Loveless, Senate District 45, $3,156; Julie Daniels, Senate District 29, $7,165; and Tim Downing, House District 42, $7,039.
Those public school teachers and officials who were candidates and received the brunt of the voucher group's anger included Shawn Sheehan, educator and 2016 Oklahoma Teacher of the Year, $2,489 for ads against; Lloyd Snow, school superintendent, $11,509 for ads against; Don Wentroth, teacher, $3,177 for ads against; Lisa Kramer, school board member, $22,788; Robert Founds, public school advocate, $13,611; Robert Jobe, teacher, $7,165; and Liz George, public school supporter, $7,039. A few public school candidates received "both barrels" of the Dark Money voucher shotgun, one blast from the OFCAF and the other blast from Catalyst Oklahoma. Again, the public watchdog group Oklahoma Watch listed Jim Beckham (public school candidate for House District 42) as having been blasted with $33,834 in "dark money ads" and phone calls, Robert Jobe (public school candidate for Senate District 29) $39,665 in dark money ads and phone calls, and Lisa Kramer (school board member and CPA) $40,288 in dark money ads and phone calls. These voucher and dark money groups spent a total of $221,400 to make sure no public school candidates would win in the state primaries, while the OFCAF alone spent over $190,000 to make sure only school voucher candidates would be elected in November.
Just because Betsy DeVos is connected to state candidates and lawmakers through campaign contributions and dark money ads, does not mean a "conspiracy" exists between the state legislators and Catalyst Oklahoma, or the Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund.
Everyone has heard of the conspiracy charges and campaign violations allegedly committed by a candidate and her campaign consultant, Fount Holland of AH Strategies - in 2014. These charges and alleged "ethics" violations stem from the campaign to oust Janet Barresi from the state superintendent post. AH Strategies with Holland won the election in 2014, but allegedly conspired with a dark money group to "run" $300,000 worth of negative campaign ads (mudslinging) against Janet Barresi in the days leading up to the election. One interesting note is that the executive director of the OFCAF is Jennifer Carter, the Janet Barresi campaign chair and chief of staff for Barresi when she was state superintendent. The connections are becoming transparent. These activities, if proven true, are both illegal and "unethical". It is illegal for any campaign for any elected office to "conspire" or collude with a group or individual, in order to campaign for or against any candidate. The evidence of conspiracy between Fount Holland and the dark money group is reportedly phone conversations and text messages exchanged in the days leading up to the 2014 election. Only "time will tell" if the allegations and charges prove to be true.
Now, the burning question for many voters is this: "Could any state senate or house campaigns conducted during 2016 election year, be guilty of "conspiracy" and "unethical" behavior? Many Oklahomans believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire". In other words, if the Fount Holland campaign is guilty of conspiracy to commit voter fraud in one case, based on exchanged text messages - then several other campaigns may be guilty of the same. Just as in the AH Strategies/Holland campaign of 2014, evidence may exist which could implicate several state senators and representatives. The evidence could exist in the form of senate or house campaigns having a connection to AH Strategies, for starters. Secondly, there could be recorded or written evidence of conspiracy between senate/house campaigns and dark money groups such as Catalyst Oklahoma or the Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund (a local pro-voucher group affiliated with Betsy DeVos and the American Federation for Children). The evidence may be present in recorded interviews between candidates and the dark money groups, or in candidate solicited written application for dark money support. Many voters believe the evidence for such conspiracy and "unethical" senator/representative behavior exists. Of course, the problem for investigators, just as in the Holland/Alexander alleged conspiracy, is to actually obtain the evidence. Many Oklahoma citizens are hoping that a watchdog group or "investigator" will uncover enough evidence to warrant charges for these "other" state campaigns. All it takes is "connecting the dots" or "making the connections".
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Retired Teacher Pay Raises
Teacher pay raise bills are a dime a dozen (or in Oklahoma's case - two dozen) right now as around 24 bills have been enrolled before the start of the session. This is probably a record number of bills designed to boost teacher pay, but since Oklahoma is among the lowest states in the nation for teacher salaries - legislators see sponsoring a teacher pay raise bill as the popular thing to do. Forget about any of the bills passing, just saying you "support increasing teachers' pay" will garner a legislator much publicity and many votes (teacher votes, in particular). If all teacher pay raise bills passed into law, teachers would receive about a $50,000 annual pay raise, which is approximately double the average teacher's salary right now. If anyone believes that will happen, "I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona" I'll sell you.. and if anyone believes even one bill will pass, I'll sell that person Central Park in New York City.
Most of the enrolled bills involve revenue raising measures as well such as an increase in property, sales, or income taxes on the working poor and middle class. It is almost impossible to provide a pay raise for teachers without some sort of revenue stream increase. Big-spending corporate lawmakers in Oklahoma do know how to spend money - if revenue rises in the form of tax increases, but cannot save money. They know how to spend your Oklahoma tax dollars on the 615 state agencies, but say we should consolidate schools (527) in order to cut spending. Corporate Oklahoma lawmakers say we should cut school administrative costs (Oklahoma ranked 42nd among states for school administrative costs) to save tax dollars, but refuse to acknowledge that state legislator pay is out of control (Oklahoma legislative pay is ranked 15th among states). The race for the roses (the legislator competition as to who can provide the biggest teacher pay raise proposal) will probably go to Senator David Holt, who has proposed a $10,000 teacher pay raise in Senate Bill 316. In looking ahead at to what will be the final result of all this politicking for teacher pay raises - it's all one big crap shoot.
While I certainly believe that teachers in Oklahoma are underpaid, teachers have been underpaid for decades, if not the entire history of statehood (since 1907). As a matter of fact, I believe our retired teachers have been even more underpaid... and still now being mistreated by our state legislature. While our teachers receive most public attention for living in poverty, our retired teachers really do live in poverty. I count several retired teachers as real friends, and I know precisely how they live, and what they've endured for their entire lives. I have retired teacher friends such as Isabelle, Frankie, Mary, Jim C., and several more in Lindsay; Betty L., Pruitt, Glen, Genelle, and several more in Blanchard, plus many more in the local communities around the state.
I know the life-story of only one retired teacher, Mary (Babe) from Lindsay, and have permission to detail that public school story - so I'll dedicate this blog/column to all the retired teachers in Oklahoma.
Mary, the daughter of a farmer, grew up in a middle-class home (poverty, by today's standards) like most of us did. She first started working in the fields in jr. hi, hoeing broomcorn in spring and "cutting broomcorn" all summer long throughout high school. She graduated Lindsay High School with a "straight-A" average and as an all-state basketball player, while catching the eye of a rodeo cowboy from Marlow, Oklahoma. They soon married and began having a family (eventually 3 kids), before her "cowboy" began to lose his eyesight, after his horse fell over a steer. Her husband, Johnny, was no ordinary rodeo cowboy, as he personally knew Jim Shoulders (World Champion Bull-Rider), Mickey Mantle (took him to a Yankees game when he rodeoed at Madison Square Garden), and Dan Blocker (Hoss Cartwright of Bonanza), so losing his vision at the age of 36 meant that Mary would become the sole breadwinner for the family. So, at the age of 28, Mary went back to college, attained her teaching certificate, and began teaching kindergarten in 1966. She now had three hungry mouths to feed along with her disabled husband. In her first year of teaching, Mary earned a salary of $3,500, which amounted to approximately $292 per month (before taxes) in take-home pay. The kids in the family believed they were getting rich, as they always ate well - but most of their food came in big (tin) cans from somewhere unknown (a place called "commodities"), except for garden vegetables in the summer. During her career as a school teacher, Mary never received a raise except for the yearly step-increases that all teachers get. She almost got a raise once, but the superintendent told her that a male teacher would get the raise, since he was the sole provider for his family. So, it almost broke her heart - but not quite, because she was still feeding the family, and couldn't quit. After obtaining her Masters Degree, Mary finally retired from "teaching" in 1992, after Johnny was toppled from another horse breaking his leg. Mary was away at school, when the accident happened around noon on a Friday. Her husband, being blind, was disoriented perhaps a half-mile from their home. Not knowing which direction was home and only able to "crawl", he finally after 3 hours, heard the radio in the utility room of the house (it was late August and the window was open. She found him lying in the room dehydrated around 4 PM. Mary retired from teaching the next year in 1992. Her teaching career began with an accident in 1966 and ended with an accident in 1992. In 1993, her first year of retirement saw her pull in $12,000. In the 23 years she's been retired, only a few thousand dollars in "cost of living" increases have been provided by our generous state lawmakers. I'll repeat what many retired teachers have told me - "it's not enough to live on".
I'll say it once more- "teachers in Oklahoma are underpaid, but retired teachers are more underpaid.
Most of the enrolled bills involve revenue raising measures as well such as an increase in property, sales, or income taxes on the working poor and middle class. It is almost impossible to provide a pay raise for teachers without some sort of revenue stream increase. Big-spending corporate lawmakers in Oklahoma do know how to spend money - if revenue rises in the form of tax increases, but cannot save money. They know how to spend your Oklahoma tax dollars on the 615 state agencies, but say we should consolidate schools (527) in order to cut spending. Corporate Oklahoma lawmakers say we should cut school administrative costs (Oklahoma ranked 42nd among states for school administrative costs) to save tax dollars, but refuse to acknowledge that state legislator pay is out of control (Oklahoma legislative pay is ranked 15th among states). The race for the roses (the legislator competition as to who can provide the biggest teacher pay raise proposal) will probably go to Senator David Holt, who has proposed a $10,000 teacher pay raise in Senate Bill 316. In looking ahead at to what will be the final result of all this politicking for teacher pay raises - it's all one big crap shoot.
While I certainly believe that teachers in Oklahoma are underpaid, teachers have been underpaid for decades, if not the entire history of statehood (since 1907). As a matter of fact, I believe our retired teachers have been even more underpaid... and still now being mistreated by our state legislature. While our teachers receive most public attention for living in poverty, our retired teachers really do live in poverty. I count several retired teachers as real friends, and I know precisely how they live, and what they've endured for their entire lives. I have retired teacher friends such as Isabelle, Frankie, Mary, Jim C., and several more in Lindsay; Betty L., Pruitt, Glen, Genelle, and several more in Blanchard, plus many more in the local communities around the state.
I know the life-story of only one retired teacher, Mary (Babe) from Lindsay, and have permission to detail that public school story - so I'll dedicate this blog/column to all the retired teachers in Oklahoma.
