Jules: Well, you know the shows on TV?

Vincent: I don’t watch TV.

Jules: Yeah, but, you are aware that there’s an invention called television, and on this invention they show shows, right?

Ohio Senate Republicans have proposed a three-county, two-year program where welfare applicants who are suspected of having a drug problem would have to submit to and pay for drug tests before receiving benefits.  The Dispatch notes that Ohio is not unique:  the “move appears to be part of a renewed national GOP movement to require drug testing for welfare recipients. . [...]]]> Vincent: Pilot? What’s a pilot?

Jules: Well, you know the shows on TV?

Vincent: I don’t watch TV.

Jules: Yeah, but, you are aware that there’s an invention called television, and on this invention they show shows, right?

Ohio Senate Republicans have proposed a three-county, two-year program where welfare applicants who are suspected of having a drug problem would have to submit to and pay for drug tests before receiving benefits.  The Dispatch notes that Ohio is not unique:  the “move appears to be part of a renewed national GOP movement to require drug testing for welfare recipients. . . .  revised laws have been introduced this session in about 30 states, and lawmakers in Georgia, Utah, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Louisiana have moved legislation in recent weeks.”

The Ohio GOP reminds us of Vincent from Pulp Fiction.  We want to be Jules and say to them, “Yeah, you are aware that there’s this invention called the Constitution, and as part of this invention they protected many of our rights, right?”

The proposal to drug test welfare recipients is just the latest effort of Republican legislators to import ideological ideas from other states.  But at least by bringing in ideas in from other states, we don’t have to guess that the proposals are unconstitutional.  We know.  We know because judges have already ruled that these efforts in other states are unconstitutional.

The legal analysis here is pretty straight forward.  Drug tests are a search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches except under very limited circumstances.  In the nineties, Georgia passed a law requiring all candidates for state office to pass a drug test.  The Supreme Court held that this law was unconstitutional.  The Court reasoned that drug tests can only be required in exceptional situations, like when there is a strong public-safety interest (train operators, for example, can be required to submit drug tests after a crash).  The Supreme Court famously said, the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish “personal privacy for a symbol’s sake.”

Drug tests for welfare recipients are unconstitutional because the program does not qualify as a public-safety type interest that would justify a search.  These people have not done anything wrong – and if the government has evidence that they possess drugs, then they could and should be prosecuted under the existing drug laws.  The fact is that the Constitution prohibits the state from searching people’s bodily fluids for no reason.

(What about the idea that welfare recipients have no “right” to receive benefits and therefore the state can require recipients to take a test to receive the benefits?  This does not make the law constitutional.  The Supreme Court has been clear that even though a person has no right to a governmental benefit, the state may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected rights.)

You don’t have to believe our analysis.  A number of federal courts have held that drug testing welfare applicants does meet the public safety threshold to be constitutional.  In 2000, Michigan decided to implement a “pilot program” that required drug testing of welfare recipients in three counties (sound familiar?).  A federal court held that the program was unconstitutional and issued an injunction.  You can read the opinion here.

Last year, Florida attempted to implement a similar program.  The result in the courts was the same.  A federal judge ruled that the program was unconstitutional and issued an injunction.  You can read that opinion here.  News reports about the decision described it as “scathing.”   The judge found that such a “blanket intrusion[] cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment.”  (Florida’s governor also tried to implement drug testing for state employees, but that, too, was blocked by a federal judge as unconstitutional.)

This is part of a disturbing pattern.  This is not the first time that the Republicans in the Ohio Legislature have attempted to pass laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in other states.  For example, we noted that Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood had been found unconstitutional in other states.  The bottom line seems to be that many of the Republicans in the Ohio Legislature have decided to put ideology and the scoring of cheap political points above their oaths to defend the Constitution.

UPDATE: Republicans pulled the language from the bill this morning, but they say they’re going to revisit the issue at a later date.

In the last year and five months [...]]]> In 2010 Ed FitzGerald defeated Matt Dolan by a measure of two to one to win the race to be County Executive of Cuyahoga County.    Or, as I like to view it, FitzGerald won the high risk, low reward opportunity to clean up the mess that a bunch of knuckleheads who thought they were gangsters left behind for him. Even though FitzGerald was one of the only bright spots on election night in 2010, I still thought he probably had an up-hill climb that was littered with political landmines just waiting to explode.

In the last year and five months Ed FitzGerald has proven me, and anyone doubting his political will, wrong. His administration has been a case study in reform and a fascinating contrast to the divisive policies that radical republicans have been pushing in Columbus.

