Not One Way.. The Only Way

   A couple years ago, because I was running for public office, I was asked by a group about my position on the one-cent sales tax for teacher pay raises. The group was made up of pro-state chamber corporate executives who were considering supporting specific candidates for State office. The obvious "correct" answer to the question was "I do not support the increase in sales tax for a teacher pay raise" in order to garner the group's support. I cannot be disingenuous or lie, even for money, so my answer to the question at the time was "The only way teachers will receive a much-needed pay increase is through this one-cent sales tax increase". One of the group then asked "Does that mean you support it?" My answer to this followup question was "Yes, because its the only way teachers will get a raise".
   My primary opponent in the state office election in 2016 was asked the same question, as his name was projected on the wall screen alongside my name. I did not hear how he answered the question as I was not privy to his interview, but I suppose it was different than mine. He had answered the same question a month earlier by a "Blanchard citizens group" by responding "I will not be voting for the one-cent sales tax for a teacher pay raise". A few weeks after the OKC State Chamber interview, my primary opponent received several $thousand in financial support from the group, while I received nothing but grief in the form of negative campaign cards and robo-calls to potential voters.
   Now, in 2018, there exists another way to provide a much needed Oklahoma teacher pay raise - It's called the "Step-Up OK" plan. As an educator, if anyone asks if I support the plan, my answer will be the same as it was 2 years ago - "Yes, as it's the only way teachers will get a much-needed pay raise". The components of the plan include much needed government reform measures and revenue raising measures and include an increase in the sales tax on cigarettes, little cigars, chewing tobacco, and E-cigarettes; a 6 cents sales tax increase on motor fuels; and an increase in the oil and gas oil production tax from 2% to 4% on existing wells and all future wells will begin at 4% for the first 36 months and move to 7% after. (For more revenue raising measures, please refer to the entire plan).
   The proposed tax increases in the plan are regressive in nature (they affect lower and middle income Oklahomans to a greater degree than the wealthy and corporate interests), which explains why many corporate executives and the State Chamber may support the plan. Several of those same corporate executives did not support the former one-cent sales tax for teacher pay raises in 2016, but have now given their blessing to the new tax increase package. These corporate bosses have evidently given permission to their corporate minions in the State Legislature to support the tax increases. Several of these tax increases are very likely to get support from State Legislators who previously supported no tax increases. A Tulsa World article on Jan. 31 reports that the Oklahoma House is expected to vote quickly on the massive tax and reform package, and several corporate House members are expected to support it. It will be interesting to find out which corporate lawmakers who previously voted "no" tax increases, will change their minds and vote "yes" on the Step-Up OK tax increases. We should know something by February 9, and will post the results here..
   A comparison of two revenue-raising measures - the One-Cent sales tax increase which was voted down in 2016 and the Step-Up OK plan reveals the following: The one-cent plan would have raised $600 million and provided teachers a $5,000 pay increase, while the Step-Up plan will reportedly raise $750 million and provide teachers a $5,000 pay raise. The one-cent plan would have increased the regressive state sales tax on all consumer products from 4.5% to 5.5%, and the step-up plan will increase regressive taxes on fuel and tobacco products, and increase income tax for the majority of Oklahomans. It will also increase the gross production tax which will be passed on to royalty owners in the form of fees.
   An example of the difference in tax increases for the two plans may be hypothetically examined: A first-year teacher earned $31,600 in annual salary for 2017-2018. For the '18-'19 school year, the teacher will earn $5,000 more ($36,600) under both scenarios considered. The take-home monthly pay for both plans will be approximately $2592 per month mol. We determine the teacher spends approximately half of that monthly total on consumer products ($1,300), so will pay an additional $13 per month or $156 per year in additional sales tax. The teacher's take home pay results in a raise of $354 per month - $13 per month in increased sales tax for a net gain of $341 per month. It sounded like a winning combination for teachers, but one-cent plan did not pass, so lets look at the Step-Up plan to see how a teacher would fare...
   The same teacher earning $31,600 before the pay raise, and earning $36,600 afterwards would make approximately $2590 per month in take home pay. If the teacher smoked one pack of cigarettes per day, his or her tax increase would amount to about $45 per month. His income tax increase would amount to approximately $4 and motor fuel tax increase - $6. He also bought a new car to replace his aging jalopy, so paid an additional $150 new tax on the auto. There are also many hidden fees amounting to about $10 per month, which corporate lawmakers "slipped in" without their constituents knowing it. The teacher will wind up paying an approximate additional $75 per month in hidden fees and taxes. All middle income Oklahomans could pay approximately $75 more per month in taxes if the Step-Up OK revenue increases are passed. If Oklahomans had passed the one-cent sales tax increase for teacher pay back in 2016, middle income Oklahomans would have paid approximately $13 more per month in taxes. 
   The question for many corporate minion lawmakers then becomes "Do you support the constituents who elected you to office, because you believe in low regressive taxes and no tax increases for anyone?" or "Do you support the Step-Up OK plan, because your corporate bosses gave you permission and you believe teachers need a pay raise?"..
   Educators across Oklahoma are now asking their local lawmakers to support the Step-Up OK plan for balancing the state budget and providing teachers a much needed pay raise, and it may be time for non-educators to ask what their local lawmakers support. As an educator, I'll say it once more: "Since this is the only plan to provide teachers a pay raise, I wholeheartedly support the plan". I would only do one thing to tweak the plan, however, if I were a conservative lawmaker: I would eliminate Tax Increment Financing by municipalities, which would immediately infuse $300,000,000 into public education, and eliminate the need for regressive tax increases. Surely, at least one conservative lawmaker has this idea? Or maybe not...
   Let this blog post serve as my question for my local Senator and my local Representative - "Do YOU support Step-Up OK or not?" I know for a fact they read my posts, so I'm looking forward to their answers - stay tuned, and I'll post their answers shortly...