Mary, the daughter of a farmer, grew up in a middle-class home (poverty, by today's standards) like most of us did. She first started working in the fields in jr. hi, hoeing broomcorn in spring and "cutting broomcorn" all summer long throughout high school. She graduated Lindsay High School with a "straight-A" average and as an all-state basketball player, while catching the eye of a rodeo cowboy from Marlow, Oklahoma. They soon married and began having a family (eventually 3 kids), before her "cowboy" began to lose his eyesight, after his horse fell over a steer. Her husband, Johnny, was no ordinary rodeo cowboy, as he personally knew Jim Shoulders (World Champion Bull-Rider), Mickey Mantle (took him to a Yankees game when he rodeoed at Madison Square Garden), and Dan Blocker (Hoss Cartwright of Bonanza), so losing his vision at the age of 36 meant that Mary would become the sole breadwinner for the family. So, at the age of 28, Mary went back to college, attained her teaching certificate, and began teaching kindergarten in 1966. She now had three hungry mouths to feed along with her disabled husband. In her first year of teaching, Mary earned a salary of $3,500, which amounted to approximately $292 per month (before taxes) in take-home pay. The kids in the family believed they were getting rich, as they always ate well - but most of their food came in big (tin) cans from somewhere unknown (a place called "commodities"), except for garden vegetables in the summer. During her career as a school teacher, Mary never received a raise except for the yearly step-increases that all teachers get. She almost got a raise once, but the superintendent told her that a male teacher would get the raise, since he was the sole provider for his family. So, it almost broke her heart - but not quite, because she was still feeding the family, and couldn't quit. After obtaining her Masters Degree, Mary finally retired from "teaching" in 1992, after Johnny was toppled from another horse breaking his leg. Mary was away at school, when the accident happened around noon on a Friday. Her husband, being blind, was disoriented perhaps a half-mile from their home. Not knowing which direction was home and only able to "crawl", he finally after 3 hours, heard the radio in the utility room of the house (it was late August and the window was open. She found him lying in the room dehydrated around 4 PM. Mary retired from teaching the next year in 1992. Her teaching career began with an accident in 1966 and ended with an accident in 1992. In 1993, her first year of retirement saw her pull in $12,000. In the 23 years she's been retired, only a few thousand dollars in "cost of living" increases have been provided by our generous state lawmakers. I'll repeat what many retired teachers have told me - "it's not enough to live on".
I'll say it once more- "teachers in Oklahoma are underpaid, but retired teachers are more underpaid.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
January - School Board Appreciation Month
As January, 2017 began three weeks ago, I wrote about the month being designated by the Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) as "School Board Appreciation" month. Since it's still January, I'll write another column about why we should appreciate our local board members.
The OSSBA defines the role of a school board as "granting authority to its executive officer to represent it during the interim between board meetings on routine business management decisions which are guided by established board policies". The OSSBA goes on to relate that "the local board and its individual members shall refrain from involvement in or interference with the administrative functions of the school". Finally, "the local board shall transact official business with professional staff members and other school employees only through the superintendent". Basically, these school board tenets mean that any local board of education only has two major responsibilities - to approve appropriate policies and agenda items, and to hire or fire the superintendent.
The OSSBA defines the role of the superintendent as "appointed and employed by such board shall be the executive officer of said board and shall perform such duties as said board directs" (Oklahoma Statute). Oklahoma statute also states that "Each responsibility for the superintendent legally is a responsibility delegated by the board of education." And finally, the OSSBA states that "The superintendent is responsible for all internal operations of the district and for supporting board actions and deliberations". A long-time board member once lamented that "one of the main challenges as a board member comes in attempting to define one's appropriate role, not in a theoretical sense, but rather in a practical one. It is a struggle to find the right line between being a micro-manager and a rubber-stamper. Most days, board members feel like they are guilty of being one or the other, when they are actually neither."
Most Oklahoma school board members are not micro-managers. A micro-managing board member is one who does not realize his role. He believes that if he is to be a good board member, he should "get out" in the schools, check to see where any problems are, and then tell the superintendent, principal, or teacher how to solve them. No board members in any of the schools I've worked, have been micro-managers. Of course I've heard of micro-managers in other schools, but I really can't remember where. The micro-managing board member most often tries to manage school personnel, by telling coaches "how to coach" or suggesting employees to be hired or fired (other than the superintendent). Board member opinions concerning staff are legal and appropriate, but a directive concerning staff employment is not legal or appropriate, unless it is a board directive to the superintendent. For example, a board member or the board may direct the superintendent to admonish an employee for misbehavior or not complying with board policy, but a board member cannot direct the superintendent to hire or fire an employee. The board of education is responsible for only one school employee, not all. The superintendent is responsible for all other staff, which could number in the thousands in large districts. The superintendent is responsible for making recommendations concerning staff hiring and firing. A board of education could incur legal problems if it hired or fired a staff member without a superintendent recommendation, which is why many boards appear to be rubber-stamps (all voting 'yes' based on superintendent recommendations) in voting on all issues. So, as far as school employees are concerned - the board can direct the superintendent to admonish or reprimand a school employee, but cannot fire an employee without the recommendation of the superintendent.
The superintendent is responsible for preparation of board meeting agendas (not board members) working in conjunction with administrative assistants. The superintendent begins work on a regular board meeting agenda exactly 1 month before the posting of the agenda items (usually the Friday before a Monday evening meeting). The superintendent adds and deletes action items all month long before the actual meeting, board members do not. Board members in most school districts can direct the superintendent to add agenda items for the regularly scheduled meeting. For any special or regular board meeting there may be one or two agenda items that a board member suggested. The superintendent is responsible for disseminating the agenda to board members with supporting documentation included. Along with the agenda and supporting documentation, a superintendent usually provides a one or two page "MEMO" which details action item information and sometimes the superintendents opinion of each item. The board may ask the superintendent questions concerning each agenda "action" item in the days leading up to the actual meeting by phone, text, or e-mail (but not through social media). Board members study agenda items far in advance of the actual meeting, so each knows how he or she will vote (utilizing the information provided in advance and the superintendents recommendation). School board members across Oklahoma school districts sometimes appear as a "rubber-stamp" because they study the board agenda far in advance of the meeting and has asked all questions in advance of the meeting. There is often no need for a board member to ask questions at a board meeting, because all of his or her questions have been answered. For these reasons, the public often accuses board members of "not being transparent" in board deliberations at board meetings, and not "asking questions".
As stated earlier, the superintendent is responsible for agenda preparation, not board members. The superintendent, for this reason, will rarely include an agenda item in which board members will have disagreement, so the board members usually all vote "yes" on any one item. The only split votes (some "yes" and some "no") are usually action items placed on the agenda by board members, hence the "rubber-stamp" label.
There are sometimes "executive sessions" held by the board during meetings. Executive sessions are for discussions involving school employees, negotiation items, and discussions with school attorneys. The only citizens allowed in "executive session" are those the board invites in. Even no school employees are allowed in executive sessions, except those invited by the board. School boards are prevented from taking action during executive session discussions, so take action in open session following the executive session. No discussion in open session is allowed following the executive session, as all discussion has already taken place.
The superintendent is responsible for "transparency" in a school district, not board members. Many board members are often accused of not being transparent, when in fact, they cannot legally speak about executive session items (state statute). In addition, board members are not responsible for the day-to-day operations for the school (running the school), so often have no operational knowledge of school affairs. As a matter of fact, when public school patrons or taxpayers ask a question of a board member, the board member should ask the patron to visit with the superintendent about his or her concern (OSSBA). The patron's thoughts are often... "I pay taxes and I voted for you, so you should answer my question, not the superintendent". As a matter of fact, most school superintendents welcome questions from the general public and school employees concerning school operations and even board meeting agenda items (not executive session agenda items), so this column is an open invitation to all school patrons and school employees to visit with your local school superintendent (unless prohibited by school policy) if you have operational questions, in the interest of transparency.
In summary, a school board meeting is a business meeting held in public, not a public participation meeting (OSSBA). The general public is allowed to address the board under appropriate board policy, which usually provides a time limit and other restrictions such as "the addressing of school personnel issues". Compliance with state statute, the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, state department of education rules, state board of education regulations, and OSSBA guidelines is an arduous and sometimes insurmountable task for board members - and it's a job they do free of charge in Oklahoma. Sometimes, the only thanks they get are "misguided" complaints - so, if you see a local school board member at the local coffee-shop or anywhere, just say "thanks" for caring about our kids education, and it will be much appreciated...
Saturday, January 21, 2017
My Back Pages - Bob Dylan
Those of you who've read my news column over the past few years or my recent blog know that occasionally I review a book such as The Worst Hard Time by Timothy Egan, my favorite, or other books which have been especially poignant for me. I read and review such literature because I use the espoused history lessons to make important decisions in carrying out my public school employment responsibilities as well as personal responsibilities. I also often combine the lessons learned from history books with the lessons from the Oklahoma Association of School Administrators (OASA) Ethics book, An Administrator's Guide - Leading With Integrity by Clarence G. Oliver, Jr., Ed.D.. I consider Dr. Oliver one of my closest friends, as he "practices what he preaches" in making ethical decisions in his professional life as well as his personal life. I also believe that "those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it", as I campaigned against State Question 777 - "The Right to Farm" during the last campaign season. I received much criticism from even my closest friends, for standing up for what I believed in - but in the end, I'm satisfied I "did the right thing" for my friends as well as those who aren't.
In addition to relying on written literature for lessons in professional as well as personal decisions, I also sometimes apply verbal literature in the form of "folk songs" from the 1960's and early '70's. Such "folk music" is sometimes hard for me to interpret into an "ethical" professional decision because it was most often written by authors such as Bob Dylan, whose style was reflected in the social upheaval of the sixties. Occasionally, I hear a classical folk song which has a deeper, harder to interpret meaning, such as My Back Pages, written by Bob Dylan and covered by The Byrds. The version that has affected me the most, though, was performed by Joan Osborne and Jackson Browne, and the line that continues to resonate in my mind is "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now". To me, this line means: When I was younger I knew all the answers and had beliefs such as (if one has friends, 'has their back', and remains loyal in this life - friends will reciprocate). "Younger than that now" for me, means that I now know (even though I'm older) that I don't know near as much as I thought I did years ago, and that many of my lifelong beliefs just aren't always factual.
