If Pro School Tax Message Is Given Platform At School Meetings, Should Anti Message Be Given Equal Time?

According to Kettering’s School Superintendent, Jim Schoenlein, in his memo to the Kettering School Board, in previous levy campaigns, Kettering school officials did not address school gatherings and events to build levy support. Schoenlein says he is changing this policy and in this new 6.9 mill levy campaign, Schoenlein, and other school officials, “have been stepping up at meetings, gatherings, and events to say a few words about the levy.”

In his notes to the Kettering School Board, Schoenlein lists all of the school meetings between now and the May 4 election (see page 5), and indicates that because of multiple events “we will have to divide up to cover everything.”

It would be inappropriate and seemingly unlawful for school officials to take advantage of a school gathering to advocate for the election of a specific candidate, Republican or Democrat. And, I’ve never heard that such candidate advocacy ever happens at school meetings. But it also seems inappropriate for school officials to take advantage of a school gathering to advocate for the passing of a specific ballot issue. Doesn’t such advocacy violate the rules that govern non-profits, such as schools and churches?

What if a community member in attendance of such school gatherings wanted to use the opportunity to address the assembled Kettering parents with reasons why a “No” vote on the levy should be considered? At public meetings of non-profit organizations, shouldn’t both sides of an issue be given equal time?

Similarly, I’m interested that Kettering Schools’ publication, “The Blue Ribbon Report,” paid for with school tax money, in this Spring, 2010, issue, uses about half of the copy space in promoting the levy. There is much pertinent information that is omitted and only a pro-levy position is presented. It hardly seems right that tax money should be spent on one-sided levy advocacy.

In his memo to the board, the first topic Schoenlein addresses is the “Levy Update.” He praises three full time school employees working in the “public relations” office for their fine work creating a levy web-site. Using tax money to pay for work done to promote a ballot issue must be unlawful. There was no indication in the superintendent’s memo that the pro-levy work of these three employees happened after their regular working hours.

The Kettering levy campaign is impressive (see page 4), and has all the indications of a professionally organized effort. Since schools are continually involved in levy campaigns they have a lot of practice. The plans call for:

  • yard signs
  • field signs
  • parent newsletters
  • neighborhood walks
  • levy brochure to all registered voters
  • levy packets to all absentee voters
  • three different full color postcards sent
  • neighborhood levy coffee gatherings
  • a “Turn Out Seniors” project
  • employee fundraising
  • vendor fundraising
  • letters to the editor
  • newspaper ads
  • levy message on all school marquees
  • get-out-the-vote calling project

In previous campaigns, Citizens for Kettering Schools usually spend over $15,000 in a given campaign. The effort seems mostly funded by individual contributions from Kettering school employees — from money regularly withheld from the employees’ checks. According to the DDN, $9,133.70 was shown raised in this last report to the Board of Elections.

School employees, along with school vendors, represent a special interest in our community of individuals directly financially benefiting from Kettering Schools, and, it makes sense that this special interest seeks to assure a generous income continues to flow to the school system. After all 86% of all school expenditures goes to school personnel. As it stands, the 6.9 mill levy request is based on a five year projection that shows increases in personnel pay of 4.82% per year. A contribution to the levy campaign, from a school employee’s point of view, is a good investment.

But it seems unfair, and, I wonder if it is lawful, for Kettering schools to use school gatherings and school property, such as school marquees, to give one-sided advocacy of the 6.9 mill levy. It also seems unfair, and, I also wonder if it is lawful, that Citizens for Kettering Schools, a Political Action Committee, does not pay sales tax on items it purchases.

The bigger question is: what is the long term strategy in Kettering to build a great public education system? A school special interest v community strategy cannot work in the long run to build a great system.

Share
This entry was posted in M Bock, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to If Pro School Tax Message Is Given Platform At School Meetings, Should Anti Message Be Given Equal Time?

  1. Jeannie Hart says:

    Kettering at all levels, must learn to live within a budget. At a time when people are struggling financially, why are we giving higher salaries to people who donot even work a full year. Taxpayers are hurting, and our pockets are drained. Stop this levy now!

  2. Eric says:

    Note in the Spring 2010 Blue Ribbon Report, Ohio’s unconstitutional overreliance on property taxes appears to continue, despite Governor Strickland’s HB-1 “fix.”

    Manchur, Schuerholz and Trent to Serve as Tri-Chairs of Kettering Schools Levy Campaign, page 4

    “We only get about 22 percent of our revenue from the state. The remainder has to come from other sources, mostly local taxes,” says Trent. “This is not fair, and I do not care for this formula. Unfortunately, it is what it is for now, and if we’re going to keep quality alive in the Kettering Schools, we’re going to have to do it ourselves.”