Tonni Dutton - A friend for life and hereafter...

   A lone news bulletin caught my eye on Friday morning, January 26, 2018 - A motorcyclist was killed early Friday in a chain reaction south of Lindsay. What caught my attention was the "south of Lindsay" part of the headline, as my heart belongs there. The article went on to report: The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety said four vehicles were traveling south on State Highway 76 when a Can-Am Spyder three-wheel motorcycle driven by Tonni Dutton of Lindsay was struck from behind by a Chevrolet pickup truck.
   I knew Tonni in high school, but hadn't seen him since, and lost track of him as I left Lindsay for work. I still counted him as a close friend, even though I hadn't seen or visited with him in over 43 years - once a friend, always a friend and once a Leopard, always a Leopard. Tonni was a Lindsay Leopard in life, and will remain a Leopard.. forever. He was very quiet and unassuming - I can still see Tonni in my minds eye, wearing his tattered orange tank top and black running shorts as he rounded the final curve on the last lap of the track mile. I can also see him at school proudly wearing his black and orange sleeved Lindsay letter jacket, and always smiling.. always. Tonni belonged to the Lindsay chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes where I really got to know him. He was small in stature, maybe 135 pounds soaking wet, but had a giant heart as anyone who knew him could tell.
   My brother Johnny saw and visited with Tonni frequently in the butcher shop of Goodners and elsewhere. Johnny told me that Tonni was always humble... and humility is the ability to be without pride or arrogance and is a main character that should be seen in those who follow Jesus Christ. Scripture says "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble" so God certainly does favor Tonni Dutton. He would literally give anyone anything he or she needed, and was still the best friend anyone could have, even though I hadn't seen or talked to him in decades. Tonni wasn't famous or well-known even in Lindsay, but he is famous to God. I have the certainty that God called Tonni Dutton home early, because He knew Tonni had endured enough. I look forward to seeing him soon, and maybe we can run that last lap together.