I'm nearing old-age these days, but my learning experiences have accelerated over the past 2 years. As a matter of fact, in running for public office this past summer, some of my theories about life-long friends, loyalty, and honesty were tested, but in the end, were proven true. Some of my friends wanted me to "run for office" to serve all the people who I grew up with in my hometown, my adopted town, and the public schools, teachers, and students in "our area". I believed that if I was willing to sacrifice my well-being and personal resources for "my people", they in turn would "have my back", and the vast majority did. My personal philosophy of friendship is reflected in the poem "Then They Came For Me", written by Martin Niemoller, after he spent 7 years in a Nazi Concentration camp. Niemoller was a Presbyterian Minister who the Nazis arrested in 1938, but only after they interned many of his friends and acquaintances. He lamented years later, that if he had it to do all over again, he would certainly speak up for his friends and neighbors as they were being led off to certain death. He eventually came to the realization that it didn't really matter that he had "kept his head down" for fear of also being arrested, because he was also eventually interned. One may "google" Niemoller to see the poem. The lesson for me is to always stand up for what you believe is right, even at personal risk and sacrifice. I think of Niemoller's poem when I'm making decisions for our public school students and teachers.
Our "Ethics" manual begins with a quote from Mark Twain "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." To me, this quote has particular meaning and I try to remember it often as I go about my professional responsibilities. Since I am a public school official (often called a bureaucrat by those who simply do not like our public schools), I try to always do right for our students first, teachers second. This philosophy gratifies some and astonishes the rest. Those astonished would be "school voucher" proponents and "school consolidation" proponents, as those entities continually disparage our public schools. I'll be writing more about vouchers and consolidation issues in future columns/blogs, because they threaten the very fabric of our schools, and will soon be in the spotlight.
In addition to relying on written literature for lessons in professional as well as personal decisions, I also sometimes apply verbal literature in the form of "folk songs" from the 1960's and early '70's. Such "folk music" is sometimes hard for me to interpret into an "ethical" professional decision because it was most often written by authors such as Bob Dylan, whose style was reflected in the social upheaval of the sixties. Occasionally, I hear a classical folk song which has a deeper, harder to interpret meaning, such as My Back Pages, written by Bob Dylan and covered by The Byrds. The version that has affected me the most, though, was performed by Joan Osborne and Jackson Browne, and the line that continues to resonate in my mind is "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now". To me, this line means: When I was younger I knew all the answers and had beliefs such as (if one has friends, 'has their back', and remains loyal in this life - friends will reciprocate). "Younger than that now" for me, means that I now know (even though I'm older) that I don't know near as much as I thought I did years ago, and that many of my lifelong beliefs just aren't always factual.
I'm nearing old-age these days, but my learning experiences have accelerated over the past 2 years. As a matter of fact, in running for public office this past summer, some of my theories about life-long friends, loyalty, and honesty were tested, but in the end, were proven true. Some of my friends wanted me to "run for office" to serve all the people who I grew up with in my hometown, my adopted town, and the public schools, teachers, and students in "our area". I believed that if I was willing to sacrifice my well-being and personal resources for "my people", they in turn would "have my back", and the vast majority did. My personal philosophy of friendship is reflected in the poem "Then They Came For Me", written by Martin Niemoller, after he spent 7 years in a Nazi Concentration camp. Niemoller was a Presbyterian Minister who the Nazis arrested in 1938, but only after they interned many of his friends and acquaintances. He lamented years later, that if he had it to do all over again, he would certainly speak up for his friends and neighbors as they were being led off to certain death. He eventually came to the realization that it didn't really matter that he had "kept his head down" for fear of also being arrested, because he was also eventually interned. One may "google" Niemoller to see the poem. The lesson for me is to always stand up for what you believe is right, even at personal risk and sacrifice. I think of Niemoller's poem when I'm making decisions for our public school students and teachers.
Our "Ethics" manual begins with a quote from Mark Twain "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." To me, this quote has particular meaning and I try to remember it often as I go about my professional responsibilities. Since I am a public school official (often called a bureaucrat by those who simply do not like our public schools), I try to always do right for our students first, teachers second. This philosophy gratifies some and astonishes the rest. Those astonished would be "school voucher" proponents and "school consolidation" proponents, as those entities continually disparage our public schools. I'll be writing more about vouchers and consolidation issues in future columns/blogs, because they threaten the very fabric of our schools, and will soon be in the spotlight.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Teacher Pay Raise Source : Consolidation?
There are some interesting data to consider when discussing Oklahoma teacher pay raises: There are more state agencies (approximately 615) in Oklahoma government than school districts (527). When lawmakers discuss how to save tax dollars, however, the subject they always talk about is the consolidation of schools or the consolidation of school administration. They never even mention the consolidation of state agencies or agency heads as a way to save taxpayer dollars, and provide teacher pay raises in Oklahoma. Research and anecdotal data reveal that more tax dollars can be saved by consolidating big-spending state agencies than by consolidating public schools.
Consolidating Public Schools - In 2010, Governor Fallin commissioned the Office of Accountability under Robert Buswell, to perform a hypothetical school consolidation study which would consolidate school administrations statewide to one per county. Buswell was charged with developing a model that would measure the "Capacity for Efficiency" if the state of Oklahoma were to consolidate school district administration by counties. He presented the study on creating administrative efficiencies for schools to the Oklahoma Senate in 2012. "First, school districts were aggregated by county based upon the location of their administrative headquarters. The average daily student membership (ADM) of the resulting "County District" was then compared to a list of existing school districts sorted by ADM, and a group of comparable districts were selected based upon the county district's ADM. The average administrative expenditures for these comparable districts was then calculated and compared to the existing administrative expenditures for the new county districts. If the new county districts expenditures are higher, there is capacity to be more efficient. Next , in support of keeping every site open, the Office of Accountability allowed for administrative funding at every site. If the combined total from the original districts was more than $100,000 per school then they were held harmless, but if the original districts had spent less than $100,000 per site they were brought up to that level. Buswell then multiplied the number of school sites in each County District by $100,000 and compared that amount to the combined total for administrative costs of the original districts" (Capacity for Efficiency, 2012).
Utilizing the Capacity for Efficiency formula, McClain County (Blanchard Public Schools and seven others) had no capacity for efficiency in 2011. The seven (now six) McClain County school districts' total administrative costs was compared to the administrative costs for the single school districts Yukon and Enid utilizing the $100,000 administrator allowance per site model. It was determined in utilizing this formula that the total administrative costs for all seven schools in McClain County was less than the average administrative costs for the two individual districts, which resulted in the "No Capacity for Efficiency" for McClain County. As many as nine Oklahoma counties had a zero capacity for efficiency rating in the study. The statewide total capacity was only $36,657,990 if all public schools administrative services was consolidated to the "county model". If the administrative allowance were increased to $120,000 per site, the capacity for efficiency would decrease to $27,925,104 and the number of counties with NO capacity for efficiency would increase to 20. Issues remaining to be addressed in utilizing this method of county consolidation included 1) how to address existing district debt, (which of the seven school districts would shoulder the debt for the other six? 2) how to address existing local school boards, (which of the seven school boards would remain intact and which ones would be dissolved?) and 3) how to address the actual costs of consolidation, (what would it cost the districts or the state to actually implement this model?).
The cost to implement this county consolidation plan may in fact be more than the perceived savings ($36,657,990), which would negate any savings (capacity for efficiency) at all. When asked questions such as "Do you believe our education system in Oklahoma is top heavy?" (Do you believe a county administrative consolidation plan would solve public schools' funding crisis?), the McClain County (District 42 Representative) replied "Yes, as an example we spend $1.5 million in Garvin and McClain Counties just for superintendents." This "House Representative" obviously didn't have access to the Capacity for Efficiency study, or just does not like school superintendents - especially in Garvin and McClain Counties (or maybe doesn't like public schools in general). He might want to steer the public away from real ways to save money, as the motivation for legislative consolidation of school districts.
Consolidating State Agencies - As stated before, there are currently 600+ state agencies, boards, and commissions which are funded with taxpayer dollars. As an example, there are 22 state law enforcement agencies all independently run and all funded by the state. They all receive some sort of state appropriated aid ($ millions), and have CEO's which are well-paid. In 2015, the Attorney General's Office (one agency) spent $40 million in public funds, paying high priced lawyers and leasing plush office space in Tulsa. This figure was double what was spent just 5 years before. As a matter of fact, the AG's Office was audited in 2015 which determined that it wasted $ millions in public funds. One might get the impression that at least a few of the law enforcement agencies could be consolidated with no loss in our safety and security. No one knows exactly how much money could be saved by consolidating only part of the 600+ state agencies, but estimates are into the $ hundreds of millions. The only issue to be resolved would be how to employ all the CEO's that have lost jobs as a result. This is a major issue to resolve, however, as most of those CEO's are actually retired legislators, so no sitting legislator wants to end the job that he may hold someday.
So now you know "the rest of the story" as to why lawmakers always talk about consolidating schools instead of consolidating state agencies. Oh yes, one more state agency that could use some consolidation to save money is the Oklahoma Legislature. Currently Oklahoma has a bi-cameral legislature (senate and house). If we reduced legislators to a county model of consolidation (77 lawmakers instead of the current 152) we could cut its expenditures in half and save $ millions. Again, it won't happen as no highly paid lawmaker wants to cut his own job. As a matter of fact, I bet lawmakers continue to publicize that schools can save $millions by simply "consolidating administrative services" or "eliminating superintendents". I'm also quite sure that no one will ever hear a legislator say that we should reduce the number of state agencies, cut his own job, or reduce his salary.
Consolidating Public Schools - In 2010, Governor Fallin commissioned the Office of Accountability under Robert Buswell, to perform a hypothetical school consolidation study which would consolidate school administrations statewide to one per county. Buswell was charged with developing a model that would measure the "Capacity for Efficiency" if the state of Oklahoma were to consolidate school district administration by counties. He presented the study on creating administrative efficiencies for schools to the Oklahoma Senate in 2012. "First, school districts were aggregated by county based upon the location of their administrative headquarters. The average daily student membership (ADM) of the resulting "County District" was then compared to a list of existing school districts sorted by ADM, and a group of comparable districts were selected based upon the county district's ADM. The average administrative expenditures for these comparable districts was then calculated and compared to the existing administrative expenditures for the new county districts. If the new county districts expenditures are higher, there is capacity to be more efficient. Next , in support of keeping every site open, the Office of Accountability allowed for administrative funding at every site. If the combined total from the original districts was more than $100,000 per school then they were held harmless, but if the original districts had spent less than $100,000 per site they were brought up to that level. Buswell then multiplied the number of school sites in each County District by $100,000 and compared that amount to the combined total for administrative costs of the original districts" (Capacity for Efficiency, 2012).