Now, with a little over two years before we get to elect a new Governor and FitzGerald is considering throwing his hat into the ring. FitzGerald sat down with Plunderbund to discuss what he thought his story would be if he decides to run, the reform efforts in Cuyahoga County, and why he knows firsthand you can’t trust John Kasich as far as you can throw him.

Personal Background

My family has been in Cleveland for over 100 years. My dad was in the air force and I spent my childhood in Indianapolis and then I came to Ohio when I started at Ohio State. I graduated from Ohio State in 1990. Then I worked for a Democratic Congressman who hasn’t been in office now for 20 years. He represented the Cleveland Suburbs. I worked in his office and then I went to law school at night. So I was a night law student at Cleveland Marshall. I got my law degree and practiced law for a little bit but then I joined the FBI and was an FBI agent in Chicago for three years. I worked on an organized crime task force but most of what I did was work on a political corruption.

Jumping Into Local Politics

I came back to the Cleveland area around 1998. I became the county prosecutor. I had kids along the way and then I was elected to Lakewood city council and served on the council for nine years. I continued to be active in presidential campaigns and local campaigns.

In 2007 I ran against an incumbent democratic mayor who I thought was not doing a good job. We were outspent four to one, but won two to one. When I took over as the mayor of Lakewood the city was not doing well. I think we really turned that whole situation around and I think that is what changed my whole spectrum of what I wanted to do politically. I always thought I wanted to run for congress some day; I had worked for a congressman and thought that was what I wanted to do. I got really fascinated with local government, how it works, best practices, how do you turn around a situation.

Cuyahoga County Corruption

I was toying with the idea of running against (Jimmy) Dimora or (Frank) Russo, I was going to run for Auditor, but everyone told me, “You’re crazy, you’ll never beat this guy,” but I thought I would take him on. I actually started to travel the county to get support to run against him in 2010. Most people said good luck but he is probably going to win. He has his name and picture on all the gas pumps.

But then the corruption scandal broke and it was like a bomb going off. It decimated the party but ironically I think it was the best thing that could happened to the D party up there because not only were these guys corrupt but they weren’t good democrats.

So, it sort of cleared the decks and then this position was created and I ran for it.

Managing the Reform of Cuyahoga County Government

I always tell people there are different tiers of dysfunction. The top level tier was the corruption. So, the FBI took care of a lot of it but there were still people that I felt were associated with the corruption that I fired right away. It was not necessarily that they broke the law but their departments, I felt, had become compromised.

On the other hand you had departments that were completely professional. That has been a really slow process; slow for some employees who feel up in the air about it, but we are getting there. But we are still dealing with a lot of that. It has been a year and a half and we probably won’t be done dealing with it for another year or so. But I will tell you that it is calming down. We have vastly improved the professionalism and efficiency of the whole operation and we have numbers to pack that up.

I think that by the time we are done we are going to be one of the premier county governments because we are just fanatical about wanting to improve and professionalize all this stuff and that is the advantage of taking over after a disaster.

A Possible Run for Governor?

The party has got to try to reach a consensus behind a candidate and it maybe me or someone else but the party has got to reach a consensus.

I think one thing that I have got going for me is that I have a different biography than a lot of politicians do and I have a different story, which is it’s a reform story of which we have been able to do.

I didn’t balance my budget by telling my 59 cities you guys are all screwed now and I’m going to cut my funding to you. In fact, we had big initiatives with education, law enforcement, health and wellness.

I think we are an example of that we are the second largest entity, after the state, and we are doing things, you know we are moderate on fiscal issues but we are also progressive on a lot of issues and that is very interesting contrast I think. I think I just need to tell people that story and I think that story is helpful to the Democratic Party whether I am the nominee for governor or not because it is not some theory that it could have been done differently because it has been done differently.

FitzGerald’s Views on Kasich’s Administration So Far

We are a heavily unionized area of the state, not as much as we use to be but organized labor is really strong up there and Issue Two was a huge deal and it was defeated overwhelmingly in Cuyahoga County. The county was the number one provider of votes in terms of the margin of victory. So, he has certainly alienated a huge part of the county there.

The cuts that have come have mostly hit social services up there so they have hit everything from mental health services to, you know, special education, early childhood education.

Something local officials have to do even more than we are doing it now is we need to make sure that we are reminding people what he tried to do. We have to keep up the pressure on him because what he has learned is that he’s just got to try to talk about job creation for the rest of his term. And, that is all he is basically talking about; He’s going to try and change the subject. He is going to act like the first year was all a dream, and I don’t know what happened there.