Classification changes coming for private schools in the OSSAA

   As most readers of my column/blog know, we have working to "level the playing field" for public and private schools in the OSSAA since as far back as the 1970's. In 1993, Terry Davidson, superintendent of Wright City Public Schools, even went so far as to question the leadership of the OSSAA (Executive Director Bill Self) in advocating for a private school classification change in the OSSAA. In 2009, several school superintendents began advocating for a private school classification change - which would "level the playing field" for public and private schools in the "Association". Private high schools, having first been admitted to the OSSAA during the 1960's, began winning state championships at an unprecedented rate due to the systemic advantages employed. Advantages such as "selective enrollment" and the "provision of student financial assistance" were utilized to gain dominance of public high schools in Oklahoma. Selective enrollment is the practice of private schools to only enroll students which will ensure the private schools' success, both academically and athletically. Public schools cannot select or reject students based on student academic or athletic success. Student financial assistance is usually in the forms of scholarships, tuition wavers, student grants, work-studies, etc. and are provided to gifted student athletes as a way to entice them to enroll.
   In 2010, the OSSAA Board of Directors voted to allow the membership to vote on the convoluted private school classification system we now have in place. Approximately 80% of the membership voted to implement the private school classification plan, so it became effective beginning in 2012. The classification rule would supposedly "level the playing field" and eliminate private school systemic advantages in the OSSAA, by advancing private schools which met some complicated and convoluted criteria - one enrollment based classification level up. When the Rule was passed in 2010, many public school officials said Advancing private schools up one class level will not level the playing field or eliminate private school advantages in the OSSAA. They (private schools) will find a way to beat the rule. Lo and Behold:
   In 2017, the very same private schools which "gamed the system" before 2012 are still enjoying the same unfair advantages they employed then. The "new" 2012 classification rule did virtually nothing for "leveling the playing field", so a new and better classification rule will be considered by the OSSAA Board of Directors on Wednesday, February 7, at the OSSAA building north of our state capitol. The Board of Directors will simply vote to send the Rule Change out for a vote of the membership... or not. The meeting is open to the public, so we invite anyone with an interest (public or private) to be there.

Small School Consolidation, Another "Tossed Bone"

   State Senator Stephanie Bice is evidently the newest harbinger of small school consolidation for corporate legislators - replacing corporate mail carriers such as Rep. Jon Echols, Sen. Gary Stanislawski, and Rep. Bobby Cleveland. Bice's Senate Bill 920 would require administrative consolidation of school districts of less than 200 average daily attendance. Senator Bice stated in October 2017, that her "constituents" (voters) want school consolidation in Oklahoma. A quick look at Bice's Senate district reveals that she has no schools which have less than 200 students, as Edmond and west Oklahoma City schools are her primary schools of interest. It's no wonder that she has no concerns of losing voters as she champions the school consolidation cause.
   There are currently 96 school districts with less than 200 students - 40 K-12 schools, 52 K-8 schools, and 4 charter schools. It's a safe bet that the 4 charter schools will not be administratively consolidated, as they are protected by the corporate legislators in the House - which leaves 92 schools as the sacrificial lamb for those wanting the latest Step Up Oklahoma budget bill to succeed. The 92 small schools are located in 53 of the 77 counties, or about 40 House districts (someone check my math). If SB 920 eventually gets to a House vote, there could be 60 Representatives vote "Yes". In other words, in order for corporate lawmakers to support the Step Up budget plan - they must get something in return, and that something appears to be the 92 small school districts. In the opinion of many public school experts, school consolidation is closer than ever, and Senate Bill 920 appears to have taken the place of Fallin's 60 percent executive order.
   Let's examine the 96 small schools' demographics again, and what implications could result from administrative consolidation. First of all, my employment would not be threatened by this consolidation bill, as I work for a school with approximately 2000 students, and I am nearing retirement anyway. So, the question may be asked: Why is a school employee who works for a school ( in no danger of consolidating) pointing out the fallacy of Bice's SB 920? The Bill will not affect my school or me in any way, form, or fashion, so what gives? My position on small school consolidation can be traced to the poem written by Martin Niemoller after he spent seven years in a Nazi concentration camp during the 1930's and 1940's. It goes something like this:

                                                       Then They Came for Me
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
    Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
    Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -
    and there was no one left to speak for me."