Utilizing the Capacity for Efficiency formula, McClain County (Blanchard Public Schools and seven others) had no capacity for efficiency in 2011. The seven (now six) McClain County school districts' total administrative costs was compared to the administrative costs for the single school districts Yukon and Enid utilizing the $100,000 administrator allowance per site model. It was determined in utilizing this formula that the total administrative costs for all seven schools in McClain County was less than the average administrative costs for the two individual districts, which resulted in the "No Capacity for Efficiency" for McClain County. As many as nine Oklahoma counties had a zero capacity for efficiency rating in the study. The statewide total capacity was only $36,657,990 if all public schools administrative services was consolidated to the "county model". If the administrative allowance were increased to $120,000 per site, the capacity for efficiency would decrease to $27,925,104 and the number of counties with NO capacity for efficiency would increase to 20. Issues remaining to be addressed in utilizing this method of county consolidation included 1) how to address existing district debt, (which of the seven school districts would shoulder the debt for the other six? 2) how to address existing local school boards, (which of the seven school boards would remain intact and which ones would be dissolved?) and 3) how to address the actual costs of consolidation, (what would it cost the districts or the state to actually implement this model?).
The cost to implement this county consolidation plan may in fact be more than the perceived savings ($36,657,990), which would negate any savings (capacity for efficiency) at all. When asked questions such as "Do you believe our education system in Oklahoma is top heavy?" (Do you believe a county administrative consolidation plan would solve public schools' funding crisis?), the McClain County (District 42 Representative) replied "Yes, as an example we spend $1.5 million in Garvin and McClain Counties just for superintendents." This "House Representative" obviously didn't have access to the Capacity for Efficiency study, or just does not like school superintendents - especially in Garvin and McClain Counties (or maybe doesn't like public schools in general). He might want to steer the public away from real ways to save money, as the motivation for legislative consolidation of school districts.
Consolidating State Agencies - As stated before, there are currently 600+ state agencies, boards, and commissions which are funded with taxpayer dollars. As an example, there are 22 state law enforcement agencies all independently run and all funded by the state. They all receive some sort of state appropriated aid ($ millions), and have CEO's which are well-paid. In 2015, the Attorney General's Office (one agency) spent $40 million in public funds, paying high priced lawyers and leasing plush office space in Tulsa. This figure was double what was spent just 5 years before. As a matter of fact, the AG's Office was audited in 2015 which determined that it wasted $ millions in public funds. One might get the impression that at least a few of the law enforcement agencies could be consolidated with no loss in our safety and security. No one knows exactly how much money could be saved by consolidating only part of the 600+ state agencies, but estimates are into the $ hundreds of millions. The only issue to be resolved would be how to employ all the CEO's that have lost jobs as a result. This is a major issue to resolve, however, as most of those CEO's are actually retired legislators, so no sitting legislator wants to end the job that he may hold someday.
So now you know "the rest of the story" as to why lawmakers always talk about consolidating schools instead of consolidating state agencies. Oh yes, one more state agency that could use some consolidation to save money is the Oklahoma Legislature. Currently Oklahoma has a bi-cameral legislature (senate and house). If we reduced legislators to a county model of consolidation (77 lawmakers instead of the current 152) we could cut its expenditures in half and save $ millions. Again, it won't happen as no highly paid lawmaker wants to cut his own job. As a matter of fact, I bet lawmakers continue to publicize that schools can save $millions by simply "consolidating administrative services" or "eliminating superintendents". I'm also quite sure that no one will ever hear a legislator say that we should reduce the number of state agencies, cut his own job, or reduce his salary.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Another Teacher Pay Raise Source
As everyone knows by now, Oklahoma Public Schools receive ad valorem revenue (property tax) as a primary source of operational funding. This operational funding is used for teacher salaries, building upkeep, technology acquisition, school bond issues, and just about everything else that public schools spend money for, including teacher pay raises. Almost $1 Billion ($950,087,394) in school ad valorem revenue already existed in 2015 for teacher pay raises and all operational expenses for our public schools. This ad valorem revenue could be provided to schools by our state legislature without raising taxes for anyone! In California, over $4 billion was provided to teacher and student revenue without raising taxes, by utilizing this funding mechanism.
About a year ago, when the one-cent sales tax increase for teacher pay raises was being considered by Oklahoma voters, many city officials (managers and councilpersons) came out against it. They were concerned that schools would be accessing a revenue stream that traditionally supports city government, and made statements such as "Schools should just go after ad valorem taxes unless they want cities to access ad valorem revenue". As a matter of fact some cities do receive ad valorem revenue which satisfies various one time and continuing financial obligations of the cities called the Municipal Sinking Fund. In 2015, the incorporated communities within Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties have mill levies on ad valorem totaling $505,873,947.38 for their MSF. This revenue, if acquired by our public schools, could provide a $12,971.13 pay raise for Oklahoma teachers. The Oklahoma Legislature would have to eliminate the law which requires municipalities to maintain sinking funds, which in turn schools could use for teacher pay raises. This is a very unlikely scenario, however, as most city officials would simply not give up this ad valorem revenue for teacher pay raises, and they carry much influence with our local state lawmakers.
In addition to to the sinking fund (ad valorem) revenue cities control, they also offer subsidies for private economic development by dedicating future property tax revenues of a particular business or group of businesses toward an economic development project. These property tax subsidies are called Tax Increment Financing, better known as TIF. In 2015, approximately 40 Oklahoma municipalities with 69 TIF zones, controlled $445 Million in ad valorem revenue. This property tax revenue would be enough to provide every Oklahoma teacher a $11,410 raise. So, the bottom line is this: The Oklahoma State Legislature could provide over $950,000,000 in ad valorem revenue (currently controlled by municipalities) to our public schools for teacher pay raises and operational funding if all Oklahoma TIF zones were eliminated. For Blanchard Public Schools it could mean an additional $2,925,720 in ad valorem revenue for employee salaries! The Oklahoma public schools which should be extremely angry are not those whose municipalities have TIF zones (currently about 40), but those whose municipalities do not (about 487). The same amount of ad valorem revenue is shorted for all schools, regardless of whether or not a TIF zone is located in a school district. Again though, it is unlikely the Oklahoma Legislature would approve of this plan as public schools and teachers have very little influence with our elected state officials. In California, however...
TIF's began as a way to finance re-development of cities in California in 1952. TIF's were outlawed in 2010 by its state legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger because public schools and other taxing entities were being choked to death by property tax revenue being diverted to cities. What happened as a result of TIF elimination in California was teacher pay raises and county improvements, as a result of the influx of money they should have already had. Everything you would like to know about California TIF's can be accessed on planningreport.com.
The Oklahoma Association of School Administrators (OASA) has advocated for cities to allow those who are detrimentally affected by TIF's (schools, counties, and libraries) to have a say in a TIF district's implementation. A simple majority vote could determine the TIF's existence. The OASA is not advocating for the total elimination of TIF zones, as in California, but to simply allow those whose tax dollars (ad valorem) are being re-directed to municipalities, to have more influence. A giant pay raise for teachers would be realized - without raising taxes on anyone!
About a year ago, when the one-cent sales tax increase for teacher pay raises was being considered by Oklahoma voters, many city officials (managers and councilpersons) came out against it. They were concerned that schools would be accessing a revenue stream that traditionally supports city government, and made statements such as "Schools should just go after ad valorem taxes unless they want cities to access ad valorem revenue". As a matter of fact some cities do receive ad valorem revenue which satisfies various one time and continuing financial obligations of the cities called the Municipal Sinking Fund. In 2015, the incorporated communities within Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties have mill levies on ad valorem totaling $505,873,947.38 for their MSF. This revenue, if acquired by our public schools, could provide a $12,971.13 pay raise for Oklahoma teachers. The Oklahoma Legislature would have to eliminate the law which requires municipalities to maintain sinking funds, which in turn schools could use for teacher pay raises. This is a very unlikely scenario, however, as most city officials would simply not give up this ad valorem revenue for teacher pay raises, and they carry much influence with our local state lawmakers.
In addition to to the sinking fund (ad valorem) revenue cities control, they also offer subsidies for private economic development by dedicating future property tax revenues of a particular business or group of businesses toward an economic development project. These property tax subsidies are called Tax Increment Financing, better known as TIF. In 2015, approximately 40 Oklahoma municipalities with 69 TIF zones, controlled $445 Million in ad valorem revenue. This property tax revenue would be enough to provide every Oklahoma teacher a $11,410 raise. So, the bottom line is this: The Oklahoma State Legislature could provide over $950,000,000 in ad valorem revenue (currently controlled by municipalities) to our public schools for teacher pay raises and operational funding if all Oklahoma TIF zones were eliminated. For Blanchard Public Schools it could mean an additional $2,925,720 in ad valorem revenue for employee salaries! The Oklahoma public schools which should be extremely angry are not those whose municipalities have TIF zones (currently about 40), but those whose municipalities do not (about 487). The same amount of ad valorem revenue is shorted for all schools, regardless of whether or not a TIF zone is located in a school district. Again though, it is unlikely the Oklahoma Legislature would approve of this plan as public schools and teachers have very little influence with our elected state officials. In California, however...
TIF's began as a way to finance re-development of cities in California in 1952. TIF's were outlawed in 2010 by its state legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger because public schools and other taxing entities were being choked to death by property tax revenue being diverted to cities. What happened as a result of TIF elimination in California was teacher pay raises and county improvements, as a result of the influx of money they should have already had. Everything you would like to know about California TIF's can be accessed on planningreport.com.
The Oklahoma Association of School Administrators (OASA) has advocated for cities to allow those who are detrimentally affected by TIF's (schools, counties, and libraries) to have a say in a TIF district's implementation. A simple majority vote could determine the TIF's existence. The OASA is not advocating for the total elimination of TIF zones, as in California, but to simply allow those whose tax dollars (ad valorem) are being re-directed to municipalities, to have more influence. A giant pay raise for teachers would be realized - without raising taxes on anyone!
Saturday, January 14, 2017
School Board Recognition Month
Tom Brokaw, anchor and managing editor of the NBC Nightly News from 1982-2004 authored The Greatest Generation, a book which described those who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II. In the book, Brokaw wrote, "it is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced." He wrote that these men and women fought not for fame, recognition, or wealth, but because it was the "right thing to do." Tom Brokaw also wrote, "There is a place in America to take a stand: it is public education. It is the underpinning of our cultural and political system. It is the great common ground. Public education after all is the engine that moves us as a society toward a common destiny... It is in public education that the American Dream begins to take shape."
While there are not many local school board members who are also members of "the greatest generation", there are many children and grandchildren of those heroes, who serve our local public schools. They are the descendants of The Greatest Generation.