FitzGerald’s Meeting with Kasich on Collective Bargaining Reform

He even has this story that SB 5 really wasn’t his idea. Shannon Jones did it and then once it was on the ballot he felt like he had to say something. It’s not true. Matter of fact, he told me that they were planning on doing that before he was sworn in. He and I had a meeting in December of 2010, after we both got elected. He told us, me and my chief of staff, he said, “we we are going to cut the local government fund but we are going to change the rules on collective bargaining so you are going to save a bunch of money.”

He and I had it out about the whole thing and I said, “No offense Governor but when I was mayor I was able to save money by negotiating with my unions.”

So his whole story is nonsense and he is just running away from it because he knows he took a beating on it. I have no doubt that once he would be through with reelection they would cook up another version of it and give it another shot. These guys are not going to give up – this has been their dream their entire lives; this is what they were all talking about when they were all Goldwater supporters 50 years ago.

Back in 2004 Borges pleaded guilty to steering state investment business to convicted swindlers like former Cuyahoga Lehman Brothers broker Frank Gruttadauria (who stolen millions from his clients) in exchange for campaign donations for his boss Joseph Deters which he funneled through the Hamilton County Republican Party to circumvent campaign finance limits.

Borges has since had his record expunged, [...]]]> Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett announced today that he’s hiring Matt Borges as executive director of ORP, despite the fact that Borges was involved in a public corruption scandal that likely cost Ohioans millions in bad investments.

Back in 2004 Borges pleaded guilty to steering state investment business to convicted swindlers like former Cuyahoga Lehman Brothers broker Frank Gruttadauria (who stolen millions from his clients) in exchange for campaign donations for his boss Joseph Deters which he funneled through the Hamilton County Republican Party to circumvent campaign finance limits.

Borges has since had his record expunged, but as Joe Hallet mentions in his piece for the Dispatch, it’s hard not to see the irony here.

After months of fighting over control of the Ohio Republican Party, with Kasich allies claiming corruption as a big reason Kevin DeWine needed to replaced as chairman, Kasich-approved replacement Bob Bennett’s first major hiring decision involves bringing on an executive director with a record of political corruption.

In the early-to-mid 2000′s, under Bob Bennett’s previous term as Chairman, the Ohio Republican Party was rocked with scandal after scandal, Tom Noe and Coingate and Governor Taft’s unethical,lobbyist-funded golf outings just to name two. This culture of corruption in Ohio Republican politics is often cited as one of the reasons Democrats nearly-swept statewide elections in 2006.

In his recent announcement, Bennett recognized Borges’s past problems but claimed “time has proven Borges to be of high moral character”. I suppose there is some universe in which this is possible, but I reserve the right to be skeptical especially after reports last year that Kasich brought on Borges to head his Inaugural Committee at the same time Borges was hired at a law firm that asked its wealthy clients to make bundled donations to the committee through their firm if they expected to get tickets to the inaugural ball.

Kasich and his allies have been accused of using threats, intimidation and promises of appointments and power in order to get their people on the State Central Committee and gain control of the Ohio Republican Party. And now that they are in charge, it doesn’t seem like they have any intention of slowing down.

Some saw the decision to bring back Bennett as chairman as a sign Kasich wouldn’t have complete and total control as everyone was expecting. But the Borges decision makes it pretty clear that Kasich is, in fact, pulling all the strings. Borges abused his position and plead guilty to the charges, but he also proved his loyalty to his former boss by taking the bullet. And if we know anything about Kasich, it’s that he values loyalty above all else.

Borges’s crime was public corruption, and as his punishment he received a major role in the inaugural and has now been hired as the big dog in a big state in the middle of a big election. If you had any questions about where Kasich is planning to take the Ohio Republican Party, all should now be clear.

The Center for Media and Democracy has just published a must-read report for anyone concerned about the shadowy influence of money on public policy in the Ohio Statehouse.  The report is pretty dense, so we will try to provide some context and observations.

Organizations such as People for the American Way, Think Progress, and Common Cause have been doing great work exposing ALEC.  Another good, dense, report from earlier this year can be found here.  The Daily Kos had information on this organization back in 2011, and other reports from earlier this year [...]]]> Have you heard about ALEC?

The Center for Media and Democracy has just published a must-read report for anyone concerned about the shadowy influence of money on public policy in the Ohio Statehouse.  The report is pretty dense, so we will try to provide some context and observations.

Organizations such as People for the American Way, Think Progress, and Common Cause have been doing great work exposing ALEC.  Another good, dense, report from earlier this year can be found here.  The Daily Kos had information on this organization back in 2011, and other reports from earlier this year were featured in the AFL-CIO web site.

What is ALEC?

ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council.  The organization describes itself as a “nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.”  The organization claims to work “to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level.”

