Election coverage should have been yesterday's news

Originally published in the Tuscarawas County edition of the Bargain Hunter.
 

Although the Nov. 8 general election is a little less than a month away, it is now nearly too late for daily newspapers to issue their customary endorsements.

After searching online at several Ohio newspaper sites, I found little evidence of any concerted effort to get the endorsement editorials completed before the start of absentee voting, which now is under way.

Indeed, my wife and I have our ballots in hand and will be casting them this week. We will make our choices devoid of any input from the people who cover the politicos and the issues up front and personal.

It used to be that newspapers would reserve the month of October for their pre-election stories and endorsement editorials. With early voting now in vogue, all of that should be done by Oct. 1. But it appears that the dailies, with their much smaller staffs, are unable or unwilling to change their ways.

One daily, the Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune acknowledged the dilemma in an Oct. 5 editorial.

“The A-T has reported early and often about local candidates and issues on this year's general election ballot,” said the newspaper. “However, our preview articles about library and school levies and some local races for mayor and city council begin in today's edition and will continue through next week.

“Is that soon enough? A referendum on Senate Bill 5 is expected to prompt Ohioans to vote, although there are no races for statewide office this year. We hope voters inspired by state issues to cast ballots this week are not confronted by races and issues with which they are not familiar.”

There’s been a lot of debate over the years about whether newspapers ought to endorse candidates and offer opinions on issues. I’ve always lined up on the side that believes they should because newspapers ought to lead in their communities. Sometimes that means lining up on the losing side. So be it.

I am not so naïve to think that newspapers actually swing elections. But like an endorsement from the local union, or Chamber of Commerce, or city council, it provides a viewpoint for voters to consider. 

Unfortunately, it appears newspapers are shying from the process. Perhaps one reason is because they are afraid of alienating the readers who remain loyal subscribers.

And I think that’s an unfortunate development for not only our community, but for our democracy.

***
Given my years in the news business, I am not surprised by the dumb things that come out of people’s mouths. If I had the inclination, I could probably designate a “Dumb Comment of the Week” award every week.

So, last week’s award would have had to go to Hank Williams Jr., who up until he said his dumb thing was just the country singer who starred in the “Monday Night Football” lead-in on ESPN.

“Are you ready for some football?” Williams asked/sang/shouted every week.

Williams, touting a CD featuring songs by his late father, was a guest on the “Fox & Friends” show on the Fox News Network and offered that he was extremely disappointed by this summer’s golf summit that featured President Barrack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

When asked why, Williams responded that it was “one of the biggest political mistakes ever.”

Asked to further explain, he responded, "It would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli leader) Benjamin Netanyahu."

He eventually offered that Obama and Biden are the enemy.

ESPN did what it had to do. It fired Williams.

Williams, it was reported on Monday, has responded by adding a verse to “Keep The Change,” a song he wrote after Obama was elected president. Here it is:

So Fox & Friends
Wanna put me down
Ask for my opinion
Then twist it all around
Supposed to be talkin’ about my father’s new CD
Well, two can play that gotcha game, just wait and see
Don’t tread on me!

This country sure as hell been goin’ down the drain
We know what we need
We know who to blame
United Socialist States Of America
Don’t you just love that name?

Perhaps Williams can find a job as a poster child for narrow-mindedness after he accepts the “Dumb Comment” award.

***
One would think that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could answer the question: Is hydraulic fracturing – fracking – safe?

Well, no, it can’t. But Ohioans who are concerned about fracking – there seems to be a growing number of them – will be pleased to know that the EPA should be able to answer that question in a couple of years. (Yes, I’m being sarcastic.)

Fracking is the drilling process that goes vertically down into the deep Marcellus shale and then horizontally. It extracts natural gas and oil by injecting millions of gallons of water under high pressure to the rock surrounding the well bore.

The EPA has a lot of verbiage on its website about hydraulic fracturing, but none of it answers that simple question. It is in the midst of an extensive study on the process and does promise some answers down the road.

So, while we could have a definitive source on the issue, we’ll have instead an intense debate featuring science on both sides and horror stories galore.

Nothing seems to be easy in this country.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter (dfarrell_dover).

