I've been running a post about what I learned about politics last year as I ran for the District 42 House seat on June 28, 2016. Since I was starting with a "blank slate" so to speak, I was thoroughly "schooled" in the fine art of politicking by Representative Tim Downing, my teacher and primary opponent. I discussed several lessons I learned in a previous post, but dedicate a single lesson to a new post:
In preparation for the 2016 State House primary election, I purchased and read the book How To Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' At All, by Martin Hauan. The author, Mr. Haunan, was press secretary for two Oklahoma governors, Johnston Murray and Raymond Gary, from 1951 through 1959, and operated his own publicity advertising firm, handling more than 25 successful statewide political campaigns during the 1950's, '60's, and '70's. In today's world, he would be called a political consultant. Mr. Hauan reviews the tricks of the trade in chapters titled Politricks University, Sex in the U.S. Senate Race, and Justice for Sale. If Martin Hauan were alive today (he died in 2001), and wrote his "how-to" book, he would probably title it How To Win Elections By Lyin', Cheatin', And Stealin'... And Gettin' Away With It. He would also add one chapter to his book today entitled Dark Money Talks, which is my lesson learned in this post.
Many public school followers now know that it is illegal for a political candidate to collude, conspire, coordinate, or even communicate with a dark money group in order to receive campaign support for the candidates campaign. This issue came to the forefront when State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister was charged with conspiracy (solicitation and coordination of campaign funds). Also charged was her campaign consultant, Fount Holland. The charges were subsequently dropped, but conspiracy is still a crime, and unethical in the minds of many.
An example of potential conspiracy to run negative campaign ads is the following: In January of 2016, I (as a candidate for the House District 42 seat) received an invitation from an OKC group to interview for campaign support. The group was made up of in-state, out-of-state, and international corporate entities. I knew from the invitation origin that I stood little chance of receiving its financial support, because I've always supported our local small business owners and local public schools. I accepted the invitation to interview anyway, because I wanted to see the inside of corporate and dark money support. I set an interview appointment and arrived at the destination on the designated time and date. When I entered the room to answer questions, I noticed that my monetary donations were projected on a screen alongside the monetary donations to Tim Downing, my primary opponent. My donations up to that point were very meager, while Downing had $30,000 in campaign support. The message I received from the monetary display was "We can't support a 'loser' who has only several hundred dollars in campaign support, when we can support a 'winner' with $30,000". OK, game over. I knew it would be before arriving. The group then told me they were there to determine if I could support business owners if I were elected to office. In my introduction, I told the group that I had been a school superintendent for ten years, and had kept public schools "in the black" (not red ink) as their Chief Financial Officer, so was financially conservative. I had also recommended that $millions be spent for student services and teacher salaries as the CFO of schools over the past ten years. One of the questions the group asked was "Do you support the one-cent state sales tax 'for teacher pay raises' which will be voted on in November?" I knew this was the "trap" question, to get me to admit that I was supportive of tax increases, even if it was for a teacher pay increase. I avoided answering the question directly, by saying "I believe it is the only way teachers will see a pay increase". One of the group then said "You didn't answer the question, does this mean you support a one-cent tax increase for a teacher pay raise"? I then said "Yes" and knew the jig was up. Needless to say I received no campaign support from the corporate group, but Mr. Downing received $Thousands according to the Ethics Commission website.