In reality, ALEC is an influential voice for corporate special interests in state legislatures across the country, including Ohio.  What happens is that state legislators meet with corporate interests, including executives, lawyers, and lobbyists, to draft “model legislation.”  ALEC, with the primary assistance of cooperative legislators, push for the model bills to become law.

The February report on ALEC noted that model legislation focuses on “a wide range of issues, including education, voter suppression, immigration, worker’s rights, consumer rights, health care and prison systems.”  In Ohio in the first ten months of 2011, “33 bills were introduced in the Ohio legislature that are identical to or contain elements from 64 different ALEC ‘model’ proposals. Nine of those bills, containing elements from 33 pieces of ALEC legislation, have been signed into law.”

Why should we care?

Conservatives sharing ideas, no matter how bad, unconstitutional, or unpopular, is nothing new.  It no secret, for example, the John Kasich and Scott Walker share ideas about union busting, and that is part of what led to S.B. 5.  And we noted earlier this month we noted how the plan by some Ohio legislators to defund Planned Parenthood was based on laws in Texas that have been found to be unconstitutional.

Here is the key part:  because of various loopholes in campaign and financial disclosure laws, ALEC provides the ability for corporate interests to influence legislators without disclosing their role or contributions.

The recent report from the Center for Media and Democracy contains a nice tick-tock of how easily ALEC model language can be inserted into Ohio law.

ALEC funnels money to legislators primarily through “scholarships” that fund lawmaker travel to meetings.  Recently, meetings were held in Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Scottsdale.  What is the loophole:  because legislators pay a $100 membership fee to ALEC, and the General Assembly pays a $1000 membership fee, Ohio Legislators are not required to disclose the receipt of scholarship funds on their financial disclosure forms.

Go read the reports.  We want to emphasize two things:

1.        The Thin Line Between Legal and Illegal

Yes.  Corporate interests, by donating to ALEC’s “scholarship fund,” are able to pay for travel by Ohio legislators without disclosure.

Here is what is interesting.  Last month, an Ohio legislature was charged with felony bribery, along with charges related to campaign finance disclosure and ethics forms disclosure issues ( the ethics form violation is the same misdemeanor that Gov. Taft pled guilty to, receiving only a fine).

The center of the felony allegation is that the Representative received all-expenses-paid trips to Florida and California, plus cash and campaign contributions. According to the indictment, the Representative agreed to introduce legislation and sponsor legislation.

So . . . did the representative do anything really all that different from the legislators who received ALEC scholarships?  On the federal level, there is a website that tracks trips paid for by people with an interest in legislation: legistorm.com.  Since the Abramoff scandal, when rules were changed to try to cut back on trips paid for by lobbyists, groups started to skirt this rule by having the trips paid for by supposedly independent “educational foundations.”

Please don’t misunderstand us: we are not suggesting that the previously indicted Ohio Legislator didn’t do anything wrong.  But if someone would like to explain the practical implications – as opposed to legal technicalities – between the two situations, we will listen.  What this points to is a fundamental flaw in the oversight of the role of corporate money, and the ingenuity of people with money to try to provide benefits – legally – to legislators.

2.      Ohio Legislators Are Cheap Dates

Captain Renault famously said, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Here is the second thing that struck us.  The reporting on ALEC suggests that an Ohio legislator agreed to introduce some ALEC model legislation around the same time as a donation of a few thousand dollars was received by ALEC’s scholarship fund.  The amounts shock us.  Apparently, significant influence can be obtained for the costs of a few thousand dollars.

When we think of corruption or bribery, we prefer to think of suitcases full of cash or blocks on money stored in a freezer.  But apparently the truth is much less exciting.  It seems the going rate for special favors or legislation in Ohio is much less – perhaps the costs of a couple of nights in Florida or New Orleans.

Paul Moke is a Professor at Wilmington College of Ohio and has been an active participant in past cases on behalf of the ACLU

As the 2012 presidential election approaches, voting rights litigation in Ohio is heating up. Last month two Republican leaders in the Ohio General Assembly, Senator Thomas Niehaus and Representative Louis Blessing, Jr., filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court against Secretary of State Jon Husted. The lawsuit seeks to rescind several directives from Ohio Secretary of State to county boards of election concerning rules [...]]]> The Continued Fight for Voting Rights in Ohio by Paul Moke

Paul Moke is a Professor at Wilmington College of Ohio and has been an active participant in past cases on behalf of the ACLU

As the 2012 presidential election approaches, voting rights litigation in Ohio is heating up. Last month two Republican leaders in the Ohio General Assembly, Senator Thomas Niehaus and Representative Louis Blessing, Jr., filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court against Secretary of State Jon Husted. The lawsuit seeks to rescind several directives from Ohio Secretary of State to county boards of election concerning rules for the counting provisional ballots, votes cast by persons whose names allegedly are not on the list of qualified voters. The rules arise from a consent decree in an earlier lawsuit, Northeast Coalition of the Homeless v. Bruner, and generated both controversy and litigation in a disputed 2010 Hamilton County juvenile judge election.