DHS Plan Years in the Making -- Guest commentary: Jennifer Jones

Editor's note: I defer to Jennifer Jones, who originally wrote this for the Times-Reporter. It's not a conspiracy, folks. Dover needs a new high school. Hopefully, the T-R will see that and ultimately endorse the initiative. -- DF

 

Jennifer Jones's Note:  This is the first in a series of editorials addressing the Dover City Schools’ proposal for a new high school. The purpose is to provide a historical perspective of how the Board of Education has arrived at its decision.  The number one objective is to create an informed, educated citizenry so that this all-important decision is based on factual information and an understanding of this project’s history. Additional information can be found at www.dover-code-red.org.

On Nov. 8, voters in the Dover City School District will make a choice. Before them is a proposal for a new high school, funded through a 33-year bond issue of 6.4 mills and a ½ mill maintenance levy for a combined total of 6.9 mills. 

It is important for the voters to know that the decision to present this choice to the community was not made without close consideration of the conditions at Dover High School; in truth, this process began nearly 12 years ago—not 6 months ago, as many have been led to believe.  The conversation about the future of Dover schools began in 2000 with a group of community members, parents, teachers, and administrators focused on curriculum, instruction, facilities, organization, and school/community relations within the district.

In 2001, upon the recommendation of the community group, the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission (OSFC), along with an unbiased team of architects, engineers, and building designers, was contacted to perform an assessment of Dover’s facilities and to offer input on the buildings’ current state.

In 2002, the OSFC’s proposed plan was vast and unlikely a solution that Dover taxpayers would accept.  This OSFC plan included multiple changes within the district including the demolition of Dover High School.   

Therefore, the Board decided unanimously to present taxpayers a less complex, less costly alternative focusing primarily on the high school.  Thus, in 2002, a 4.8 mill 5-year Permanent Improvement levy that would have generated $5.3 million over 5 years was presented to the taxpayers. 

That levy would have allowed for construction of a 3-story addition as well as a renovation to the 5^th Street Wing.  Also included were ongoing improvements that would have been made to boilers at both East and South Elementaries.  This option, which would have cost $147 per year for a homeowner whose home was appraised at $100,000, was defeated by 654 votes.

Knowing the necessity of this levy, the Board in May 2003 again placed the exact same levy before the taxpayers.  It, too, was defeated, this time suffering a loss by 69 votes.  At that time, due to voters’ reluctance to support any renovations to the high school (and coinciding sentiment to “wait for state funding”), the District chose not to pursue the renovation and addition. 

 Instead, an operating levy was placed on the ballot that included the renovation of the boilers at East and South Elementaries—that levy passed in November 2003. 

In the years since 2003, the stability and educational viability of the high school has continued to be debated. Finally, in 2010, the OSFC strongly recommended that the district apply to the Exceptional Needs Program, placing schools with immediate needs to the top of the school funding list.  After five public forum meetings to discuss the building’s condition and with the support of involved community members, the district applied and in May 2011 received notification that Dover High School was ranked #1 in “exceptional needs”; in short, the physical condition of the high school was recognized as one of the worst in Ohio.

 

Because the OSFC Exceptional Needs Program will not fund a project if the projected cost of renovation is at or exceeds 2/3 of the cost of new construction, the district was at a crossroads:  Pay for its own renovation without any state assistance or pursue the construction of a new high school with the state paying $9.5 million. Through a series of public forums and input from staff and the community, the Board of Education determined that accepting the OFSC’s offer of $9.5 million toward the construction of a new high school was the most responsible use of taxpayer money.  When that initiative was approved by the Board, the campaign for a new Dover High School began. 

 

The OSFC constructs new schools based on a formula determined by student enrollment without regard to classroom or extracurricular programming.  In Dover’s situation, enrollment is steadily increasing, and its curriculum exceeds the state minimums. As a result, the OSFC’s minimum requirements were considerably less than what Dover High School currently offers. Thus, the District faced yet another crossroad:  Construct a building that offers less than we have today or build for the needs and expectations of this community?  Once again the District turned to the taxpayers for guidance.  Public meetings continued through Spring 2011 where options were thoroughly discussed.  This group ultimately decided that if the school was going to go forward into the 21^st Century, there was no reason to build a school that would fail to meet Dover’s needs in the present or future.