Members of the corporate group which interviewed me, are also financial donors to the American Legislative Exchange Commission, better known as ALEC. Contributing members of ALEC also include non-profits such as the American Federation for Children (AFC) and its State Legislator donor group, the American Federation for Children Action Fund. In addition to the invitation to interview, I received a questionaire from the Oklahoma branch of the AFC which had questions concerning a Legislator's choice of private and corporate schools (the AFC refers to a Legislator's choice as "school choice for children"). Just as in the corporate entity interview, if I answered their questions correctly, I would be the recipient of $thousands in campaign support. I immediately trashed the questionaire since I recognized the AFC Action Fund as dark money. I also knew that soliciting support from this group, could be construed by a State or District Attorney as conspiracy. I, therefore, did not want any doubt to be cast on me, for conspiracy with a dark money group. It's coincidental that several weeks after I received and trashed the AFC questionaire, voters began receiving phone calls from an entity which identified itself as Catalyst Oklahoma or Oklahoma United and basically lied and trashed my campaign for the District 42 House seat. (Several supporters of my campaign called to tell me about the negative phone calls.) After the "push poll" calls which indirectly encouraged voters to "vote for Tim", voters began receiving mailers which were very negative (mud-slinging) toward my campaign. Several of my supporters brought me the cards (3) which indicated they were paid for by the Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund. Many voters believe that if Mr. Downing completed the questionaire and solicited support from the OFC Action Fund, then he may be guilty of conspiring with it to send out the negative ads. It is still unknown if Superintendent Hofmeister is guilty of conspiracy, since charges were dropped, but if Hofmeister is guilty, then a good investigative journalist could probably uncover conspiracy by Tim Downing with a dark money group. UNETHICAL! in my opinion...
Also illegal is the use of one's elected office to campaign for a (candidate) for elected office. There are hints (not evidence) that Joy Hofmeister may have used her elected office seat to support and campaign for candidate(s) for other elected offices. For example, there is a rumor that Ms. Hofmeister used her office to support a republican candidate in the Stillwater House or Senate race. Maybe it's not true, but several voters also believe she used her elected office to support Tim Downing (R) in the 2016 House District 42 race. Again, maybe it's a complete fabrication, but I think a good investigative journalist could ask some questions of those who say they have evidence, and either prove or disprove the allegations.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Political Schoolin' (Naught from Naught Is Naught..)
This blog is primarily about politics and education, so I sometimes post about my own education in political science - which I write about in this post...
Many friends know that I ran for the District 42 State House seat in the primary held on June 28, 2016. Since I consider myself a fiscal conservative (believe in saving taxpayer dollars instead of spending), a social conservative (belief in retaining traditional social institutions such as our public schools), and a Constitutional conservative (belief in complying with Constitutional Law, instead of violating it or changing it) - I ran as a republican. As all District 42 House voters know, I was taken to school and educated by my republican opponent Tim Downing, 1800 votes to 1000 votes in the primary. Even though my stint into politics was brief, I learned a lot, since my teacher (Mr. Downing) was starting with a blank slate as far as my ignorance of the political process. I learned several indisputable lessons that most politicians know quite well, but which I assumed were all wrong. I also wrongly assumed that what is ethical behavior in the real world is ethical everywhere, but what I learned is generally unethical behavior can be considered ethical by schooled politicians (I was not an educated politician). The lessons I've learned about ethical behavior before politics, has been turned upside down in some cases. The choice about ethical behavior is a personal decision and I admit that what is ethical for one individual may not be ethical for another. What I believe to be true, may not be true for another (politician). In other words, what most people believe to be unethical behavior, may be quite ethical for a politician. What I believe to be unethical is followed by what many politicians consider to be quite ethical (according to my teacher):
1) Unethical - Lies
2) Ethical - It's OK to lead people to believe a lie, if you simply make a true statement, but don't tell the whole truth. An example would be Tim Downing's statement "I believe in educational choice". What he wants his constituents to believe is that.. he believes parents should be able to access public school funding for "their choice" of private or corporate schools. What he really means is that he believes in "legislator's choice of sending public tax dollars to his choice of private or corporate schools. He wants the public to believe he is "conservative" concerning individual choice of schools, when he is really liberal for more government spending for corporations and private enterprise. It's called corporate welfare by most conservatives or corporatism.