On May 10, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley issued an order enjoining Niehaus and Blessing from pursuing their lawsuit. If Niehaus and Blessing ignore the order and obtain a favorable ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court, a major battle between state and federal courts over the validity of the Northeast Coalition consent decree and the constitutionality of Ohio’s rules on provisional ballots could ensue. Although former Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro and former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner were parties to the consent decree, in his filing with the Ohio Supreme Court Attorney General Mike DeWine is contending that Brunner exceeded her authority in entering into the consent decree and that the decree is not based on a correct interpretation of federal constitutional law. Current Secretary of State Husted appears to agree with DeWine’s position.

While the legal arguments concern the deference that the Ohio Supreme Court must grant to consent decrees issued by federal judges, the broader question involves the disenfranchisement of voters who cast provisional ballots. In the 2010 Hamilton County juvenile judge race, the local board of elections combined up to five precincts together in one voting location, and poll workers misdirected several hundred voters who cast their ballots at the wrong precinct table. The county board of election decided to reject these ballots but then counted other ballots cast improperly at the central board of election office. In Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, the Democratic candidate challenged this determination, and both the federal appellate court and, on remand, the local district court ruled in her favor. Another related issue concerns the procedures used to establish voter identification at the polls. Under the Northeast Coalition consent decree, voters may present the last four digits of their Social Security Numbers as a means of identifying themselves at the polls. Republicans in the General Assembly are seeking to restrict this option. They believe poll workers have no duty to assist voters in voting at the proper polling location and favor restrictive voter identification laws. In 2011 they passed HB 194, a sweeping set of reforms to Ohio voting laws in order to accomplish these objectives. A coalition of voting rights groups assisted Fair Elections Ohio in gathering enough signatures to place a referendum on the fall ballot, seeking repeal of HB 194.

In what is apparently an end-run around the referendum, on May 8, the Ohio General Assembly itself voted to repeal HB 194, and Governor Kasich is widely expected to sign the new legislation. The timing of Kasich’s signature repealing HB 194 may render the Niehaus case moot. But that will be up to the Ohio Supreme Court to determine.

The furious action in Columbus involving voting rights may be opening stages of a two-pronged Republican strategy to suppress voting turn out in the fall. The first prong involves the Republican dominated General Assembly passing restrictive new election laws that will take effect in time for the upcoming election, thus depriving opponents of sufficient time to organize a referendum campaign. In the second prong, the Ohio Supreme Court action can serve either directly or indirectly as the basis for an appeal to the Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to undermine the constitutional basis for the federal consent decree in the Northeast Coalition case.

In the meantime, the legal battle between the State of Ohio and the federal courts over provisional ballots may place Secretary of State Husted in an uncomfortable dilemma as he chooses whether to comply with the Northeast Coalition consent decree or a contrary order from the Supreme Court of Ohio. As was the situation in 2008, when federal courts resolved five major challenges to Ohio voting rights laws in the six month period leading up to the fall election, this year promises to be a challenge for those seeking to preserve the integrity of voting rights in the Buckeye State.

On Wednesday, State Senator Nina Turner lashed out at the Ohio Federation of Teachers, accusing them of threatening her political career because the union objects to a provision in the Turner-sponsored Cleveland schools reform bill (SB335) that would allow charter schools to share funds raised by city school levies.

Ohio Federation of Teachers’ president, Melissa Cropper, denied targeting Turner and stated that she was “taken aback by the senator’s harsh statements.” (Plain Dealer, 5/10/12)

“They are pretending in public like they want to play fair, but behind the scenes [...]]]> And the politician doesn’t appear to be looking back.

On Wednesday, State Senator Nina Turner lashed out at the Ohio Federation of Teachers, accusing them of threatening her political career because the union objects to a provision in the Turner-sponsored Cleveland schools reform bill (SB335) that would allow charter schools to share funds raised by city school levies.

Ohio Federation of Teachers’ president, Melissa Cropper, denied targeting Turner and stated that she was “taken aback by the senator’s harsh statements.” (Plain Dealer, 5/10/12)

“They are pretending in public like they want to play fair, but behind the scenes they are getting their members all stirred up. I’ve received several calls into my office, threats into my office, saying ‘we’re not going to fund your campaigns, we’re going to run people against you,’” said Turner in a very public statement, the irony of which was obviously lost on her.  Because the last time I checked, people tend to not fund candidates that fight against their best interests.