Dover’s taxpayers should recognize that the decision to ask the community to support the construction of a new high school is not spur-of-the-moment.  Rather, it is one that has involved vast input from area citizens, unbiased studies, and economic considerations over a 12-year period.  A decision of this magnitude deserves thorough investigation and study.  The community can be assured that this issue has received due diligence.   

On Nov. 8, we ask voters to vote Yes on Issue 15 and appreciate that it is our school, and it is our choice as to what our educational future holds.

*2000:  Community group begins study of Dover High School

*2001:  Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) conducts assessment

*2002:  OSFC proposes plan for district building renovation

*2002:  Dover Board of Education determines OSFC plan would not be acceptable to taxpayers

*2002:  Levy request for renovation to DHS 5^th Street Wing and a 3-story addition is rejected

*2003:  Second levy request for renovation and addition is rejected

*2008    OSFC conducts assessment of Dover High School

*2009:  Community contractors are involved in discussions for high school improvement

*2009:  MKC Associates (area architectural firm) provides a facility improvement review

*2010:  OSFC determines that the high school needs replaced

*2011:  Board of Education conducts six months of communication with staff and community

*2011:  Board of Education is rated by the OSFC “Exceptional Needs Program” as the building most in    

                need of replacement in Ohio

*November 2011:  Voters will make a choice regarding a new Dover High School

TWD - There ought to be a law

This originally appeared in the Tuscarawas County edition of the Bargain Hunter.

It’s probably happened to you.

A couple of Saturdays ago, I was southbound on I-77 heading into Tuscarawas County. I was traveling the speed limit – 60 mph -- or maybe a wee bit faster (but not fast enough to warrant the attention of state troopers) when I had to pull into the left lane to pass a slow-moving SUV, which was drifting precariously over the line that defines the lanes.

Being the defensive driver I am, I passed the SUV when it clearly was back into the right lane. Naturally, I gave the driver a look-see.

The driver, a young woman, was looking at her cell phone, a flip model which was opened to expose the keypad.

She was texting.

OK, I’m not one who believes there ought to be a law so every wrong in this world can be fixed. I think Prohibition is the No. 1 example of a law – in this case an amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- that offered numerous unintended consequences (and a nod to Ken Burns for underscoring that fact in his latest history lesson on PBS) before it was finally repealed.

But in the case of texting and driving? Well, there ought to be a law. And soon.

In June, the Ohio House passed a bill that bans texting while driving. A Senate committee is conducting hearings on the issue and I assume we’ll get the law at some point, but what the heck is taking so long?

Only lives on the highway – including the young woman’s in the SUV -- are at stake. Oh, yeah – and the lives of us who have to share the road with Miss Texter.

Funny how the Legislature took on the issue of collective bargaining and had that long-standing law rewritten and a new bill passed within three months of John Kasich taking office as governor.

Meanwhile, 34 states already have banned texting and driving.

Note to Ohio’s Legislature: Find one of those 34 laws on the Internet and then copy and paste it under Ohio’s letterhead. Vote on it. It’s so simple.

***

I hate to keep picking on the Legislature, but it is an easy mark. House Bill 136 would expand the previously urban-centric voucher program to students in all 613 public school districts. The voucher program, which provides money to students to attend private schools in urban areas, subtracts that same amount of money from the district to which the student belongs.

So, under the new proposal, a New Philadelphia kid who attends a private school would penalize New Philadelphia Public Schools in the amount of $5,783. That’s a lot of money to a district that size.

Needless to say, local school superintendents are against the idea.

State Rep. Al Landis, R-Dover, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

I know I’m being redundant, but the problem in public education in this state is not in the districts that are in Tuscarawas or Holmes counties. It’s in the big six urban districts – Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton and Youngstown.

Kasich and Landis need to remember that as they attempt to answer the school funding question. Perhaps that includes breaking them into smaller districts.

In Cleveland’s case, for example, how does one go about effectively managing a district comprised of more than 50,000 students?

***

Facebook can be a humbling experience.

I posted the announcement detailing a candidate debate sponsored by the Dover Exchange Club and scheduled for last Tuesday night. I asked my Facebook friends – I have a few – what questions they would like to ask, figuring I’d get at least a few responses.

I got none.

Meanwhile, the woman who posted, “I got up this morning and ate a doughnut,” gets a dozen “likes” and a half-dozen comments.