   Many who've read or listened to Niemoller believe he was lamenting that, as he stood by and watched others being led away to certain death or long term internment, the Nazis would leave him alone - if he only kept his mouth shut. He found out it was not to be, as they eventually came back for him. The lesson for me is that "one must always advocate for what is right, even though it may risk one's own safety and may not appear to affect the same. My belief is that although SB 920 will not affect my school, I should still point out the fallacy of it - for my friends and neighbors.
   Senate Bill 920 will affect the autonomy of approximately 40 K-12 schools and 52 K-8 schools in Oklahoma, even though it's only administrative consolidation. So, let's examine a hypothetical case of administrative consolidation to find out how small school autonomy is lost: School A has 2000 students and School B has 190 students. School A has a 5 member board which has employed a superintendent to provide the best education possible for its students and School B has a 3 member board to do the same. Under SB 920, School B may be administratively consolidated with School A, so the small school could lose its autonomy in all decisions related to the well-being of its students. The 3 member small school board was democratically elected to make the best decisions for the district's students, ditto the 5 member large school board. Once the two schools were consolidated into one, only one superintendent would run both. The best decisions for School A students would not necessarily be the best decisions for School B students. Autonomous decision making would be lost for School B.
   Another concern School A may have with administrative consolidation to School B is: Once administratively consolidated with School B, School A will assume the district debt of School B. Many School A citizens do not want the district debt of School B, but would have it under SB 920. In other words, School A property owners would not want the debt of School B to be placed on their tax bills, but under Bice's Bill - it would be.
   Even though my school is under no threat to be consolidated under SB 920, I will continue to speak out against all consolidation - because you never know when corporate lawmakers will come for all, and it could be sooner than we think...

January - School Board Appreciation Month

   Many public school advocates know that January is "School Board Appreciation Month" in Oklahoma as well as nation wide. Local school board members in Oklahoma are democratically elected public officials who receive many complaints, but no compensation or pay - and very little gratitude for the difficult job they do. They do the job, because it's the right thing to do - not because they receive recognition or accolades for the many hours of work and often times stress. Most local board members make all decisions based on what's best for their public school students first, and secondly - what's best for their employees.
   Most of the time, what's in the best interest of students is also in the best interest of employees. For instance, the best interest of students and teachers are served if teachers are paid a living wage. Much research indicates that states which place a high priority on student instruction by paying teachers a livable wage, also have public school student success. It's the reason local school boards want Oklahoma State legislators to increase teacher pay - to also increase student success. Many local school boards in Oklahoma know that increasing teacher pay goes hand-in-hand with increasing student success, something our lawmakers have failed to grasp - as Oklahoma teacher pay is at the bottom of the barrel in Oklahoma. It's embarrassing for most Oklahomans and many lawmakers that teacher pay in Oklahoma ranks dead last among states. Unfortunately, there are still too many Oklahoma Lawmakers who believe that teachers receive the low pay they deserve, or that Oklahoma just doesn't have the money to pay teachers what they deserve. Both assumptions would be totally false.
   I can't speak for all Oklahoma local school boards, but I have observed what decisions the Blanchard Board of Education has made, over the last ten years - for Blanchard students, Blanchard teachers, and the Blanchard community: Over the last ten years, the local Blanchard Board of Education has 1) provided over $1,000,000 to teachers in the form of pay raises and bonuses, in the face of state funding cuts and legislative mismanagement; 2) provided $millions in new classrooms, new teaching facilities, new school buses, and new technological advancements to students; 3) provided top teachers, principals, and student support employees - to students; 4) provided the best school calendar each year - for student learning and parental necessity.
   The Blanchard Board of Education makes all important decisions based on what's best for kids - always. Blanchard teachers and support employees, students, parents, and school patrons are very lucky to have a school board which recognizes the importance of student success and actions they must take to ensure the best learning environment possible. The Blanchard board members deserve the respect and admiration from the Blanchard community - because they're kind of "old-fashioned", they truly care...
   The Blanchard board members and years of service are: President Tim Sluder, 10 years; Vice-President Vince Young, 4 years; Clerk Tom Maston, 3 years; Member David Paulk, 22 years; and Member Liz George, 1 year. Once again, this Blanchard Board of Education deserves the thanks and gratitude of the community, so if you happen to see one downtown -  just say thanks for a job well-done...
 