1) Unethical - Half-lies and Innuendos
2) Ethical - It's OK to tell half-lies and make innuendos, as long as one doesn't tell whole lies. As an example, Mr.Downing responded to the question "Do you believe our public schools are top-heavy?", with "Yes, as an example, the (school) superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year". While the statement is true, what he wants his listeners to believe is that school superintendents are "over-paid bureaucratic fat cats" and therefore, we should consolidate schools or administration. In his mind, he doesn't actually say what he wants the public to believe, so it's not a lie. In his mind, he only insinuates that "over-paid superintendents are fat-cats" so magically, the innuendo becomes ethical. A "truer" more ethical answer would be "I don't know - while the superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year, it represents less than 1% of school expenditures, while Oklahoma State Legislators' pay ranks us 12th among all 50 states. So you must decide for yourself if Oklahoma public schools are top-heavy... or if the Oklahoma Legislature is top-heavy..."
1) Unethical - Embezzlement of campaign funds is both unethical and illegal
2) Ethical - As long as one doesn't get caught, there is NO victim in the crime, and can justify the misspent campaign funds, it's OK. For example, Senator Kyle Loveless (R) was accused of spending campaign funds (donations) for personal use (embezzlement) this year. He resigned from the Senate, plead guilty, paid back $112,000 to the State, and is on 3 years probation. He used the campaign funds for toys, flowers, clothing, auto tires, fast food, lingerie, OU-Texas football game, attorney fees, a speeding ticket, and a divorce.It is all perfectly legal to use donations to pay for "officeholder expenses", so Mr. Loveless could have assumed it was ethical to pay the speeding ticket with campaign funds, since he was probably traveling to a Senate function in some city. He also may have assumed it was ethical and legal to pay expenses related to the OU-Texas football game in Dallas, since he was probably campaigning for his seat - no doubt. It may be difficult to argue the legality and morality, however, of paying for lingerie and a massage with donations. Also, remember he was convicted of embezzling $112,000 in donations, so whose to say the "contributors" in question are upset with Mr. Loveless, so the crime may indeed be "victimless". So, is it really a crime? And if so, is it really unethical? What I'm referring to is that probably the bulk of the $112,000 was donated by out-of-state corporate contributors, and they would want Mr. Loveless to use their funding for personal living expenses. At least they probably knew he was, but didn't care. It's a safe bet that Mr. Loveless's constituents weren't wealthy enough to contribute $112,000.
Tomorrow we will discuss what I learned about "How to Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' at All", a how-to book written by Martin Hauan. Mr. Haunan handled publicity and Advertising for many political campaigns beginning in 1954. I have a suggestion for a how-to-book written by the campaign adviser of Senator Loveless, Representative Downing, and Superintendent Hofmeister... It's called "How to Win Elections by Cheatin' and Gettin' Away With It".
Many friends know that I ran for the District 42 State House seat in the primary held on June 28, 2016. Since I consider myself a fiscal conservative (believe in saving taxpayer dollars instead of spending), a social conservative (belief in retaining traditional social institutions such as our public schools), and a Constitutional conservative (belief in complying with Constitutional Law, instead of violating it or changing it) - I ran as a republican. As all District 42 House voters know, I was taken to school and educated by my republican opponent Tim Downing, 1800 votes to 1000 votes in the primary. Even though my stint into politics was brief, I learned a lot, since my teacher (Mr. Downing) was starting with a blank slate as far as my ignorance of the political process. I learned several indisputable lessons that most politicians know quite well, but which I assumed were all wrong. I also wrongly assumed that what is ethical behavior in the real world is ethical everywhere, but what I learned is generally unethical behavior can be considered ethical by schooled politicians (I was not an educated politician). The lessons I've learned about ethical behavior before politics, has been turned upside down in some cases. The choice about ethical behavior is a personal decision and I admit that what is ethical for one individual may not be ethical for another. What I believe to be true, may not be true for another (politician). In other words, what most people believe to be unethical behavior, may be quite ethical for a politician. What I believe to be unethical is followed by what many politicians consider to be quite ethical (according to my teacher):
1) Unethical - Lies
2) Ethical - It's OK to lead people to believe a lie, if you simply make a true statement, but don't tell the whole truth. An example would be Tim Downing's statement "I believe in educational choice". What he wants his constituents to believe is that.. he believes parents should be able to access public school funding for "their choice" of private or corporate schools. What he really means is that he believes in "legislator's choice of sending public tax dollars to his choice of private or corporate schools. He wants the public to believe he is "conservative" concerning individual choice of schools, when he is really liberal for more government spending for corporations and private enterprise. It's called corporate welfare by most conservatives or corporatism.