I must be doing something wrong. Or voters really are apathetic.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter (dfarrell_dover).

Conservative Melvin supports repeal of Senate Bill 5

My friend, Melvin -- not his real name -- tends to lean conservative on a number of issues. He is a frequent commenter on my posts and provides thoughtful responses on many issues.

Because I really don't have a place to put this comment, I'm giving it its own blog post. Congratulations, Melvin. You're now famous.

Here's Melvin's take on State Issue 2:

I'd been a proponent of the recently enacted limitations to public employee collective bargaining and especially mandates for pension and health care benefit changes. But looking back over a decade that has seen private sector wages barely keep up with even modest inflation... many public employees have seen wage freezes extending over years and most have been paying more and more of their benefit costs, closing the gap that had been very wide at one time compared to private sector workers.

Public employee pension programs are similar to private sector pensions as far as employee contributions.  STRS and PERS are changing relatively quickly to require their members to work more years to get their retirement benefits and other reductions are in the pipelines.  Even "double dipping" is going to become much less beneficial to the retiree in the near future.

We're talking about teachers, police, fire, and the people that make our lives more pleasant and safe.  I don't want to make those jobs so unattractive that only the least capable members of society will be willing to take those jobs because they're not qualified for anything that has better compensation.  That why I'm going to vote No on Issue 2.

Maybe Dover bond issues supporters should change strategy

Originally published in the Tuscarawas County edition of the Bargain Hunter. Check the BH website for additional reactions.

If someone were to ask me today what the correct strategy is to obtain passage of the bond issue that would fund a new Dover High, I’d tell them to do … nothing.

I’m not saying the initial strategy – fact sheets, town hall meetings, videos and so on – was wrong. But with a month to go before the election, now is the time to avoid debate and get the “yes” voters to actually go to the polls.

Only the community’s future is at stake.

It seems that any story published in the local paper triggers an overwhelming outpouring of negativity that seems to last for days (It’s the old “What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand?” mentality) and seems to be welcomed by the institutional purveyor of opinion.

Over the last few weeks, a number of voters have asked me what I think about the need for a new high school. And my answer oftentimes doesn’t sit well with them.

I tell them that the current Dover High is decrepit and, with a few exceptions (the auditorium, gymnasium and library), is an embarrassment to the community that prides itself on caring about kids and families. It is testimony to the staff and administration that Dover graduates go on to great things.

(And those same kids probably won’t come back home anytime soon, but that’s another story for another day.)

“That’s a horrible site for a new school,” I’m told. Or, “They should just buy up the surrounding neighborhood.” Or, “The economy is bad.” Or, “I can’t afford it.”

OK, the last one I can understand. There are some folks who are just barely holding on, living on Social Security and hoping that Medicare covers enough of their required health care.

Then, of course, there are others who can’t afford it because they have a big new house in the trendiest of subdivisions; they have brand new cars in the garage (at least one with a luxury nameplate); they have a premium cable or satellite TV package; they have the fastest broadband Internet service; and, last but not least, they have a couple of smartphones with two-year contracts.

My goodness, people need their smartphones, don’t you know?

(News note: The Associated Press has declared the term “smartphone” is one word now instead of two because smartphones – iPhones, Androids and Blackberries – have become ingrained in the culture. Feature phones are cellphones that primarily have primitive capabilities, such as that old-fashioned thing called “making a phone call.”)

Do you understand what a smartphone costs?

Generally, if you want one from a major carrier, you’ll pay up to $299 (that’s $600 for two if you’re buying for a couple). The contract on two smartphones could run up to $200 or so a month, which is $4,800 over the course of the two-year contract.

So, investing in your children’s or your grandchildren’s education and/or your community’s future is not a viable option in these difficult times, especially if you’re paying for a couple of smartphones (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

Community’s future?

A new high school is another selling point for your community. What, you don’t think people looking to locate their companies – high tech or low tech – look at the educational infrastructure of a community? Do you think a CEO of a successful, modern company wants to send his kid to a school that is basically a firetrap?

I think the folks who took on the thankless endeavor of promoting the bond issue did a terrific job of attempting to inform the public. And I hope for all the future generations of Dover kids that the public eventually sees the wisdom of upgrading its high school.

Quiet now. Let the debates die.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter (dfarrell_dover).