Private high schools playing in public school Leagues... Update: February 10, 2018

   The Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activity Association (OSSAA) began classifying private school members in 2012 by requiring advantaged  private schools to advance one enrollment based classification level upward. If any particular private school met some convoluted and complex criteria for determining systemic advantages, it must advance one enrollment based level when competing in the OSSAA. For instance, if a private high school has 300 students which would place it in class 3A, and the private school has met all advantaged criteria for advancement - the private school would be placed in class 4A when competing in the OSSAA. Several private high schools have met the criteria and advanced to the next classification level since 2012.
   This private school "advancement system" was put in place by the OSSAA in order to provide a "level playing field" between private schools and public schools, but has been largely unsuccessful for the last 5 years. Many OSSAA members now believe the new classification system was an utter failure, based on collected data and analysis over the last five years.
   So, how do other states deal with private schools playing in public school leagues? In Georgia, the GSHA used a 1.5 multiplier from 2000-08. The former GHSA "multiplier system" for private school classification is similar to the OSSAA system for advancing private schools in that a private school's enrollment is multiplied by 1.5 to determine the appropriate classification. For instance, if a particular private high school has 300 students (class 3A), the 1.5 multiplier would indicate 450 students - which would effectively place it in class 4A.
   The GHSA eliminated the 1.5 multiplier rule in 2008, when it became known that it was ineffective for "leveling the playing field" in high school sports. Then, beginning in 2012, private schools with 520 students or less - began competing in their own playoffs. GSHA officials determined the only way to "level the playing field" for high school athletics was to mimic the classification system used by the NCAA. The NCAA divides universities not according to the schools' enrollment numbers, but by financial assistance provided to students. NCAA Division I schools provide scholarships to students and have their own playoff system; NCAA Division II schools provide scholarships and have their own playoff system; NCAA Division III schools do not provide student scholarships, and have their own playoff system.
   Like Jenni Carlson, sports writer for the Daily Oklahoman, said in an article on November 7, 2017 - "The private school classification modifiers that the schools concocted are about as convoluted as rules come... The schools that have membership in the OSSAA can pass whatever rules they want. They can make changes and add caveats and include exceptions. But if the result is a rule with more contortions than a circus side show, they shouldn't be shocked if something goes awry."
Update: After examining high school athletics and activity classification systems from all 50 states, the best indicated course of action for Oklahoma would appear to be the following OSSAA Resolution:
                                           Application for Proposed Rule Change

Whereas, the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) recognized private member schools in 2011 as having advantages when in competition with public school members, including but not limited to - providing student financial assistance and selective enrollment; and,

Whereas, the OSSAA re-classified member schools in 2012, in recognition of the aforementioned private member school advantages that created an unfair competition venue, which advanced private schools meeting specific criteria - one "enrollment based level (ie, A to 2A, 2A to 3A, etc.) for sanctioned state TOURNAMENTS, MEETS, AND CONTESTS; and,

Whereas, in 2017, after 5 years of re-classification based on the recognized private school advantages, the OSSAA recognizes, based on observed evidence, data, and analysis - that the re-classification of private schools based on number of enrolled students has not been effective for "leveling the playing field"; and,

Whereas, in order to provide for a level and fair competitive atmosphere within the extra-curricular activities programs within the state of Oklahoma, this proposed rule change is presented to Mr. David Jackson, Executive Director, in order to be submitted to the governing Board of the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association.

Therefore, be it resolved that in order to enhance the competitive spirit in high school extra-curricular activities in Oklahoma, the OSSAA does hereby request rule changes to re-classify membership of schools which have the ability to decline admission or enrollment to a student, even if the student and student's parents (or custodial parent or court appointed guardian with legal custody of the student) reside within that school's public school district or designated geographic area, to a separate classification, including levels, for TOURNAMENTS, MEETS, AND CONTESTS governed by OSSAA.

Furthermore, the below signed Member schools request a vote from all Member schools regarding the creation of a SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION for the above mentioned schools to happen as soon as possible in order to begin the transition prior to the July 1 deadline for implementation.

