kalin

Just a heads up.

If you have been on this forum for any length of time, you know how passionate I am about my home town.

For more information about my stance on the issues, please visit www.SeanStipe.com

I suggest that people at least start their shopping there. There's plenty of parking and you get great customer service because you aren't fighting the crowds. It's also nicely decorated.

66%% of the students
62%% of the teachers

If you take away the "questionable" 600 students that Atkinson spoke about and we have: 60%% of the students.

Teacher to student ratio
1992: 15.6 students per teacher
2011: 16.6 students per teacher

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL
Superintendent 1.0
Asst Supt 0.0
Elem & Sec Principal 1.0
Sec Principal 3.0
Elem Principal 14.0
Asst Sec Principal 6.0
Asst Elem Principal 4.0
Admin Specialist 0.0
Supervisor/Director 21.3
Other 1.0
Total 51.3

EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PERSONNEL
Visiting Teacher 0.0
Counselor 19.6
Librarian 8.0
Nurse 2.2
Elem. Art 0.0
Elem. Phys. Ed 0.0
Elem. Music 0.0
Total 29.8

SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL
Psychologist 6.0
Supervisor 0.0
Speech & Hear Ther 8.5
Occ or Phys Ther 0.0
Work Study Coord 0.0
Gifted Teach 1.0
Handicapped Teach 73.3
Total 88.8

VOCATIONAL PERSONNEL
Teachers 81.3

CLASSROOM PERSONNEL
Teachers 572.2

OTHER PERSONNEL
Pre-School 0.0
Post Secondary 0.0
Miscellaneous 0.0
Total 0.0

31%% drop off. Nearly 1 out of 3.

"Can we find out how many students, teachers,and administrators were in the school system in 1992?"

http://odevax.ode.state.oh.us/htbin/pupil_Profi...

+++

1980 13,600
1985 12,352
1990 11,782
1995 10,479
1998 10,712

That's all I have in my books.

1 Teacher $40,000

2 Principal $55,000

3 Police Officer $55,000

4 Mayor $30,000

5 Firefighter $50,000

6 Safety/service Dir. $28,000

7 Street worker $28 per hour

8 Govenor/Lt Govenor $50,000

9 Prison Guard $50,000

10 What is a lot of money to you? For what? I don't understand the context.

Issue 1

If approved, Issue 1 would raise the maximum age when one can become a judge from 70 to 75. Because we believe that there should be no maximum age limit for holding public office, the LPO supports a “yes” vote on Issue 1.

Issue 2

According to the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund, Issue 2 would: “Affect public employees, in particular, teachers, firefighters and police. Prohibit public employees from striking, eliminate binding arbitration as a way to settle contract disputes, require performance based pay for teachers, establish a minimum that public employees must pay for health insurance and pensions, allow the governing body (public employer) to impose its own last offer to settle a contract dispute.”

A “yes” vote on Issue 2 would affirm Senate Bill 5, which was signed into law by Governor Kasich this year, and enact the provisions stated above.

An informal poll of LPO leaders found that a significant majority supports a “yes” vote on Issue 2 as a way to help limit government spending, which is spiraling out of control at all levels in the state, by limiting the power of unions to demand unsustainable pay and benefit increases and block much-needed education and government reforms.

A vocal minority of LPO leaders, however, advocate a “no” vote on Issue 2 on the grounds that it limits government workers’ rights to peacefully associate.

All LPO leaders agree that this difficult choice is brought on by the excessive growth of government throughout Ohio, and that liberty-loving individuals should carefully reflect on the issue before casting the vote that they honestly believe is consistent with the principles of liberty.

Issue 3

Passage of Issue 3 would make it illegal for Ohioans to be forced to buy health insurance or participate in any health care system. This attempt to block key provisions of Obamacare would likely be challenged in federal court, but it would be a clear signal that Ohioans wish to assert their 10th Amendment rights against a blatantly unconstitutional and potentially disastrous overhaul of a huge portion of the national economy that would greatly diminish personal liberty for every American. The LPO strongly urges a “yes” vote on Issue 3.