“They are deliberately invoking Senate Bill 5 and Kasich’s name to stir up controversy.  Just because Gov. Kasich may support this plan doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad plan. If someone were lying on the road dying would it matter to you who came to save you? If it was a Democrat or a Republican, would it matter?”

Okay, there are a few things in that last statement that merit discussion.

1. They are deliberately invoking Senate Bill 5 because of the anti-union items included in Senator Turner’s bill.  As a teachers’ union, they wouldn’t be serving their members if they ignored provisions that weaken the contribution of teachers and eliminate provisions of collective bargaining.  If stating the obvious is a threat to her political career, well, yeah…sorry.
2. An informal poll of myself and our blog does indeed confirm that if Kasich supports a plan, it’s bad for organized labor in Ohio.  Again, I would request that the Democratic Senator from Cleveland avoid from further insulting the intelligence of educators in future public statements.  Since I’ve always heard that family business should be conducted behind close doors, this not-behind-closed-doors rant is revealing about Nina Turner’s perspective on who she considers family.
3. Yes, it would matter who came to save me, because I fear that only one of the two would actually do so without requiring that I produce proof of health insurance first. (Republican candidate Ron Paul, anyone?)

Two weeks ago, we posted about this conundrum with Turner is a post aptly titled “Cleveland Schools Plan legislation contains Senate Bill 5 merit pay.”

And over a month ago we expressed our concerns about Turner’s support for the legislation in “Democrats get swindled as they co-sponsor Cleveland Schools legislation.”

But seeing as how Turner is going all-in on this anti-teacher bill, we’ll keep exposing its detrimental components so that maybe she can start hearing from more people pulling their support of her “political career.”

Here are more excerpts from Senate Bill 335, the Cleveland Plan, that highlight Turner’s lack of respect for the position of teachers:

…the chief executive officer shall first identify which schools are in need of corrective action, what corrective action is warranted at each school, and when the corrective action should be implemented. Collectively, these items shall be known as the ”corrective plan.”

If the chief executive officer disagrees with all or part of the recommendations of a corrective action team, or if a corrective action team fails to make timely recommendations on the implementation of all or part of the corrective plan, the chief executive officer may implement the corrective plan in the manner in which the chief executive officer determines to be in the best interest of the students, consistent with the timelines originally established.

The chief executive officer and any corrective action team are not bound by the applicable provisions of collective bargaining agreements in developing recommendations for and implementing the corrective plan.

As part of the smokescreen they have placed in this section, here is how a corrective team(s) is formed: “Immediately after developing the corrective plan, the chief executive officer and the presiding officer of each labor organization whose members will be affected by the corrective plan shall each appoint up to four individuals to form one or more corrective action teams.” So the labor unions can appoint members to teams who can then have the privilege of being ignored by the chief executive officer who ignored them when helping to craft this plan in the first place.  Can I have some volunteers, please?

And, of course, there’s the standard anti-collective bargaining statement at the end of this section.

(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code, the content and implementation of the corrective plan prevail over any conflicting provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this amendment.

The bill also messes with beginning teachers’ contracts.

(D) The term of an initial limited contract for a teacher…shall not exceed two years.

Current law explains that a limited contract (non-tenured) may not exceed five years, but Turner’s plan reduces that down to two, the same number of years it takes Teach for America teachers to exit stage right.  The mandated two-year limit is most interesting when we consider that the state of Ohio recognized that beginning teachers should complete a four-year “residency” program at the outset of their careers under the mentorship of an experienced teacher who has received specific training by the Ohio Department of Education.  If the state of Ohio recognizes the need for a four year process to become a skilled teacher, why can’t the state of Ohio recognize it?  Hmm…

And finally, the “due process” a teacher can follow to challenge the outcome of a new performance-based evaluation.

A teacher may challenge any violations of the evaluation procedures in accordance with the grievance procedure specified in any applicable collective bargaining agreement. A challenge under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors that have resulted in substantive harm to the teacher and to ordering the correction of procedural errors. The failure of the board or a person conducting an evaluation to strictly comply with any deadline or evaluation forms established as part of the evaluation process shall not be cause for an arbitrator to determine that a procedural error occurred, unless the arbitrator finds that the failure resulted in substantive harm to the teacher. The arbitrator shall have no jurisdiction to modify the evaluation results, but the arbitrator may stay any decision taken pursuant to division (E) of this section pending the board’s correction of any procedural error. The board shall correct any procedural error within fifteen business days after the arbitrator’s determination that a procedural error occurred.