1) Unethical - Half-lies and Innuendos
2) Ethical - It's OK to tell half-lies and make innuendos, as long as one doesn't tell whole lies. As an example, Mr.Downing responded to the question "Do you believe our public schools are top-heavy?", with "Yes, as an example, the (school) superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year". While the statement is true, what he wants his listeners to believe is that school superintendents are "over-paid bureaucratic fat cats" and therefore, we should consolidate schools or administration. In his mind, he doesn't actually say what he wants the public to believe, so it's not a lie. In his mind, he only insinuates that "over-paid superintendents are fat-cats" so magically, the innuendo becomes ethical. A "truer" more ethical answer would be "I don't know - while the superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year, it represents less than 1% of school expenditures, while Oklahoma State Legislators' pay ranks us 12th among all 50 states. So you must decide for yourself if Oklahoma public schools are top-heavy... or if the Oklahoma Legislature is top-heavy..."
1) Unethical - Embezzlement of campaign funds is both unethical and illegal
2) Ethical - As long as one doesn't get caught, there is NO victim in the crime, and can justify the misspent campaign funds, it's OK. For example, Senator Kyle Loveless (R) was accused of spending campaign funds (donations) for personal use (embezzlement) this year. He resigned from the Senate, plead guilty, paid back $112,000 to the State, and is on 3 years probation. He used the campaign funds for toys, flowers, clothing, auto tires, fast food, lingerie, OU-Texas football game, attorney fees, a speeding ticket, and a divorce.It is all perfectly legal to use donations to pay for "officeholder expenses", so Mr. Loveless could have assumed it was ethical to pay the speeding ticket with campaign funds, since he was probably traveling to a Senate function in some city. He also may have assumed it was ethical and legal to pay expenses related to the OU-Texas football game in Dallas, since he was probably campaigning for his seat - no doubt. It may be difficult to argue the legality and morality, however, of paying for lingerie and a massage with donations. Also, remember he was convicted of embezzling $112,000 in donations, so whose to say the "contributors" in question are upset with Mr. Loveless, so the crime may indeed be "victimless". So, is it really a crime? And if so, is it really unethical? What I'm referring to is that probably the bulk of the $112,000 was donated by out-of-state corporate contributors, and they would want Mr. Loveless to use their funding for personal living expenses. At least they probably knew he was, but didn't care. It's a safe bet that Mr. Loveless's constituents weren't wealthy enough to contribute $112,000.
Tomorrow we will discuss what I learned about "How to Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' at All", a how-to book written by Martin Hauan. Mr. Haunan handled publicity and Advertising for many political campaigns beginning in 1954. I have a suggestion for a how-to-book written by the campaign adviser of Senator Loveless, Representative Downing, and Superintendent Hofmeister... It's called "How to Win Elections by Cheatin' and Gettin' Away With It".
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Corporate Legislators Continue Slaughter of Agencies..
With the predicted decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the "cigarette fee" is indeed a revenue raising measure enacted by corporate lawmakers, and unconstitutional - corporate lawyers everywhere are celebrating. This court decision ensures that several Oklahoma Health Agencies will fall $215 million short, and must cut public services. The corporate lawmakers, most of whom are attorneys, passed this cigarette tax knowing full well it was unconstitutional... from the beginning. So, if most lawmakers were aware the "cigarette fee" was illegal and unconstitutional, then the question becomes "Why did they rely on it to help balance the state budget?" or "Why did they pass it in the first place?" There are two theories as to "why?, and they both have to do with "stupidity". Either the corporate lawmakers are stupid... or they believe their constituents are stupid. As an example of pleading stupidity, State Representative Josh Cockroft said that "he doesn't agree with the court's ruling but he respects it". Cockroft seems to be blaming the court for being stupid, not himself nor his constituents, so there is a third theory... Corporate lawmakers who voted for the unconstitutional cigarette tax, told their constituents it was one of the only ways to help balance the state budget and fund core services (an out-and-out lie) and it is all perfectly legal - another lie. The third theory is that the lawmakers have claimed self-stupidity. These corporate lawmakers are not really stupid, but claim they were just not aware that their "cigarette fee" would be a "revenue raising measure", Duh.. It's difficult to believe that corporate attorneys are stupid, so there must be a double top-secret motivation behind all the stupidity claims.