    Operating Levy Q&A, page 7
    If a levy is not approved, the district will be forced to make significant staffing cuts.

  3. Eric says:

    In the April memo, this comment on page 2, “We have not done this as a way of promoting the levy in the past,” and the levy campaign plan on page 4 suggest KCS is promoting the levy. But what’s inappropriate about saying, in effect, “Dear board, You approved placing a levy on the ballot, I (your employee) serve on the levy steering committee, and here’s our plan to promote the levy.” I don’t know how the law draws the line between “informing” and “campaigning” and whether all communication “designed to promote the adoption or defeat of any ballot proposition or issue” is forbidden. The Ohio Elections Commission drew the line between “informing” and “campaigning” by saying that district communications were informing, since districts cannot campaign.

    …I wonder if it is lawful, for Kettering schools … to give one-sided advocacy of the 6.9 mill levy.

    KCS clearly needs to inform voters. People will disagree whether the informational campaign is “fair and balanced.”

    seems inappropriate for school officials to take advantage of a school gathering to advocate for the passing of a specific ballot issue.

    PTAs and PTOs fundraise for the schools. Their members would clearly want to know about a levy. Moreover, we don’t know when KCS employees are are “informing” or “campaigning.”

    Doesn’t such advocacy violate the rules that govern non-profits, such as schools and churches?

    Public schools are government, not non-profit. Moreover, we don’t know when KCS employees are are “informing” or “campaigning.”

    At public meetings of non-profit organizations, shouldn’t both sides of an issue be given equal time?

    Not necessarily. Moreover, we don’t know when KCS employees are are “informing” or “campaigning.”

  4. jesse says:

    At public meetings of non-profit organizations, shouldn’t both sides of an issue be given equal time?

    Depends on the funding of the non-profit. If it is privately funded, then no. If it is publicly funded, then yes.

  5. Rick says:

    If a sign in favor of the levy is put in the yard around a school, fire station, etc. then that property has become open to opposing viewpoints. I know someone who did put up an anti-levy sign in front of a kettering school and stayed around to watch. The sign was vandalized by a kettering teacher, who thought there was nothing wrong with suppressing an opposing view point. If you oppose this levy, I suggest you print a lot of yard signs and some indestructible ones to place in front of public buildings.

  6. Robert Vigh says:

    People get violent when you try and deny them the opportunity to take from you. Oppose teachers stealing from you at your own risk.

  7. Rick says:

    This new format is terrible , at least on my computer as the columns are four characters in width so they are unreadable. I hope you fix this!

  8. Eric says:

    new format is terrible … columns are four characters in width so they are unreadable

    For the time being, consider viewing with “maximize window” (full-screen mode). The middle column appears to get what’s left over after the left and right columns and the left and right margins.

    Hope this helps.

  9. Rick says:

    Thanks, it helps a lot.

  10. Eric says:

    helps a lot.

    Meaning, I guess, “notably bad” is better than “damn near unusable.” Let me know if I got that right…

  11. Rick says:

    In the April memo, this comment on page 2, “We have not done this as a way of promoting the levy in the past,” and the levy campaign plan on page 4 suggest KCS is promoting the levy. But what’s inappropriate about saying, in effect, “Dear board, You approved placing a levy on the ballot, I (your employee) serve on the levy steering committee, and here’s our plan to promote the levy.” I don’t know how the law draws the line between “informing” and “campaigning” and whether all communication “designed to promote the adoption or defeat of any ballot proposition or issue” is forbidden. The Ohio Elections Commission drew the line between “informing” and “campaigning” by saying that district communications were informing, since districts cannot campaign.

    …I wonder if it is lawful, for Kettering schools … to give one-sided advocacy of the 6.9 mill levy.

    KCS clearly needs to inform voters. People will disagree whether the informational campaign is “fair and balanced.”

    seems inappropriate for school officials to take advantage of a school gathering to advocate for the passing of a specific ballot issue.

    PTAs and PTOs fundraise for the schools. Their members would clearly want to know about a levy. Moreover, we don’t know when KCS employees are are “informing” or “campaigning.”

    Doesn’t such advocacy violate the rules that govern non-profits, such as schools and churches?

    Public schools are government, not non-profit. Moreover, we don’t know when KCS employees are are “informing” or “campaigning.”

    At public meetings of non-profit organizations, shouldn’t both sides of an issue be given equal time?

    Not necessarily. Moreover, we don’t know when KCS employees are are “informing” or “campaigning.”

  12. Eric says:

    So did Rick have something to say on April 24th, 2010 at 3:12 pm? Seems like deja vu all over again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *