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.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
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)