Generally, a state law, or a state constitutional provision, cannot overrule a federal law. The PPACA is currently being challenged in federal court as violating federal law. The provision exempting Ohioans from PPACA would likely have little or no effect on that challenge. However, if passed, the amendment could have a direct impact on any Ohio law (state or local) with an effective date after March 19, 2010. Ohioans would be exempted from any requirement imposed by the Ohio legislature, or by any of Ohio's counties or cities, which would require individuals to purchase health insurance. It is unclear how far that might extend and what the impact would be on such issues as workers’ compensation, Medicaid, or health services operated by the state such as clinics at state universities.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. The freedom from being forced to purchase government-defined private health insurance is a fundamental right that should be embodied in the Ohio Bill of Rights.

2. Government must be prohibited from passing laws requiring purchase of health insurance coverage.

3. Ohioans should be able to vote on whether they want to be covered by government-defined health insurance.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. Without required participation the entirety of the PPACA might be declared to be unconstitutional. Some consequences would be that insurance companies could continue to exclude people, including children, with preexisting medical conditions from getting health insurance coverage, and continue to impose annual and lifetime caps on health care coverage.

2. Exempting Ohioans from requirements of a federal law violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down by the Courts.

3. Changes the Ohio legislature has made to health insurance coverage since March 19, 2010 as well as future changes would be invalid. This would include needed changes to Medicaid, workers’ compensation, and student health insurance.

And the rich and powerful in Lorain are....

Neither side can "move the goal posts."

There are about 5 pieces of legislation that changed parts of SB5 since it was signed. There is so much there, that both sides can cherry pick info and make it sound like the world will implode. The complexities of this issue is why we have a representative government. It should not turn into a PR game, because voters are making up their minds based on sound bites, not from understanding the bill.

Flat out lie. We covered that last week if you want to review the conversation zebulon and I had.

Would you like to make another statement that we can discuss and further the conversation?

This illustrates how ban the duopoly in Columbus messes up everything they touch.

On October 20, the Ohio Senate passed HB 318-substitute, a bill that creates a March 2012 primary for U.S. Senate, state legislature, and county office, as well as a June 12 primary for U.S. House and President. Here is the text of the bill.

Candidates running in a primary for U.S. House in the June primary would still be expected to submit petitions by December 7, but the petitions could be circulated in the districts established by the legislature a few weeks ago. If the district boundaries change, the petitions would still be valid.

Ohio doesn’t know what the U.S. House district boundaries will be in 2012, because a referendum petition is being circulated against the bill that established those boundaries. So, the Senate felt that it would be better to postpone the U.S. House primaries to June. The presidential primary will also be put off until June, because Ohio’s presidential primary always elects delegates to the major party national conventions from particular U.S. House districts.

Of course it is massively more expensive to hold two primaries than to hold one. One would have expected the legislature to simply move the primary for all office to June, given the delay in knowing what the U.S. House district boundaries will be. What is especially peculiar with the bill is that the primary for U.S. Senate would be in March but the primary for U.S. House would be in June.

In the meantime, the Secretary of State is still pondering whether or not to put Americans Elect, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, and the Socialist Party, on the 2012 ballot. The Libertarian Party is now on the ballot. Thanks to Mark McGinnis for this news.

They can vote "yes" on Issue 2, which not only diminishes the bargaining power of public-employee unions in the state but seems designed to antagonize the very people who perform some of the most important and dangerous jobs in our communities.

Or they can vote "no," thereby locking in a status quo so unbalanced that it has become a barrier to reforming schools, right-sizing local government and making Ohio more attractive to investment.

This issue fell to voters when a union-led petition drive stopped Senate Bill 5 from going into effect after it was passed by the Ohio General Assembly and signed by Gov. John Kasich.

Yet whatever voters decide, a middle road that enables needed change without trampling on the dignity of public servants will be hard to find once this bitter political fight ends.

That's why, whether Issue 2 passes or fails, legislators must re-enter the fray sooner rather than later. And they must do so in a more inclusive and broadly representative way than they did either this spring in passing Senate Bill 5 with only Republican votes -- or in 1983, when Statehouse Democrats shoved through a bargaining law tailored for their political allies.

Ohio law must not impede reform, and it won't if it creates a level playing field for public-sector workers and their employers.

Right now, that field is tipped in favor of the unions. Recognizing that reality does not mean we oppose public-employee unions or that we do not appreciate what their members do and the sacrifices some already have made. The most disturbing aspect of the effort first to pass Senate Bill 5 in Columbus and now to uphold it as Issue 2 on the ballot has been its frequent tone of disrespect toward public workers. You cannot treat any employees that way and expect them to work more efficiently and creatively.