Update, January 15, 2018:   Article VII Section II of the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Association (OSSAA) Constitution states: Amendments to the Rules of the Association shall require a majority vote of the member schools voting by ballot. Any proposed amendment to the Rules must be submitted by the Board of Directors or by petition signed by at least twenty (20) member schools in writing to the Executive Director. The Board of Directors shall determine whether any proposed amendment submitted by petition shall be presented to the membership for a referendum vote... If the Board of Directors elects not to present the proposed rule change for a vote, or if the proposed rule change is not approved by a majority vote, then the same rule change may not be resubmitted to the Executive Director for a period of at least one year. The rules creating and defining classifications for football, basketball and baseball further may not be amended more than every four years.
   The 15 member Board of Directors for the OSSAA is composed of school administrators from across the state and includes:
President Rick Pool, Kiowa
Vice-President Jason Sternberger, Kingfisher
Dr. Mike Simpson, Guthrie
Bryan McNutt, Antlers
Mark Hudson, Preston
Chris Brewster, Santa Fe South Charter School
Don Schneberger, Boone-Apache
Jerry Olanson, Glenpool
Dr. Sean McDaniel, Mustang
Cecilia Robinson-Woods, Millwood
Darren Melton, Lincoln Christian Private School
Jerry Needham, Oktaha
Duane Merideth, Durant
Rusty Puffinbarger, Leedey
Shane Booth, Tipton