Procedural errors.  That’s what the teacher can contest.  Not the competency of the evaluator nor the context of the observations.  Not the interpretation of the results nor any flaws in the evaluator’s expertise.  Any high school teachers out there ever been observed by someone without content expertise?  Right — of course not.  ;)

Sure, Turner was the most outspoken Senator on SB5 last year and teachers absolutely considered her a friend of education.  This year she again seems to be the most outspoken on these collective bargaining issues, but she’s chosen the wrong side of the issue.

Senator Turner, the teachers have made educating children their profession and have the years of experience to show for it.  When you were looking for experts to help you turn around the schools, you should have looked to the professionals, not the local mayor — regardless of his political sway over local politics.

Teaching isn’t just a Cleveland thing.

But an interesting opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court on a public records issue could also provide some support for equal right issues.  The case is State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1999.

This case involved a public records request by the Cincinnati Enquirer for records related to a September 18, 2010 shootout at JD’s Honky Tonk bar in Cincinnati involving possible motorcycle gang members.  The request sought the names of two police officers who had been shot, as [...]]]> The President’s announcement of his support of gay marriage is the big story today – rightly.

But an interesting opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court on a public records issue could also provide some support for equal right issues.  The case is State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1999.

This case involved a public records request by the Cincinnati Enquirer for records related to a September 18, 2010 shootout at JD’s Honky Tonk bar in Cincinnati involving possible motorcycle gang members.  The request sought the names of two police officers who had been shot, as well as their personnel files.  The Cincinnati Police refused to provide the names and identifying information regarding the officers involved in the shootout because of fear that the officers would could be subjected to threats.

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed that the police did not need to turn over the information.  Seems like a no-brainer, right?  The interest in the safety of police officers and their families outweighs the interest of the newspaper in reporting this information.

What is interesting is the legal basis for the opinion.  The Ohio Supreme Court said that the police officers had a constitutional right to privacy that protects against the release of private information when disclosure would create a substantial risk of serious bodily harm, and possibly even death, from a perceived likely threat.

Yes, you read that right.  The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that the constitution contains a right to privacy.  This is not the first time that the phrase “constitutional right to privacy” has been used by the Ohio Supreme Court.  In another public records case, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court held that this right to privacy protected against the disclosure of social security numbers.

Pause to consider the significance of the Ohio Supreme Court recognizing a right to privacy right on the heels of the President endorsing gay marriage.  Noted gay marriage opponent Rick Santorum, for example, has stated that “This right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”  Harvard Law grad Mitt Romney has, at times like a January debate in New Hampshire, been characteristically equivocal about whether a right to privacy exists in the constitution.

The view that the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy is well established in conservative jurisprudence.  Justice Scalia has been most out front on this issue.  In a case about whether NASA background checks violated a right to privacy, Justice Scalia wrote, “Like many other desirable things not included in the Constitution, ‘informational privacy’ seems like a good idea.  But it is up to the people to enact those laws, to shape them, and, when they think it appropriate, to repeal them. A federal constitutional right to ‘informational privacy’ does not exist.”

However, the view that the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy is distinctly on the wrong side of precedent.  Starting in 1965 with Griswold,  the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution implicitly contains fundamental privacy guarantees. In Grsiwold, the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the sale and use of birth control.  A few years later, in Loving the Court cited privacy rights to invalidate a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.  Most famously, the right to privacy was essential to the decision in Roe v. Wade.

In regards to gay rights, the most important privacy decision is Lawrence.  In that case, the Court invalidated Texas’ anti-sodomy laws. Justice Kennedy explained that the Constitutional right to privacy protects private and consensual intimate relations between people, including people of the same sex.

So . . .  the Ohio Supreme Court’s recognition of a constitutional right to privacy is significant in that it puts the Ohio Supreme Court on the side of gay rights and the opposite side of Justice Scalia and Rick Santorum.

The big question is where does Mitt Romney really stand on this.  When Romney inevitably states in Ohio that he opposes gay marriage, we hope that a local reporter soon puts the question to Romney of whether he disagrees with the Ohio Supreme Court that the Constitution contains a right to privacy.

Last night we gathered with other members of the LGBT community to celebrate President Obama’s historic statement. Now we are proud to say that not only is he our first African-American president, he’s also the first American president to come out in support of marriage equality. Here’s a video of our community’s thoughtful, emotional, playful and silly responses to this joyous occasion for America…

At the event, I also had the honor to also speak with Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who was booed at a Republican debate.    President Obama’s leadership on the repeal of [...]]]>

Last night we gathered with other members of the LGBT community to celebrate President Obama’s historic statement. Now we are proud to say that not only is he our first African-American president, he’s also the first American president to come out in support of marriage equality. Here’s a video of our community’s thoughtful, emotional, playful and silly responses to this joyous occasion for America…

At the event, I also had the honor to also speak with Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who was booed at a Republican debate.    President Obama’s leadership on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell had an enormous impact on him personally. Today was a continuation of the journey from an America where a soldier is booed by people who claim to support soldiers, to an America where all of our soldiers have the same rights, legal protections, and social dignity.