A theory concerning the double top-secret motivation corporate lawmakers might have to pass such unconstitutional bills is the fact that Oklahoma legislators only earn about $50,000 annual salary. This $50,000 ranks Oklahoma in 12th place among states' legislative pay... which is not enough for most corporate attorneys. When Governor Fallin calls the inevitable special session to pass a Constitutional budget bill, lawmakers will earn an average of around $10,000 in overtime pay - which greatly fattens their take-home pay.
A theory concerning the double top-secret motivation corporate lawmakers might have to pass such unconstitutional bills is the fact that Oklahoma legislators only earn about $50,000 annual salary. This $50,000 ranks Oklahoma in 12th place among states' legislative pay... which is not enough for most corporate attorneys. When Governor Fallin calls the inevitable special session to pass a Constitutional budget bill, lawmakers will earn an average of around $10,000 in overtime pay - which greatly fattens their take-home pay.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Abused Public School Students
As Blanchard teachers and support personnel arrived at the Blanchard High School Cafeteria on Monday, August 7, at 8 AM - they were greeted by 30 cheering and applauding high school students. The students had gathered at approximately 7:30 and lined the sidewalk outside the cafeteria entrance, to salute, cheer, and encourage our disparaged teachers. Our Oklahoma teachers have been disparaged, disrespected, and lied to by state senators and representatives over the past year in an effort to convince teachers "they really do care about our public schools". Oklahoma public school teachers are now the lowest paid among all 50 states and the District of Columbia. They have not had a pay increase in over 10 years, but some lawmakers have said and continue to say "Oklahoma teachers have received three pay raises since 2008". As a matter of fact, one State Representative posted this fabrication on Facebook two years ago - in trying to convince the public that "teachers are overpaid". I'll just let you guess which lawmaker made the remark...
Just as abused as our Oklahoma teachers and probably more so, are our public school students. Many public school supporters believe our students are abused by lawmakers because student funding has actually been reduced from $3291 per student 10 years ago to $3004 per student at the end of the 2016-2017 school year - a $287 difference. For a school such as Blanchard with over 2000 students, this amounts to $574,000 less state student aid for 2017 (as received from State Legislators) as it received 10 years earlier. Many Oklahomans believe the evidence which emphatically indicates that several lawmakers have abused our public school students. Many of these same abusive lawmakers continue to say "I truly support teachers and students" as evidenced in campaign ads.
Many public school supporters believe the "draining of the swamp" has begun with the ouster of Senator Ralph Shorty, Senator Kyle Loveless, Representative Dan Kirby, et al, but needs to continue in order to save our Oklahoma public school students. An old ranch saying is "It's enough to make a cow quit her calf", but in the case of these lawmaker lawbreakers "It's enough to make a conservative Oklahoman quit the republican party".
Just as abused as our Oklahoma teachers and probably more so, are our public school students. Many public school supporters believe our students are abused by lawmakers because student funding has actually been reduced from $3291 per student 10 years ago to $3004 per student at the end of the 2016-2017 school year - a $287 difference. For a school such as Blanchard with over 2000 students, this amounts to $574,000 less state student aid for 2017 (as received from State Legislators) as it received 10 years earlier. Many Oklahomans believe the evidence which emphatically indicates that several lawmakers have abused our public school students. Many of these same abusive lawmakers continue to say "I truly support teachers and students" as evidenced in campaign ads.