   In 2010, several public school administrators were urging the OSSAA to allow a membership vote on "leveling the playing field" in competition between public and private schools. The employed tactic of choice for blocking a vote, at that time, was the private school threat of lawsuits - if the OSSAA proceeded. Of course, one public school even considered suing the OSSAA if no level playing field was provided, but it fell on deaf ears - as everyone knows public schools don't have the money to sue. (Ultimately, one private school did sue the OSSAA for "unfairly moving a private school up one classification level, from 4A to 5A", so the OSSAA relented, and allowed the private school to continue playing in class 4A.) The elephant in the room has been and is now - a fear of being sued, as the reason for not leveling the playing field.
Update: January 23,2018 - Tuesday, the Resolution for re-classifying private high schools along with 21 member school signatures have been presented to the OSSAA Executive Director, David Jackson. Mr. Jackson has agreed to place the Resolution on the February 7 OSSAA Board Agenda for consideration by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors will consider allowing the OSSAA member schools to vote on approval of the re-classification proposal. The regular board meeting on February 7 at the OSSAA building is open to the public, so anyone may attend to witness the proceedings. A school superintendent is scheduled to speak regarding the re-classification agenda item, but it is not clear at the moment if anyone else will speak. I'm quite sure someone may speak in behalf of leaving the current classification system in place, but it is still unknown who that may be. Please put February 7, 2018 on your calendar, at the OSSAA building in OKC...
Update: February 10,2018 - The OSSAA Board of Directors heard the re-classification rule for non-public schools on February 7, 2018 at around 9:15 AM at the OSSAA building north of the state capitol. Before we analyze the results of the roll-call vote, let's examine Article VII Section II of the OSSAA constitution for clarity as to how a rule change may be presented and how often a rule change may be presented for allowing the change to be forwarded to the membership for a vote. First of all, Art. VII Sec. 2 states that a proposed amendment ... must be submitted by the Board of Directors or by petition signed by at least (20) member schools in writing to the Executive Director (David Jackson). Specifically, the Board of Directors could have presented the rule amendment to the Executive Director for consideration on February 7, but did not. The reasons that none of the Directors presented the rule amendment to the Executive Director remains unclear, but it would have prevented the work and time spent gathering (20) membership signatures, for several member schools. The only way to know for sure is to ask any Directors that specific question - "If you believe the playing field is not level for private schools vs. public schools in the OSSAA, why did you not forward the Amendment to the Executive Director, for consideration for a membership vote?".
   A motion was made by one board member to not send the classification rule amendment to a vote of the membership. In other words, the member believed the entire OSSAA membership should not be allowed to vote. The motion was seconded by another, so a roll-call vote was taken in which the board members voted 12 Yes - 2 No, to approve blocking a membership vote. It is still unclear why the vote was just the opposite of what many predicted. Either the board of directors are in agreement that some rule change for private school classification is due, but this is just the wrong rule change (As a matter of fact, the member who made the motion actually stated this), or they believe in order to prevent "legal blow-back" (private lawsuit), they are prevented from allowing the entire membership to vote. I believe it's a combination of both reasons. So, before anyone calls for a "lynching" of the directors or voting them out, let's test both theories to see if each is truthful:
   Part of Sec. 2 Article VII reads: If the Board of Directors elects not to present the proposed rule change for a vote, or if the proposed rule change is not approved by a majority vote, then the 'same rule change' may not be resubmitted to the Executive Director for a period of at least one year. So, many constitution experts interpret this phrase to mean that a different rule change may be submitted. In compliance with Article VII, Sec. 2, we will begin gathering signatures for presentation of a different rule change, so if any voting delegates or superintendents would like to sign on, please contact the Blanchard Athletic Director, and he will provide the rule change resolution.
   To test the "private lawsuit" theory for rejecting the first rule change resolution: Since the OSSAA claims it is a private non-profit organization, it may be sued by private interests. But if the rule change is passed by the State Legislature, instead of the private organization itself - No Public Agency may be sued, so the OSSAA would not be forced to spend $millions in defending against a frivolous lawsuit. We intend to move forward with a classification rule change through the State Legislature as well, but we need your help. I've had dozens of contacts since the failure of the rule change vote asking how public school supporters can help.
   The Private school re-classification rule may be passed as a Legislative Bill which prevents the OSSAA and public schools from being sued. We need the help of high school athletic directors, coaches, parents of public school students, and all those public school supporters who believe the playing field is tilted toward private schools in the OSSAA to contact any member of the Senate Education Committee or the House Common Education Committee - and tell them that the "public schools need your help" and it is time for the Legislature to step in to protect our public members from frivolous lawsuits. The members of the Senate Education Committee are:
Gary Stanislawski District 35, ph.# 405-521-5624
Ron Sharp District 17, ph# 405-521-5639
Mark Allen District 4, ph# 405-521-5576
Michael Bergstrom District 1, ph.# 405-521-5561
Josh Brecheen District 6, ph.# 405-521-5586
JJ Dossett District 34, ph.# 405-521-5566
Tom Dugger District 21, ph.# 405-521-5572
Eddie Fields District 10, ph.# 405-521-5581
Dewayne Pemberton District 9, ph.# 405-521-5533
Paul Scott District 43, ph.# 405-521-5522
Jason Smalley District 28, ph.# 405-521-5547
Anthony Sykes District 24, ph.# 405-521-5569
Roger Thompsen District 8, ph.# 405-521-5588
Allison Ikley-Freeman District 37, ph.# 405-521-5600

The members of the House Common Education Committee are:
Michael Rogers District 98, ph# 405-557-7362
Rhonda Baker District 60, ph# 405-557-7311
Chad Caldwell District 40, ph# 405-557-7317
Donnie Condit District 18, ph# 405-557-7376
Katie Henke District 71, ph# 405-557-7361
Dustin Roberts District 21, ph# 405-557-7366
George Young District 99, ph# 405-557-7393
Ed Cannaday District 15, ph# 405-557-7375
Mickey Dollens District 93, ph# 405-557-7371
Jadine Nollan District 66, ph# 405-557-7390
Chuck Strohm District 69, ph# 405-557-7331
Dennis Casey District 35, ph# 405-557-7344
Tom Gann District 8, ph# 405-557-7364
Mike Osburn District 81, ph# 405-557-7360
Todd Thompsen District 25, ph# 405-557-7336

 It would be better to call the lawmaker(s) in your district only, as you are their constituent. Only Ron Sharp of the Senate and Dennis Casey of the House have the Rule Change Bill in hand as of now. All of the committee members listed are public school supporters, so welcome your call... We need this bill to be heard in committee...