Now we face a choice. We can passionately and wholeheartedly stand by the President or we can let Mitt Romney take the Presidency. The news that came out today about how Romney bullied gay people in high school is disturbing. Combined with his reaffirmation that he is against equal rights for LGBT people, the picture of his mentality is becoming clearer. The way he almost lost it when talking to a reporter might be an indicator of how unhappy he was about our happy day.

In the following video, Governor Romney says, “3,000 years of human history shouldn’t be discarded so quickly.” Evidence of slavery predates written records. Duration of existence is not an indicator of quality in the context of discrimination.

Last night President Obama took the time out of his busy day to send me this very nice email…

Lauren –

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack

OK maybe that email wasn’t directly from the President to me. However, the courage of his recent actions feels like a direct message to me. The message I hear is, “I see you. Your life matters. You are real to me.”

Story, photos and video by Lauren Michelle Kinsey
follow @OHLMK
contact lauren@plunderbund.com

We’ve already discussed the many, many reasons this is a bad idea. Not only do private development organizations [...]]]> If John Kasich gets his way, Mark Kvamme and his private development organization JobsOhio will be taking control of hundreds of million of state dollars to be given away in the form of grants, loans and tax incentives. And now it seems they are accepting unknown amounts of private “donations” from undisclosed donors as well. And while we are now getting a glimpse of how part of this money is being spent, most of JobsOhio’s expenses will never have to be revealed.

We’ve already discussed the many, many reasons this is a bad idea. Not only do private development organizations historically have a no better record at producing jobs than public development departments, but the fact that JobsOhio and its board members and employees are exempt from the majority of accountability and transparency requirements applied to other state agencies and employees makes JobsOhio ripe for corruption and abuse.

We predicted JobsOhio would eventually be caught blowing money on lavish trips and other unnecessary expenses, but I don’t think any of us though it would be happening this soon.

According to an article by Joe Vardon in last week’s Dispatch, JobsOhio just moved into fancy new digs in downtown Columbus in an office overlooking the Statehouse.

The office was completely and expensively refurnished by JobsOhio, it has a kitchen stocked with food, expensive new furniture and everyone appears to have thousands of dollars worth of brand new Apply hardware on their desks. A quick check of the Apple website reveals that each of the 27 inch monitors mentioned in Vardon’s piece costs $1000!

It’s obviously troubling to think that JobsOhio is taking OUR money and spending it like a doomed-to-fail internet company from the late 90′s. It kind of reminds me of Webvan.com, one of the “Biggest IPO Flops in History”, which received an “incredible $1 billion from private investment firms like (Mark Kvamme’s) Sequoia Capital” and proceeded to blow it all on useless crap like expensive chairs and, I shit you not, over-priced computer monitors.

It’s obviously troubling that some of the money Kvamme is spending comes from the state. But it’s even more worrisome when Vardon reveals that “Kvamme and JobsOhio are operating mostly with private donations” the source of which Kvamme “declined to disclose“.

Keep in mind here, these are not “investments”. These are “donations”. From private companies. To the private entity that is responsible to determining which private companies will get hundreds of millions of free money from the State of Ohio.

So you have to ask: did the CEO of American Greetings, a company receiving roughly $93.5 million in aid from the state and local entities, give thousands to JobsOhio as a thank you gift? What about Diebold, the company that received $55 million in state funds and laid of 400 workers?

We just don’t know.

Did the money come from individuals and companies that are currently seeking funds from the State? Or maybe individuals who want an appointment from John Kasich? Is JobsOhio simply being used a back-door way for big donors to circumvent campaign finance laws?

Again, we don’t know.

At yesterday’s Bookings Global Cities Initiative forum, Mark Kvamme claimed the reason they had to privatize Ohio’s development efforts was so he could travel. So are big donors getting favors from the administration in exchange for donation to JobsOhio that help pay for Mark Kvamme’s expensive, first-class travel on international “trade missions” to exotic, golf-course-having locations?

The problem is: we’ll never know. Because JobsOhio doesn’t have any requirement to tell us and they don’t seem to have any desire to share the information voluntarily.

The end result of Kasich’s JobsOhio plan is to give a small group of individuals the power to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars without any accountability or transparency, and to spend as much money as they want on travel and meals and other undisclosed expenses in the process. And this same group is now allowed to accept private donations, possibly from the same people who are asking for those handouts?

What could possibly go wrong?