Many public school supporters believe the "draining of the swamp" has begun with the ouster of Senator Ralph Shorty, Senator Kyle Loveless, Representative Dan Kirby, et al, but needs to continue in order to save our Oklahoma public school students. An old ranch saying is "It's enough to make a cow quit her calf", but in the case of these lawmaker lawbreakers "It's enough to make a conservative Oklahoman quit the republican party".
Monday, August 7, 2017
State Superintendent.. Joy for Oklahoma Schools?
Regular readers of this blog/column know that I've taken grief as of late because of questionable news postings concerning our State Superintendent of Instruction, Joy Hofmeister. The posts have been primarily "questionable" to Joy Hofmeister supporters only, but what they (Joy supporters) don't acknowledge is that I have also been a Hofmeister supporter - but primarily a "public school" supporter.
The first news item which lends credence to the assertion that Hofmeister may not be what her supporters believe she is, from NonDoc: DA Prater on Joy Hofmeister Case: 'We're Not Done'. Prater indicates that although all charges have been dismissed, he may be gathering more evidence for additional felony charges. The second real news piece which alludes to Joy Hofmeister's real position on school consolidation is from the Norman Transcript in which she states "We have more than 530 (school) districts - I think that's too many districts." The fourth article which many public school experts believe illustrate Hofmeister's true feelings concerning our public schools is Oklahoma Watch, in which she states that Seminole Public School patrons do not have confidence in their local school board - as a justification for the state board seizing control. Many Hofmeister supporters and observers believe she wants corporate public schools to control our local public schools, while others believe the Seminole debacle is an isolated case. The fifth and final news item is a "campaign article" in which Hofmeister champions a school voucher supporter (Tim Downing), in stating "I trust Tim Downing to bring meaningful solutions to the challenges we face in education, and not just colorful rhetoric. Tim will support our teachers and stand with parents to fight for what really matters in our schools, and that's the kids." Hofmeister believes the "colorful rhetoric" support of our teachers and students eminated from Downing's opponents in the 2016 House District 42 election - democratic candidate Lysbeth George, a Blanchard Public School's board member and republican Jim Beckham, Blanchard's school superintendent and Downing's primary opponent in 2016. What is interesting to note, is that the campaign ad only appeared in three publications - The McCarville Report, The Flame, and the Blanchard News. Many political insiders believe it was a direct slam by Hofmeister at both George and Beckham, since their hometown newspaper is the Blanchard News and their public school is also Blanchard.
While I believe Joy Hofmeister is a good person, I don't agree with her political position concerning our public schools. She has stated her political position concerning vouchers, school consolidation, and even the funding of corporate and private schools. I truly hope that our public school supporters can look at the facts, and don't criticize me for not supporting our state superintendent.
The first news item which lends credence to the assertion that Hofmeister may not be what her supporters believe she is, from NonDoc: DA Prater on Joy Hofmeister Case: 'We're Not Done'. Prater indicates that although all charges have been dismissed, he may be gathering more evidence for additional felony charges. The second real news piece which alludes to Joy Hofmeister's real position on school consolidation is from the Norman Transcript in which she states "We have more than 530 (school) districts - I think that's too many districts." The fourth article which many public school experts believe illustrate Hofmeister's true feelings concerning our public schools is Oklahoma Watch, in which she states that Seminole Public School patrons do not have confidence in their local school board - as a justification for the state board seizing control. Many Hofmeister supporters and observers believe she wants corporate public schools to control our local public schools, while others believe the Seminole debacle is an isolated case. The fifth and final news item is a "campaign article" in which Hofmeister champions a school voucher supporter (Tim Downing), in stating "I trust Tim Downing to bring meaningful solutions to the challenges we face in education, and not just colorful rhetoric. Tim will support our teachers and stand with parents to fight for what really matters in our schools, and that's the kids." Hofmeister believes the "colorful rhetoric" support of our teachers and students eminated from Downing's opponents in the 2016 House District 42 election - democratic candidate Lysbeth George, a Blanchard Public School's board member and republican Jim Beckham, Blanchard's school superintendent and Downing's primary opponent in 2016. What is interesting to note, is that the campaign ad only appeared in three publications - The McCarville Report, The Flame, and the Blanchard News. Many political insiders believe it was a direct slam by Hofmeister at both George and Beckham, since their hometown newspaper is the Blanchard News and their public school is also Blanchard.