That said, Ohio desperately needs to control the costs of government at all levels. It needs to send a clear message that the old, familiar ways of doing the public's business have to change.

In schools, the emphasis has to be on the progress of children, not the comfort of adults. In city halls and county offices, the impact on those who pay the bills -- and the sheer magnitude of those bills -- must be paramount.

Rules that made sense in 1983 do not make sense anymore. Ohio needs a fresh start.

Because of that, this editorial board -- after much soul-searching and vigorous discussion -- has decided to endorse the passage of Issue 2.

Imperfect though it may be, Issue 2 will give local governments and school districts more tools to control labor costs and protect taxpayers. It requires public employees to make the same kind of contributions toward their health and pension benefits that most private-sector workers do. It ends state-mandated wage step-ups, requires performance-based pay and permits layoffs based on more than seniority. Those factors are especially important to school districts such as Cleveland that need to transform themselves in the face of outmoded state rules that force them to toss aside newer -- and perhaps better -- teachers when money is tight.

Issue 2 also would revamp the current system of binding arbitration. Envisioned as a way to resolve deadlocks without strikes, such arbitration in practice can short-circuit bargaining because neither side has to put its real bottom line on the table and instead can roll the dice with an arbitrator who must pick between competing proposals. Mayors, including Akron's Don Plusquellic -- a Democrat who opposes Issue 2 -- have complained bitterly for years that arbitrators need not consider a city's finances in making their decisions. That has to change.

But Issue 2 ends binding arbitration in a way that also raises questions: It leaves the final decision on an impasse to the employer's legislative body -- that is the city council or school board. Unions and their allies say that lets the employer decide. Yet even skeptical supporters of Issue 2 wonder if elected officials will really make tough decisions regarding popular -- and politically active -- employees such as police officers, firefighters and teachers.

This is one component of Issue 2 that should be rethought if the measure passes. Another is the ban on public-employee strikes -- already rare in Ohio -- that also would distort bargaining. Finally, the General Assembly would need to excise provisions -- notably a ban on collecting "fair share" dues from bargaining unit members who refuse to join the union, but reap the benefits of representation -- that organized labor views as a threat to its existence. Such a ban is needless -- and needlessly provocative.

Unions can be important advocates for their members, and a measure sold as restoring balance ought to do just that -- not shift power decisively to the other side.

Once the votes are tallied, Kasich must take the lead in suggesting these changes.

And should Issue 2 fail, Ohio will still need a more efficient and competitive public sector -- at the very least, the governor should make another run at performance pay, an end to restrictive seniority rules and greater flexibility on employee benefits.

Either way, this page will continue to push for the balance that should have been struck months ago.

Kasich hinted at a willingness to compromise in August when he invited opponents of Senate Bill 5 to negotiate and head off this referendum. The offer was months overdue, but by refusing it, labor and its allies signaled their zest for a fight, not a resolution. Even now, they court incredulity by clinging to the idea that the status quo is just fine, despite the high cost of local government in Ohio.

Polls consistently show that Ohioans like many aspects of Senate Bill 5, but not the nasty tone behind it. When this campaign ends, Kasich has a chance to be a healer. He must not pass it up.

Nor should Ohio pass up this opportunity to break with an unsustainable status quo. Yes, change is scary. But look around: Not changing is even scarier.

When they mark their ballots, Ohioans cannot worry about what is best for any political party or interest group -- on either side of this debate. They need to consider what's best for the future of their children, their communities, their state.

They need to pass Issue 2.

Oh, and the average public employee makes 43%% more. Info to ponder when it comes to Issue 2.

If it goes into affect, the code will read:

(H) "Strike" includes, but is not limited to, concerted action in failing to report to duty; willful absence from one's position; stoppage of work; slowdown, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful, and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purpose of inducing, influencing, or coercing a change in wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment. "Strike" includes any such action, absence, stoppage, slowdown, or abstinence when done partially or intermittently.

If you have a job where you get raises just for doing time on the job, get 100%% of your health care and pension payed for, then by all means vote "no."

I personally would like to continue to advance in my career because of my talents and I like to have control of my own retirement savings and my choice of health care.