It is only fitting that in salute and gratitude to the more than 2,700 Oklahoma School Board members, January 2017 is designated as School Board Recognition Month by the Oklahoma State School Board Association. Our school board members serve not for fame, wealth, or recognition, but because it's the right thing to do. They believe that providing our communities' children with a solid public education is the right thing to do. They work hundreds of hours each year for our students, parents, and teachers, at no charge. They typically receive very little thanks, but much criticism for doing one of the most difficult jobs in our communities - ensuring a top-notch education for all our kids.
Most Oklahoma citizens have read or heard about how underappreciated and underpaid our teachers are in Oklahoma. Their salaries lag teachers in most states and they are fleeing Oklahoma in record numbers because of the disrespect doled out by our state legislators. Disrespect in the form of low salaries and the attitude of "don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out", is common among our state lawmakers.
While Oklahoma teachers are ridiculed and made to feel worthless by our own state government, our local school boards have been providing salary increases to teachers for several years now - with little thanks from the general public. Perhaps it's because Oklahoma citizens and public school supporters simply do not know about this board support provided to teachers, that so little gratitude has been provided - so I'll give you an example.
Since 2008, Oklahoma's cuts to general education funding leads the nation at -26.9%. This figure not only leads the nation in school funding cuts, but is nearly double the percentage of cuts made by Alabama (-14.2%), the second worst state for education funding reductions. I guess this fact makes Oklahoma the absolute worst state in the nation for funding our public schools. The 26.9% figure breaks the record that Oklahoma set in 2015 (24.2%), which broke the previous 2014 record (23.6%). It will most likely be listed in the Guinness Book as the world record least likely to be broken (by any state other than Oklahoma). As a matter of fact, Education News provided a letter grade of an "Enhanced F", scoring Oklahoma legislators 43.4% for state spending on our public schools. This legislative "appreciation" for our public schools, teachers, and local school board members, should be noted by our citizens. For Blanchard Public Schools, this 26.9% reduction results in $1093 per student (inflation adjusted). As recently as January 6, 2017, school districts across Oklahoma were notified of a .53% reduction in state aid, beginning with the January payment. If this revenue failure continues, Blanchard Public Schools will be cut $30,081 by the end of the year! With today's 2005 students and without the legislative reductions, the Blanchard Board of Education would have $2,191,465 more (in 2008 dollars) to provide salaries to 48 more teachers, or $18,262 in raises to each teacher. This could have been done by our legislature, without raising taxes.
Those Oklahoma senators and representatives who prefer private and corporate charter schools for our public tax dollars, say that administrative costs are too high, and the reason for the cuts and low state allocations. The fact is that administrative costs in our Oklahoma Public Schools hover around 5% of expenditures, and Blanchard Public Schools' administrative costs have ranged from between 1.9% and 3% over the past several years.One state senator who prefers sending public tax dollars to private and out-of-state corporate charter schools is Senator Kyle Loveless. He has lied about civil forfeiture bills, so there is no reason he wouldn't lie about our public schools. A View from the Edge says it best about Senator Loveless when it comes to his "support" (non-support) of our public schools. Unfortunately for our public schools, there are also a lot more of "Senator Loveless" out there in our Oklahoma Legislature, as reported by the corporate charter school and voucher organization American Federation of Children.
One might tend to believe that teacher salaries have been reduced over the years, in order to compensate for Oklahoma legislative shortcomings. In many school districts, however, just the opposite has happened. For example, Blanchard School Board members have provided $1,400,263 in pay raises (stipends) to Blanchard Public Schools staff since 2008. This amounts to $7369.80 in pay raises to every staff member in Blanchard Public Schools since 2008. I know, it sounds impossible if not improbable, but the fact speaks for itself. One must remember that most local board members are children and grandchildren of "The Greatest Generation" in the words of Tom Brokaw. Local board members can perform what many believe are miracles, and should be thanked by Oklahoma legislators, public school students, parents, and teachers.
While there are not many local school board members who are also members of "the greatest generation", there are many children and grandchildren of those heroes, who serve our local public schools. They are the descendants of The Greatest Generation.
It is only fitting that in salute and gratitude to the more than 2,700 Oklahoma School Board members, January 2017 is designated as School Board Recognition Month by the Oklahoma State School Board Association. Our school board members serve not for fame, wealth, or recognition, but because it's the right thing to do. They believe that providing our communities' children with a solid public education is the right thing to do. They work hundreds of hours each year for our students, parents, and teachers, at no charge. They typically receive very little thanks, but much criticism for doing one of the most difficult jobs in our communities - ensuring a top-notch education for all our kids.
Most Oklahoma citizens have read or heard about how underappreciated and underpaid our teachers are in Oklahoma. Their salaries lag teachers in most states and they are fleeing Oklahoma in record numbers because of the disrespect doled out by our state legislators. Disrespect in the form of low salaries and the attitude of "don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out", is common among our state lawmakers.
While Oklahoma teachers are ridiculed and made to feel worthless by our own state government, our local school boards have been providing salary increases to teachers for several years now - with little thanks from the general public. Perhaps it's because Oklahoma citizens and public school supporters simply do not know about this board support provided to teachers, that so little gratitude has been provided - so I'll give you an example.
Since 2008, Oklahoma's cuts to general education funding leads the nation at -26.9%. This figure not only leads the nation in school funding cuts, but is nearly double the percentage of cuts made by Alabama (-14.2%), the second worst state for education funding reductions. I guess this fact makes Oklahoma the absolute worst state in the nation for funding our public schools. The 26.9% figure breaks the record that Oklahoma set in 2015 (24.2%), which broke the previous 2014 record (23.6%). It will most likely be listed in the Guinness Book as the world record least likely to be broken (by any state other than Oklahoma). As a matter of fact, Education News provided a letter grade of an "Enhanced F", scoring Oklahoma legislators 43.4% for state spending on our public schools. This legislative "appreciation" for our public schools, teachers, and local school board members, should be noted by our citizens. For Blanchard Public Schools, this 26.9% reduction results in $1093 per student (inflation adjusted). As recently as January 6, 2017, school districts across Oklahoma were notified of a .53% reduction in state aid, beginning with the January payment. If this revenue failure continues, Blanchard Public Schools will be cut $30,081 by the end of the year! With today's 2005 students and without the legislative reductions, the Blanchard Board of Education would have $2,191,465 more (in 2008 dollars) to provide salaries to 48 more teachers, or $18,262 in raises to each teacher. This could have been done by our legislature, without raising taxes.
Those Oklahoma senators and representatives who prefer private and corporate charter schools for our public tax dollars, say that administrative costs are too high, and the reason for the cuts and low state allocations. The fact is that administrative costs in our Oklahoma Public Schools hover around 5% of expenditures, and Blanchard Public Schools' administrative costs have ranged from between 1.9% and 3% over the past several years.One state senator who prefers sending public tax dollars to private and out-of-state corporate charter schools is Senator Kyle Loveless. He has lied about civil forfeiture bills, so there is no reason he wouldn't lie about our public schools. A View from the Edge says it best about Senator Loveless when it comes to his "support" (non-support) of our public schools. Unfortunately for our public schools, there are also a lot more of "Senator Loveless" out there in our Oklahoma Legislature, as reported by the corporate charter school and voucher organization American Federation of Children.
One might tend to believe that teacher salaries have been reduced over the years, in order to compensate for Oklahoma legislative shortcomings. In many school districts, however, just the opposite has happened. For example, Blanchard School Board members have provided $1,400,263 in pay raises (stipends) to Blanchard Public Schools staff since 2008. This amounts to $7369.80 in pay raises to every staff member in Blanchard Public Schools since 2008. I know, it sounds impossible if not improbable, but the fact speaks for itself. One must remember that most local board members are children and grandchildren of "The Greatest Generation" in the words of Tom Brokaw. Local board members can perform what many believe are miracles, and should be thanked by Oklahoma legislators, public school students, parents, and teachers.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Teacher Pay Funding Mechanism?
My last blog/article advocated using local ad valorem (property tax) funding as a mechanism for teacher pay raises. I stated this is a preferable method for providing teacher pay, for several reasons:
1) Most Oklahoma voters do not prefer the state sales tax as a funding mechanism
2) Most Oklahoma voters do not prefer to increase the state income tax as a funding mechanism
3) Most Oklahoma voters do prefer "local control" for all public school issues, including teacher salaries
4) Most Oklahoma voters have consistently approved bond issues and building fund millage rates over the years
5) Most Oklahoma voters in local school districts believe their local public schools are successful in educating their students
6) Most Oklahoma voters in local districts like their public school teachers
7) Most Oklahoma voters believe that local ad valorem taxes should be utilized for teacher salaries
I admit there are also several issues to be resolved, before proceeding with such a plan to increase teacher salaries. While the public school bonding (borrowing) capacity maximum for public schools is consistent (10% of the net valuation), the assessed property value for each school district is different. For example, Public School A (PSA) has a net assessed valuation of $100 million, so its bonding capacity is 10%, meaning that $10 million could be borrowed by the school for new buildings, etc... If the bonding capacity for school districts were increased 2%, it would mean that local voters could approve an additional $2 million for new buildings, etc... Since bond funding may also be used for building maintenance and repairs, the salaries of those employees who maintain and repair buildings may also be paid with bond funds. Presently in Oklahoma, most employee salaries are paid with general funds, not bond funds. If PSA had the legal authority to move $2 million in building maintenance and repair salaries to the Bond Fund, from the General Fund - $2 million for teacher pay increases could be realized. If PSA had 100 teachers, each teacher could receive a $20,000 pay raise. Too much? Maybe so, but lets look at another example...
School District B (PSB) has an assessed property value of only $20 million, which would allow PSB to borrow $2 million for new buildings, etc... If the borrowing capacity of PSB was legally increased 2%, then $400,000 in building maintenance and repair salaries could be shifted from General Fund to Bond Fund. If PSB also has 100 teachers, then each teacher could receive a $4000 pay hike.
There is an obvious inequity created between PSA and PSB using Bond Fund revenue for teacher pay raises. In the example above, each PSA teacher receives a $20,000 pay raise, but each PSB teacher receives only a $4,000 pay hike. The current Senate Joint Resolution 1 appears to have this inequity built in its structure, but as we look a little deeper - maybe its not so inequitable. For example, most school districts percentage of maintenance employee salaries to teacher salaries is almost the same statewide. If PSA has 100 teachers and 5 maintenance and repair salaries ($75,000) which could be transferred to the Bond Fund, it could provide a $750 pay hike for each teacher. The entire 2% increase in PSA's bonding maximum ($2 million) could not be used for the teacher pay raise. If PSB also has 100 teachers and 5 maintenance employees, each of the 100 teachers could also receive a $750 pay increase - just like the teachers in PSA. Equitability between schools results because of the ratio of teachers to maintenance employees. It's still not 100% equitable, but close enough in my opinion.