While I believe Joy Hofmeister is a good person, I don't agree with her political position concerning our public schools. She has stated her political position concerning vouchers, school consolidation, and even the funding of corporate and private schools. I truly hope that our public school supporters can look at the facts, and don't criticize me for not supporting our state superintendent.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
FAKE NEWS or Real News: You Decide..
A news item appeared a couple weeks ago which indicated that "fat cat superintendents" are the reason schools don't have enough money to operate or teachers salaries are low. The news began - "Millions of dollars were spent on public schools in Oklahoma, and now there are fears (emphasis mine) that school superintendents are getting too big a slice of that pie". The "fears" are assumed to be Senator Jason Smalley's, who said: "We should be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and we should be able to hold them accountable to some degree in order to make the best decisions moving forward". The "fears" are also assumed to be from Representative Tim Downing and his corporate cronies - who want nothing more than their fair share of Oklahoma tax dollars (see "OPCSA sues state board"), by funneling public dollars away from public schools and toward private and corporate schools. Also, in answer to the question "Do you think our education system in Oklahoma is top-heavy?" Tim Downing replied "yes, as an example we spend $1.5 million in Garvin and McClain Counties just for superintendents". Downing's position on our public schools and teachers can be further ascertained when he answered a question about the sales tax for teacher pay raises: "I'll be voting NO..." teacher pay raise. While these politicians' statements may be true, they would be be what the hill folk living on Rush Creek might call "selling a load of bull..." Our educated cousins from the city would call these statements political rhetoric, half-lies, and innuendos. Many Oklahomans believe "selling a load bull" is just as unethical as an out-and-out lie, because it is are spewed by politicians to convince those who they believe are uneducated - to believe a lie. For example, when Downing answered the question about top-heavy administration, he said that in Garvin and McClain Counties "we spend $1.5 million just for superintendents". He was trying to convince voters and the general public that superintendents are overpaid. What he failed to mention is that superintendent salaries make up less than 1% (.98%) of total public school expenditures in McClain and Garvin Counties and total school administrative costs amount to about 3% of school expenditures. This leaves 97% which is spent on non-administrative functions. Rush Creek hill folk would simply not buy Downing's load of bull, which would be akin to buying "ocean-front property in Arizona"... and invite him to a "squarin' off" place. More polite hill folk would simply invite him to a debate. He and his out-of-state corporate cronies, however, would be just as unlikely to debate the issue as they would in accepting an invitation to a "squarin off place"... LOL! But I digress...
In the aforementioned real news, Senator John Sparks said "The plan is simple -- find out how much superintendents make across Oklahoma and find out if it's burning a hole in the state's pocket." All I can say is, it's about time. But maybe I can speed up the legislative process by offering a quantitative analysis of what Representative Downing insinuates are "fat-cat superintendents".
A quantitative analysis of state legislator salaries may be what drives lawmakers like Downing and Smalley to spew their political rhetoric about superintendent salaries. A 2016 analysis revealed that Oklahoma legislator salaries at $50,880 for 64 days work, ranked 12th among the 50 states. The $50,000 salary seems to be a little high for passing unconstitutional laws, inability to balance the state budget, keeping teacher salaries at the bottom of the barrel, reducing per pupil appropriations, and increasing taxes on Oklahomans but not corporate cronies. I may be wrong, however, because it probably is hard work in trying to keep up with all the lies and trying to keep their constituents fooled with rhetoric, innuendos, and half-lies.
In 2015-2016, Oklahoma public schools spent a total $5,606,044,118 in educating our students. Of that total, $51,811,764 was spent on superintendent salaries, or less than one percent (1%). Oklahoma public schools had 692,670 students in 2015-2016, so spent $8093.38 per student. Superintendent pay per student averaged $74.80. Those who discredit and degrade our public schools may use "high superintendent pay" to distract the public from the real issue - low teacher pay, but a quantitative analysis of data reveals otherwise. Those who continually denigrate our teachers and public schools must be exposed with real data and statistics.
"Draining the swamp" of lawmakers who denigrate and insult our teachers, students, and public schools in general goes further than Smalley and Downing - and requires an in-depth examination of political characteristics they share with others. For example, most employ the same clandestine and "dark money" advisers Fount Holland and his sidekick Chad Alexander. An examination of campaign contributions and support documents also indicates they all have solicited and received $ hundreds of thousands from groups such as the pro-voucher "American Federation for Children Action Fund" (a multi-million dollar private and corporate school group out of Washington D.C.). Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives who have accepted a pay check from their out-of-state corporate cronies work for them, and not their constituents.
In my opinion, lawmakers like Senator Smalley and Representative Downing are the "bearers of fake news" to the public, and must be called out - but you decide...
In the aforementioned real news, Senator John Sparks said "The plan is simple -- find out how much superintendents make across Oklahoma and find out if it's burning a hole in the state's pocket." All I can say is, it's about time. But maybe I can speed up the legislative process by offering a quantitative analysis of what Representative Downing insinuates are "fat-cat superintendents".
A quantitative analysis of state legislator salaries may be what drives lawmakers like Downing and Smalley to spew their political rhetoric about superintendent salaries. A 2016 analysis revealed that Oklahoma legislator salaries at $50,880 for 64 days work, ranked 12th among the 50 states. The $50,000 salary seems to be a little high for passing unconstitutional laws, inability to balance the state budget, keeping teacher salaries at the bottom of the barrel, reducing per pupil appropriations, and increasing taxes on Oklahomans but not corporate cronies. I may be wrong, however, because it probably is hard work in trying to keep up with all the lies and trying to keep their constituents fooled with rhetoric, innuendos, and half-lies.
In 2015-2016, Oklahoma public schools spent a total $5,606,044,118 in educating our students. Of that total, $51,811,764 was spent on superintendent salaries, or less than one percent (1%). Oklahoma public schools had 692,670 students in 2015-2016, so spent $8093.38 per student. Superintendent pay per student averaged $74.80. Those who discredit and degrade our public schools may use "high superintendent pay" to distract the public from the real issue - low teacher pay, but a quantitative analysis of data reveals otherwise. Those who continually denigrate our teachers and public schools must be exposed with real data and statistics.
"Draining the swamp" of lawmakers who denigrate and insult our teachers, students, and public schools in general goes further than Smalley and Downing - and requires an in-depth examination of political characteristics they share with others. For example, most employ the same clandestine and "dark money" advisers Fount Holland and his sidekick Chad Alexander. An examination of campaign contributions and support documents also indicates they all have solicited and received $ hundreds of thousands from groups such as the pro-voucher "American Federation for Children Action Fund" (a multi-million dollar private and corporate school group out of Washington D.C.). Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives who have accepted a pay check from their out-of-state corporate cronies work for them, and not their constituents.
In my opinion, lawmakers like Senator Smalley and Representative Downing are the "bearers of fake news" to the public, and must be called out - but you decide...
Doc Foster
Doc Foster, a long-time Blanchard Public School supporter and Blanchard citizens supporter, passed away this past weekend. Doc and Patsy Foster were two of the first people I met when we moved to town in 2007. Although I only knew him a short time compared to many Blanchard citizens, I found Doc as traditional as anyone I ever met. He would "give the shirt off his back" if anyone needed it. As a matter of fact, if anyone asked "why do you care so much about Blanchard Public Schools and Blanchard people?" Doc would likely answer "because I'm still kinda' old-fashioned, I guess". In my opinion, he truly was old-fashioned as he still cared about his fellow man and is part of what made America great. Doc Foster has passed the "traditional" family baton on to his three sons, David, Dwain, and Darin Foster, the fourth (maybe fifth) generation of Blanchard Lions to support Blanchard Schools. We know the "tradition" will continue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)