Senate Joint Resolution 2 is another teacher pay mechanism which could be equitable for funding teacher pay hikes if utilized correctly. It increases the building fund millage rate from 5 mills to 10 mills. Currently, school districts receive 5 mills of the district property tax value which is deposited in each school's Building Fund. For example, if Public School A's district value is $50 million, 5 mills would be $250,000. PSA would have $250,000 deposited in its Building Fund. The proposition states that the millage rate will increase to 10 mills, so PSA would have $500,000 for its Building Fund, instead of $250,000. Like the Bond Fund described earlier, the Building Fund could have the potential to provide teacher pay hikes. In PSA's case, if 100 teachers were employed, each could receive a $2,500 pay increase, but only if $2,500 in maintenance salaries was moved from the General Fund to the Building Fund. The key for equitability statewide would be that all schools' ratio of maintenance salaries to teacher salaries is almost identical.
To me, funding teacher pay raises with locally voted ad valorem revenue is a good idea. We can also look at other funding mechanisms which do not raise taxes to supplement the property tax. We will discuss those ideas in future blogs...
1) Most Oklahoma voters do not prefer the state sales tax as a funding mechanism
2) Most Oklahoma voters do not prefer to increase the state income tax as a funding mechanism
3) Most Oklahoma voters do prefer "local control" for all public school issues, including teacher salaries
4) Most Oklahoma voters have consistently approved bond issues and building fund millage rates over the years
5) Most Oklahoma voters in local school districts believe their local public schools are successful in educating their students
6) Most Oklahoma voters in local districts like their public school teachers
7) Most Oklahoma voters believe that local ad valorem taxes should be utilized for teacher salaries
I admit there are also several issues to be resolved, before proceeding with such a plan to increase teacher salaries. While the public school bonding (borrowing) capacity maximum for public schools is consistent (10% of the net valuation), the assessed property value for each school district is different. For example, Public School A (PSA) has a net assessed valuation of $100 million, so its bonding capacity is 10%, meaning that $10 million could be borrowed by the school for new buildings, etc... If the bonding capacity for school districts were increased 2%, it would mean that local voters could approve an additional $2 million for new buildings, etc... Since bond funding may also be used for building maintenance and repairs, the salaries of those employees who maintain and repair buildings may also be paid with bond funds. Presently in Oklahoma, most employee salaries are paid with general funds, not bond funds. If PSA had the legal authority to move $2 million in building maintenance and repair salaries to the Bond Fund, from the General Fund - $2 million for teacher pay increases could be realized. If PSA had 100 teachers, each teacher could receive a $20,000 pay raise. Too much? Maybe so, but lets look at another example...
School District B (PSB) has an assessed property value of only $20 million, which would allow PSB to borrow $2 million for new buildings, etc... If the borrowing capacity of PSB was legally increased 2%, then $400,000 in building maintenance and repair salaries could be shifted from General Fund to Bond Fund. If PSB also has 100 teachers, then each teacher could receive a $4000 pay hike.
There is an obvious inequity created between PSA and PSB using Bond Fund revenue for teacher pay raises. In the example above, each PSA teacher receives a $20,000 pay raise, but each PSB teacher receives only a $4,000 pay hike. The current Senate Joint Resolution 1 appears to have this inequity built in its structure, but as we look a little deeper - maybe its not so inequitable. For example, most school districts percentage of maintenance employee salaries to teacher salaries is almost the same statewide. If PSA has 100 teachers and 5 maintenance and repair salaries ($75,000) which could be transferred to the Bond Fund, it could provide a $750 pay hike for each teacher. The entire 2% increase in PSA's bonding maximum ($2 million) could not be used for the teacher pay raise. If PSB also has 100 teachers and 5 maintenance employees, each of the 100 teachers could also receive a $750 pay increase - just like the teachers in PSA. Equitability between schools results because of the ratio of teachers to maintenance employees. It's still not 100% equitable, but close enough in my opinion.
Senate Joint Resolution 2 is another teacher pay mechanism which could be equitable for funding teacher pay hikes if utilized correctly. It increases the building fund millage rate from 5 mills to 10 mills. Currently, school districts receive 5 mills of the district property tax value which is deposited in each school's Building Fund. For example, if Public School A's district value is $50 million, 5 mills would be $250,000. PSA would have $250,000 deposited in its Building Fund. The proposition states that the millage rate will increase to 10 mills, so PSA would have $500,000 for its Building Fund, instead of $250,000. Like the Bond Fund described earlier, the Building Fund could have the potential to provide teacher pay hikes. In PSA's case, if 100 teachers were employed, each could receive a $2,500 pay increase, but only if $2,500 in maintenance salaries was moved from the General Fund to the Building Fund. The key for equitability statewide would be that all schools' ratio of maintenance salaries to teacher salaries is almost identical.
To me, funding teacher pay raises with locally voted ad valorem revenue is a good idea. We can also look at other funding mechanisms which do not raise taxes to supplement the property tax. We will discuss those ideas in future blogs...
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Potential Teacher Pay Raises
Supposedly, I'm an expert in public school finance - since I have a Ph.D. in the subject and have years experience in studying and addressing school funding issues. Many disagree, however, and I can certainly understand their point that "I'm not a smart man".
I'll go forward anyway, and discuss a couple of state legislative bills which have real promise as far as funding teacher pay raises. I've discussed both mechanisms over the past couple years with friends both inside and outside public education, and I don't see any flaws. Senate Joint Resolution 1 increases to 12% the amount of school district debt. Currently, school districts can only be indebted to a maximum of 10% of the net assessed property value in the district. For example, if the net assessed valuation of school district A is $50,000,000, the district could only borrow a maximum of $5,000,000 to pay for building acquisition, re-modeling, repairing, etc... at any one time. SJR 1 increases the amount school districts can borrow up to 12% instead of 10%. This means that school district A can now borrow 2% more of its net assessed valuation, or exactly $1,000,000 more. This additional $1,000,000 is restricted to building acquisition and all expenses related to buildings like all bond referendums. Many school districts, however, presently employ maintenance and building upkeep personnel whose salaries are paid with General Fund monies, the same as teachers. If the voters in District A approved a 2% increase for building maintenance and repairs, those school support employees currently paid with General Fund monies could be paid with Sinking or Bond monies instead. This action could potentially free up $1,000,000 in General Fund monies to be used for teacher pay increases. Schools typically are funded with property taxation on a local level, not sales taxation or income taxation. Using this vehicle, a locally approved property tax increase only makes sense, since schools already rely on local property taxes for employee salaries. The beauty in this plan is that if district patrons would like to increase teacher salaries by voting indebtedness for teacher pay raises, they can. It would also take much of the burden off the state for funding teacher pay increases, and teachers would find out just how much they are valued in the district, at the local level. It's ingenious, and I'm surprised no one's thought of it before now (u'hum', clearing my throat).
Senate Joint Resolution 2 raises the maximum property tax for school district building funds from a maximum of 5 mills to 10 mills. For example, if school district A currently receives $300,000 at a 5 mill building fund rate, and the maximum limit increases to 10 mills, the local property tax collected by the school would increase to $600,000. Currently schools can use building funds for the same expenditures they can use sinking and bond funds for. If school A could transfer $300,000 in building salaries (maintenance and upkeep salaries) from the General Fund to the Building Fund, more money would be free in the General Fund for teacher pay raises. If school A has 100 teachers, $300,000 would provide a $3000 pay raise for each certified teacher. Once again, to me, utilizing property taxation for teacher pay raises is a better way to fund them than a sales tax hike or an income tax hike. The voters in the district could decide for themselves if their teachers need a pay raise, and it would once again be a local decision.
Both of these bills have the potential to solve the low teacher pay problem, so "just do it" would be my message to the legislature. It's not rocket surgery, it's common sense...
I'll go forward anyway, and discuss a couple of state legislative bills which have real promise as far as funding teacher pay raises. I've discussed both mechanisms over the past couple years with friends both inside and outside public education, and I don't see any flaws. Senate Joint Resolution 1 increases to 12% the amount of school district debt. Currently, school districts can only be indebted to a maximum of 10% of the net assessed property value in the district. For example, if the net assessed valuation of school district A is $50,000,000, the district could only borrow a maximum of $5,000,000 to pay for building acquisition, re-modeling, repairing, etc... at any one time. SJR 1 increases the amount school districts can borrow up to 12% instead of 10%. This means that school district A can now borrow 2% more of its net assessed valuation, or exactly $1,000,000 more. This additional $1,000,000 is restricted to building acquisition and all expenses related to buildings like all bond referendums. Many school districts, however, presently employ maintenance and building upkeep personnel whose salaries are paid with General Fund monies, the same as teachers. If the voters in District A approved a 2% increase for building maintenance and repairs, those school support employees currently paid with General Fund monies could be paid with Sinking or Bond monies instead. This action could potentially free up $1,000,000 in General Fund monies to be used for teacher pay increases. Schools typically are funded with property taxation on a local level, not sales taxation or income taxation. Using this vehicle, a locally approved property tax increase only makes sense, since schools already rely on local property taxes for employee salaries. The beauty in this plan is that if district patrons would like to increase teacher salaries by voting indebtedness for teacher pay raises, they can. It would also take much of the burden off the state for funding teacher pay increases, and teachers would find out just how much they are valued in the district, at the local level. It's ingenious, and I'm surprised no one's thought of it before now (u'hum', clearing my throat).
Senate Joint Resolution 2 raises the maximum property tax for school district building funds from a maximum of 5 mills to 10 mills. For example, if school district A currently receives $300,000 at a 5 mill building fund rate, and the maximum limit increases to 10 mills, the local property tax collected by the school would increase to $600,000. Currently schools can use building funds for the same expenditures they can use sinking and bond funds for. If school A could transfer $300,000 in building salaries (maintenance and upkeep salaries) from the General Fund to the Building Fund, more money would be free in the General Fund for teacher pay raises. If school A has 100 teachers, $300,000 would provide a $3000 pay raise for each certified teacher. Once again, to me, utilizing property taxation for teacher pay raises is a better way to fund them than a sales tax hike or an income tax hike. The voters in the district could decide for themselves if their teachers need a pay raise, and it would once again be a local decision.
Both of these bills have the potential to solve the low teacher pay problem, so "just do it" would be my message to the legislature. It's not rocket surgery, it's common sense...
Sunday, January 8, 2017
God's Armor
Towards the end of Randy Allen's sermon (First Baptist Church of Lindsay) on Sunday, he was discussing the need all have for "God's Armor". At the very end of his explanation of why all of us have that need, he told a personal story of how God's Armor has protected him from Satan - and even prevented his demise. Randy told this story to his congregation, so I'm sure he won't mind if I re-tell it to others, even though I don't know many details.
In order to make a point of how important "God's Armor" is to everyone, whether they know it or not, Randy told us a quick story of him, his wife Dawn, and a young daughter. In 1992, he faced what would be his greatest trial in testing his faith as a Christian. It's the same test my brother, Johnny faced in 1994. His young daughter, on a Friday in 1992, was stricken with a brain aneurysm, and passed away two days later on Monday. Only a few know the grief associated with losing a child, and many simply can't go on - as evidenced this past week when Debbie Reynolds died of a broken heart soon after her daughter Carrie Fisher died at a relatively young age. Christ also died of a "broken heart", not of a spear in the side, as many believe - so it is a physical affliction.
I know for a fact that Randy and Dawn's hearts were broken, but I also know that they survived this personal trauma, and became stronger - because of God's Armor. Many people can only imagine the heartbreak associated with losing a child, and still others believe they just could not go on if they lost a child. I also believe that Christians such as Randy Allen and Johnny Beckham are testaments in the need for God's Armor, for without this faith, everything is lost.
This is a very short column/blog, and some might even consider it a sermon, but it's not. It's simply another very personal story (of which I seem to be publishing a lot of lately), but it's my right - since it is my column...
In order to make a point of how important "God's Armor" is to everyone, whether they know it or not, Randy told us a quick story of him, his wife Dawn, and a young daughter. In 1992, he faced what would be his greatest trial in testing his faith as a Christian. It's the same test my brother, Johnny faced in 1994. His young daughter, on a Friday in 1992, was stricken with a brain aneurysm, and passed away two days later on Monday. Only a few know the grief associated with losing a child, and many simply can't go on - as evidenced this past week when Debbie Reynolds died of a broken heart soon after her daughter Carrie Fisher died at a relatively young age. Christ also died of a "broken heart", not of a spear in the side, as many believe - so it is a physical affliction.
I know for a fact that Randy and Dawn's hearts were broken, but I also know that they survived this personal trauma, and became stronger - because of God's Armor. Many people can only imagine the heartbreak associated with losing a child, and still others believe they just could not go on if they lost a child. I also believe that Christians such as Randy Allen and Johnny Beckham are testaments in the need for God's Armor, for without this faith, everything is lost.
This is a very short column/blog, and some might even consider it a sermon, but it's not. It's simply another very personal story (of which I seem to be publishing a lot of lately), but it's my right - since it is my column...
Friday, January 6, 2017
Oklahoma Legislator A - F Grades
We all know by now, after several years, that our Oklahoma Legislature is trying to discredit our public schools by attaching an A - F school grade to each public school site in Oklahoma. Our Oklahoma Legislators (Senate and House corporate fascists only) have always stated "It's the federal government that requires us to post an A - F grade for every public school in our Great State". As of a couple months ago, though, the U.S. Department of Education decreed that public schools nationwide, no longer must post and be stigmatized by any A - F grading scale. Our "service minded legislators" (tongue in cheek), always believing in local control (tongue in cheek again), have emphatically stated that we will forge ahead with ex-superintendent Janet Barresi's A - F school grading scale, regardless of the federal government's new "hands off" approach to state government. It is also interesting to note that Joy Hofmeister also now supports an A - F grading scale for schools, although she advocated for its repeal before the U.S. Department of Education gave permission for its repeal. Many lawmakers blamed the feds for requiring an A - F system, but now, the same lawmakers do not have that excuse, but are still requiring it. Many public school experts have always known that the scientifically invalid and unreliable school A - F grading scale is a veiled attempt to illustrate to the public that our "public schools are failing", as dark money groups such as the American Federation for Children (AFC) believe the only way to confiscate local tax dollars is to discredit our public schools. The legislative AFC cronies are identified in this AFC press release.
As long as we're discussing the invalidated A - F school grading system that corporations and their like-minded state legislators (cronies) are using to discredit our public schools, lets use a validated A - F grading system for our state senators and representatives to reliably rate them. Last week, Education Week published its annual 2017 states' report cards in which an A - F grading scale illustrates the level of education each state provides its public school students. Oklahoma's grades may be found here. Most categories of grades can be slightly controlled somewhat by the schools and teachers of each state, but one subcategory, spending, is wholly controlled by each state's legislators. This is because the spending grade, A - F, identifies the level of emphasis that state legislators place on our public schools, as far as "put your money where your big legislator mouth is". So, the legislators in each state have been given a letter grade as to how important our public school students are to them. Just a quick glance at Oklahoma's letter grades tell us that our public schools are basically worthless to our state legislators. Oklahoma senators and representatives scored a whopping 43.4 (F-) or an emphasized F, down from a 44.2 (slightly less emphasized F) in 2015. What an honor! It broke their 2015 record by .8 points. This low funding record is akin to the world record long jump by Bob Beamon in the 1968 Olympic Games, 29' 2.5" - a record that stood for almost 30 years. With our self-proclaimed public school legislator friends, we don't need enemies.
Our Oklahoma Legislators have once again achieved a letter grade of 'F' from the validated and reliable A - F state legislator grading system. One may tend to believe it's a grading scheme to eventually choke our state legislators out of existence. I don't think so though, as this A - F system is both reliable and valid. I hope you've enjoyed this blog as it's partially fact and partially very dry humor...
As long as we're discussing the invalidated A - F school grading system that corporations and their like-minded state legislators (cronies) are using to discredit our public schools, lets use a validated A - F grading system for our state senators and representatives to reliably rate them. Last week, Education Week published its annual 2017 states' report cards in which an A - F grading scale illustrates the level of education each state provides its public school students. Oklahoma's grades may be found here. Most categories of grades can be slightly controlled somewhat by the schools and teachers of each state, but one subcategory, spending, is wholly controlled by each state's legislators. This is because the spending grade, A - F, identifies the level of emphasis that state legislators place on our public schools, as far as "put your money where your big legislator mouth is". So, the legislators in each state have been given a letter grade as to how important our public school students are to them. Just a quick glance at Oklahoma's letter grades tell us that our public schools are basically worthless to our state legislators. Oklahoma senators and representatives scored a whopping 43.4 (F-) or an emphasized F, down from a 44.2 (slightly less emphasized F) in 2015. What an honor! It broke their 2015 record by .8 points. This low funding record is akin to the world record long jump by Bob Beamon in the 1968 Olympic Games, 29' 2.5" - a record that stood for almost 30 years. With our self-proclaimed public school legislator friends, we don't need enemies.
Our Oklahoma Legislators have once again achieved a letter grade of 'F' from the validated and reliable A - F state legislator grading system. One may tend to believe it's a grading scheme to eventually choke our state legislators out of existence. I don't think so though, as this A - F system is both reliable and valid. I hope you've enjoyed this blog as it's partially fact and partially very dry humor...
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
How To Win Elections By Lyin', Cheatin', and Stealin'
In contemplating the title of this post for the subject at hand, I remember reading How To Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' At All, a history of several Oklahoma elections and politicians by Martin Hauan. Martin Hauan was a campaign consultant for many state candidates and politicians during the 50's, 60's, and 70's in Oklahoma. I read the book hoping to find out what dirty tricks politicians were likely to employ, since I might one day run for office. I certainly would not cheat to win an election, but I wanted to know what tactics might be used by any potential opponents. The book has chapter titles such as Politricks University, Justice for Sale, Things I Could Go to Hell For, and Senator Reachout, so surely I could find out what unethical, illegal, and unscrupulous tactics were likely to be employed against me - if I were running for office. Mr Hauan, however, did not detail the ways to win elections by cheating - he only gave a very interesting history of those politicians who some thought did cheat, and eventually got caught. So, the title of my post How To Win Elections By Lyin', Cheatin', And Stealin' also belies its content. It will not give you inside information on how to win elections by being unethical or breaking the law, but I have shared some insight as to what I learned when running (and losing) for office this past summer.
We've all heard what is perhaps the biggest public school news story of 2016 - Joy Hofmeister conspired with her campaign consultant Fount Holland and a "dark money" group to beat Janet Barresi in the 2014 primary and then John Cox in the general election for the State Superintendent of Schools seat. Conspiracy is a felony by legal standards, and anyone found guilty in a court of law could serve jail time and pay a hefty fine. It's anyone's guess as to the guilt or innocence of Hofmeister, Holland, et al, though, as the trial is yet to begin. Political candidates in Oklahoma are not allowed to receive more than $2,700 from any one source. If a political candidate does knowingly receive more than $2,700 from anyone, any business, any corporation, or any "dark money" group - then campaign laws are broken. If a candidate for public office conspires with a consulting firm and a dark money group to sling mud on opposing candidates in excess of $2,700, then a crime may have been committed. This is what Joy Hofmeister and Fount Holland (the consultant) have been charged - but not yet convicted. If eventually convicted, the title of this post fits the situation. Many candidates and office holders are currently distancing themselves from the consulting firm involved, AH Strategies (Fount Holland is part owner), for obvious reasons - many have employed Fount Holland, and don't want to get caught up in ANY investigations for wrong-doing. I think it would be beneficial to examine clients of Fount Holland, other than Joy Hofmeister. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire - and if AH Strategies/Joy Hofmeister is the smoke, then the fire could be other candidates, elected officials. and dark money groups.
The "players" in the conspiracy indictments should be examined first and foremost in order to determine if a wider net should be cast for more unethical and illegal campaign shenanigans. First of all, Joy Hofmeister is an inexperienced newcomer to the political arena, so her involvement must be as a mistake. At the very least, her inability to hide unethical and illegal behavior had to be a factor in "getting caught", because AH Strategies is the best in the business at getting away with illegal campaign activities. As a matter of fact, Hofmeister's consulting firm even told her how to answer one question the district attorney's office asked. If asked "Did you communicate with the dark money group to coordinate mudslinging against Janet Barresi? The answer is NO". In effect, they told her to lie, and keep lying. It's a message that many other clients of AH have learned well. When asked about involvement in dark money schemes, clients are taught to claim no knowledge of any campaign shenanigans. One client of Fount Holland had the line memorized perfectly - when asked about the negative campaign ads and possible illegal expenditures, he simply said "Unless it says authorized and paid for by friends of *** *******, it is not from me." In other words, I know nothing about it. It's too bad Joy Hofmeister evidently did not answer the question correctly, as did many other clients of Fount Holland. It is understood, however, that the District Attorney came across the conspiracy by accident while working another case, and examining cell phone texts to and from Chad Alexander (another employee of Hofmeister).
I don't know if all those charged, including Joy Hofmeister, are truly guilty of conspiracy and accepting illegal campaign contributions. If they are guilty, however, I believe it would be wise to examine other political clients of AH Strategies (who can be found here, and here), for possible campaign crimes. One client, Dan Kirby, recently resigned from the State House as possible sexual harassment charges came to light, and then rescinded his resignation when it was revealed that the former Speaker of the House, Jeff Hickman, may have provided "hush money" (public funds) to Kirby's offended assistant. Clients like Kirby would be reason enough to "cast a wider net" and investigate all (Fount Holland/Chad Alexander) clients. Another client, Julie Daniels, said if she had known about the felony charges, she would have fired Fount Holland.
Slinging mud on political opponents is not a crime, as AH Strategies and its clients know all too well, but illegal use of campaign funds and conspiring with dark money to sling mud - are crimes. We can only hope that all those guilty of such crimes will eventually be caught, and be forced to mend their ways.
We've all heard what is perhaps the biggest public school news story of 2016 - Joy Hofmeister conspired with her campaign consultant Fount Holland and a "dark money" group to beat Janet Barresi in the 2014 primary and then John Cox in the general election for the State Superintendent of Schools seat. Conspiracy is a felony by legal standards, and anyone found guilty in a court of law could serve jail time and pay a hefty fine. It's anyone's guess as to the guilt or innocence of Hofmeister, Holland, et al, though, as the trial is yet to begin. Political candidates in Oklahoma are not allowed to receive more than $2,700 from any one source. If a political candidate does knowingly receive more than $2,700 from anyone, any business, any corporation, or any "dark money" group - then campaign laws are broken. If a candidate for public office conspires with a consulting firm and a dark money group to sling mud on opposing candidates in excess of $2,700, then a crime may have been committed. This is what Joy Hofmeister and Fount Holland (the consultant) have been charged - but not yet convicted. If eventually convicted, the title of this post fits the situation. Many candidates and office holders are currently distancing themselves from the consulting firm involved, AH Strategies (Fount Holland is part owner), for obvious reasons - many have employed Fount Holland, and don't want to get caught up in ANY investigations for wrong-doing. I think it would be beneficial to examine clients of Fount Holland, other than Joy Hofmeister. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire - and if AH Strategies/Joy Hofmeister is the smoke, then the fire could be other candidates, elected officials. and dark money groups.
The "players" in the conspiracy indictments should be examined first and foremost in order to determine if a wider net should be cast for more unethical and illegal campaign shenanigans. First of all, Joy Hofmeister is an inexperienced newcomer to the political arena, so her involvement must be as a mistake. At the very least, her inability to hide unethical and illegal behavior had to be a factor in "getting caught", because AH Strategies is the best in the business at getting away with illegal campaign activities. As a matter of fact, Hofmeister's consulting firm even told her how to answer one question the district attorney's office asked. If asked "Did you communicate with the dark money group to coordinate mudslinging against Janet Barresi? The answer is NO". In effect, they told her to lie, and keep lying. It's a message that many other clients of AH have learned well. When asked about involvement in dark money schemes, clients are taught to claim no knowledge of any campaign shenanigans. One client of Fount Holland had the line memorized perfectly - when asked about the negative campaign ads and possible illegal expenditures, he simply said "Unless it says authorized and paid for by friends of *** *******, it is not from me." In other words, I know nothing about it. It's too bad Joy Hofmeister evidently did not answer the question correctly, as did many other clients of Fount Holland. It is understood, however, that the District Attorney came across the conspiracy by accident while working another case, and examining cell phone texts to and from Chad Alexander (another employee of Hofmeister).
I don't know if all those charged, including Joy Hofmeister, are truly guilty of conspiracy and accepting illegal campaign contributions. If they are guilty, however, I believe it would be wise to examine other political clients of AH Strategies (who can be found here, and here), for possible campaign crimes. One client, Dan Kirby, recently resigned from the State House as possible sexual harassment charges came to light, and then rescinded his resignation when it was revealed that the former Speaker of the House, Jeff Hickman, may have provided "hush money" (public funds) to Kirby's offended assistant. Clients like Kirby would be reason enough to "cast a wider net" and investigate all (Fount Holland/Chad Alexander) clients. Another client, Julie Daniels, said if she had known about the felony charges, she would have fired Fount Holland.
Slinging mud on political opponents is not a crime, as AH Strategies and its clients know all too well, but illegal use of campaign funds and conspiring with dark money to sling mud - are crimes. We can only hope that all those guilty of such crimes will eventually be caught, and be forced to mend their ways.
Monday, January 2, 2017
Public Education's Top 5 News Stories of 2016
This is a little late in coming as most media outlets have already listed their top news stories of the year past, 2016. Oklahoma public schools faced more challenges during 2016 than most all other state agencies combined, so I'll list my top 5 education news stories of 2016. This is my list only, and may not be agreeable to others, as there were certainly more than 5 education news stories of 2016. Also bear in mind that these news "headlines" are all politically related, since public education has unfortunately become entwined in the world of corrupt politicians as of late. Listing the stories in reverse order from number five to number one:
5) The Failure of State Question 790 - SQ 790 was an attempt by those who want to remove barriers in sending state tax dollars to private schools, both in-state and outside the state. The Oklahoma Constitution currently prohibits State Senators and Representatives from spending Oklahoma tax dollars on private and religious schools. Article 2, Section 5 of the Constitution (the separation of church and state amendment) forbids our state lawmakers from spending money in any religious education institutions, not just Christian based, but all religious schools - such as Muslim, Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Atheist based schools. Those supporting the removal of Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution even called SQ 790 "The Right to Pray" in order to get it passed by the voting public. This tactic didn't work, as Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly voted "NO".
4) New State Record for Emergency Teacher Certificates - The number of emergency teaching certificates granted by the State Department of Education topped out at 1,082 for 2016, up from 2015's record total. It set a new state record and the main reason given was that Oklahoma's teacher pay has fallen to 50th in the nation among states. Certified teachers are leaving the state in droves for better pay.
3) Dozens of Oklahoma Educators Ran for Public Office - As many as 40 Oklahoma educators campaigned for senate and house seats in 2016, which set another record for the largest number of candidates from any one profession ever running for office. Many were running in order to shine a light on the deplorable teacher pay in Oklahoma and increase public school funding. Dubbed the "teacher caucus" by the media, it was mostly a failure as only 5 won in the general election on November 8. The teacher caucus was unmercifully attacked by the Oklahoma branch of the American Federation for Children (AFC) a dark money group out of Washington D.C., currently headed up by Jennifer Carter (Janet Barresi's former Chief of Staff). Janet Barresi was the state superintendent of schools before Joy Hofmeister. Jennifer Carter as the Director of Oklahoma's AFC referred to public school employees as "dirt bags" when she was employed by Barresi.
2) The Failure of State Question 779 - A one-cent sales tax increase for Oklahoma teacher salaries (currently ranked 50th in the nation among states) went down to defeat on November 8. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the tax increase for teacher salaries, as they evidently want lawmakers to provide teacher pay increases without raising taxes. It will be quite the challenge, as most lawmakers can't add, subtract, multiply, or divide, and Oklahoma is facing an almost $1 billion budget deficit in 2017.
1) Felony Charges Brought Against the State Superintendent of Schools - On November 4, 2016, conspiracy charges were filed by the Oklahoma County District Attorney against Joy Hofmeister, Fount Holland (her campaign consultant), and others, for conspiring with a dark money group to run campaign ads (sling mud) against Janet Barresi during the 2014 race for state superintendent of schools. Charges were also filed for accepting more than the allowable limit ($2,700) in campaign contributions from the dark money group. The Hofmeister/Holland campaign reportedly accepted more than $300,000 from the group.
This rounds out my top 5 public education news stories of 2016, mostly negative. Here's hoping that 2017's public school stories will be much better...
5) The Failure of State Question 790 - SQ 790 was an attempt by those who want to remove barriers in sending state tax dollars to private schools, both in-state and outside the state. The Oklahoma Constitution currently prohibits State Senators and Representatives from spending Oklahoma tax dollars on private and religious schools. Article 2, Section 5 of the Constitution (the separation of church and state amendment) forbids our state lawmakers from spending money in any religious education institutions, not just Christian based, but all religious schools - such as Muslim, Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Atheist based schools. Those supporting the removal of Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution even called SQ 790 "The Right to Pray" in order to get it passed by the voting public. This tactic didn't work, as Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly voted "NO".
4) New State Record for Emergency Teacher Certificates - The number of emergency teaching certificates granted by the State Department of Education topped out at 1,082 for 2016, up from 2015's record total. It set a new state record and the main reason given was that Oklahoma's teacher pay has fallen to 50th in the nation among states. Certified teachers are leaving the state in droves for better pay.
3) Dozens of Oklahoma Educators Ran for Public Office - As many as 40 Oklahoma educators campaigned for senate and house seats in 2016, which set another record for the largest number of candidates from any one profession ever running for office. Many were running in order to shine a light on the deplorable teacher pay in Oklahoma and increase public school funding. Dubbed the "teacher caucus" by the media, it was mostly a failure as only 5 won in the general election on November 8. The teacher caucus was unmercifully attacked by the Oklahoma branch of the American Federation for Children (AFC) a dark money group out of Washington D.C., currently headed up by Jennifer Carter (Janet Barresi's former Chief of Staff). Janet Barresi was the state superintendent of schools before Joy Hofmeister. Jennifer Carter as the Director of Oklahoma's AFC referred to public school employees as "dirt bags" when she was employed by Barresi.
2) The Failure of State Question 779 - A one-cent sales tax increase for Oklahoma teacher salaries (currently ranked 50th in the nation among states) went down to defeat on November 8. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the tax increase for teacher salaries, as they evidently want lawmakers to provide teacher pay increases without raising taxes. It will be quite the challenge, as most lawmakers can't add, subtract, multiply, or divide, and Oklahoma is facing an almost $1 billion budget deficit in 2017.
1) Felony Charges Brought Against the State Superintendent of Schools - On November 4, 2016, conspiracy charges were filed by the Oklahoma County District Attorney against Joy Hofmeister, Fount Holland (her campaign consultant), and others, for conspiring with a dark money group to run campaign ads (sling mud) against Janet Barresi during the 2014 race for state superintendent of schools. Charges were also filed for accepting more than the allowable limit ($2,700) in campaign contributions from the dark money group. The Hofmeister/Holland campaign reportedly accepted more than $300,000 from the group.
This rounds out my top 5 public education news stories of 2016, mostly negative. Here's hoping that 2017's public school stories will be much better...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)