Yesterday, I met with Guy Fogle, one of three men seeking the nomination to be the Democratic Party’s congressional candidate for Ohio’s 3rd District. The Special Democratic Primary is July 13.

The DDN recently ran an article, that, David Esrati declared, made Fogle’s campaign “toast.”  I responded to the article by finding a positive thought: Guy Fogle’s Life Story — Overcoming Adversity Of Cancer, Bankruptcy — Might Help Him Gain Votes.

Fogle is not running away from his recent history. He says all of his experiences will help him be a more effective congressman. Fogle’s position seem to be that one of the reasons he is most likely to do the best job is because he is the one most likely to understand what regular people in the 3rd District are going through. His web-site uses the headline, “A Regular Guy For Congress.”

In a way, I guess, the “regular guy” strategy was also Lincoln’s campaign strategy. People of his time could identify with the laborer who spit logs or with someone living primitively in a log cabin. Lincoln could understand the struggles on the common man, because he had endured and overcome those struggles. Lincoln could advertise himself as a common man, but, the catch: he rose to success because he was anything but common. He had amazing leadership qualities.

I told Guy that the phrase “regular guy” has some downside. I said, if we are in trouble, we want to find the best lawyer or the best doctor — not just a “regular guy.” Maybe “regular guy,” to me, sounds too much like “Family Guy.”

We want a leader to be a “common man,” yet we want him or her to be anything but common. We want our leaders to be extraordinary in their capacity to inspire, in their talent for bringing out the best, in their foresight, in their wisdom, in their capacity to engage and empower. A great teacher is a great leader and vice versa. We’ve amazingly dumbed down the whole concept of leadership in every area of our society. And we expect, and get, trivial, immature leadership from our political process

We have a crisis in leadership in this country and simply electing another Democrat to Congress will not address the crisis. We are putting people in office, in positions of authority, for all of the wrong reasons. Our task as Democrats is to choose a candidate who demonstratively shows more leadership than the incumbent Republican, Mike Turner — not just someone who has the best chance of winning.

We need to encourage a general discussion of representative effectiveness. We need to encourage a general discussion of what it means to be a leader.

How can you tell if your representative is doing a good job or not? The Ohio Department of Education has a check list that it uses to evaluate school districts — enough checks and presto you are deemed an “excellent school.”

As Democrats, we have the opportunity and obligation to define the debate. What is the checklist we should use to evaluate our representative to congress? I don’t think Mike Turner would get a check for “Shows leadership qualities.” I don’t think he’d get a check for “Educates and Informs the public,” nor one for, “Advances the common good”

The non-checked list is long. But, really it can all be summarized, in general, as leadership. We need a good Democratic definition of the term and we need a Democratic candidate who can demonstrate the kind of leadership that will inspire a grass roots movement. We need someone who can provide a compelling leadership alternative to Mike Turner and who can demonstrate the leadership in an effective campaign.

I am wanting to hear more from all three of the candidates: David Esrati, Joe Roberts, and Guy Fogle

Two weeks ago the DDN reported, in “Kettering sees no reason not to retire-rehire Schoenlein,” that the Kettering Board of Education proposed to retire the school district’s superintendent, Jim Schoenlein, and to immediately rehire him at less money. The board argues that this is a win-win: by retiring and rehiring, the superintendent would make more money — $250,000 per year in salary and retirement — and, at the same time, the district would save $40,000 each year.

The district might save $40,000 each year, but, it seems to me that the retire-rehire strategy represents a total net cost to the taxpayer — not a net savings. The DDN indicates that of Schoenlein’s $250,000 total annual compensation, about $125,000 will come from the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). Of this $125,000 yearly retirement amount, 41.7% comes from Schoenlein’s contributions and 58.3% ($72,875 each year) comes directly from tax money contributed, over the years, to the STRS on Schoenlein’s behalf, by the schools districts where he has been employed.

If Kettering Schools save $40,000 in tax money each year in this retire-rehire strategy, but $72,875 in other tax money is needed in order for the district to save $40,000, then to retire / rehire Schoenlein, there is a net cost to taxpayers of $32,875 each year. The school district may come out ahead, but in the long run, taxpayers will need to pick up the tab.

And, STRS is asking for more tax money. In January, the DDN reported, “STRS has proposed that both teachers and the districts that employ them increase their pension contributions by 5 percentage points — 2.5 more from teachers by 2016 and 2.5 more from the district by 2021. The proposal also calls for raising the retirement age.”

Here is how I calculate the 41.7% / 58.3%  division of individual contribution / general tax fund contribution. Out of every Ohio educator’s paycheck, 10% is deducted and sent to the STRS. But, boards of education send STRS not only the 10% of the pay of each educator, but also an amount equal to 14% of each educator’s pay. This 14% is tax money that comes from the school district’s general tax fund and this 14% represents a significant part of every district’s budget. So, for every dollar an educator earns, 24 cents is sent to the STRS; 10 cents of the 24 cents, or 41.7%, comes from the earnings of the individual educator; 14 cents of the 24 cents, or 58.3%, comes from general tax revenues received in the school district’s general fund.

I’ve not seen this 10% / 14% distinction made in the DDN articles. One person writing in the DDN, on the “pro” side, defends double dipping as, “This is no different than a private employee retiring, collecting on his investments (401(k), IRA) and getting another job. These people invest in the pension system just like others invest in a 401(k). Most of it is their money.”

Another person, arguing for the “con” side, writes, “With 401(k)s, you put in a certain amount and only get out what you and your employer put in, plus investment growth. A public pension is a defined benefit. Regardless of how much you and your employer put in, you always get a set amount back until you die. Defined benefit plans are unsustainable.”

Schoenlein, himself, in the original DDN article, defends the “pro” side by saying, “School employees build up a retirement fund over their entire career, and that’s that individual’s money.” But, most of the money in the STRS is tax money contributed by local districts out of the general fund — the 14% of total salary paid by local districts for each educator — not money contributed out of individual educators’ paychecks.

The 10% the individual educator contributes to the STRS is, as Schoenlein says, “the individual’s money.”  If a person quits teaching after a few years, he or she can “cash out” the 10% accumulated deduction. But he or she cannot cash out the 14%. STRS makes a distinction between the fund composed of the 10% contributed by the individual from his or her paycheck and the fund composed of the 14% contributed by the employer out of the general fund.

What a retirement deal that Ohio educators have!  They are exempt from paying Social Security and instead have a system that gives them many advantages not available to Social Security retirees. This retire-rehire controversy increases public attention to the fact that one reason Social Security is facing shortfalls is that educators are not making any contributions to it.

If Dr. Schoenlein wants to take advantage of Ohio’s generous laws dealing with retiring / rehiring public school educators, then, of course he should do so.  Who wouldn’t want to increase one’s annual income by $95,000?  But, the Kettering Board of Education should not be part of the scheme.  Legal, does not mean ethical.  The retire / rehire proposal seems like the good old boy network at work.  Taxpayers realize that if a public employee receives $250,000 in annual compensation, however it is sold, taxpayers are somehow picking up the bill.

Allowing Superintendent Schoenlein to “double dip” in Kettering, I believe, will further undermine the confidence of Kettering voters in the board’s leadership, and a loss of confidence in leadership is sure to result in a loss of votes for future Kettering school tax levies. As the DDN editorial said, Double-dippers invite voters to rise up

The Kettering Board, in its proposal to retire and rehire Jim Schoenlein as Superintendent, acknowledges that one day the Superintendent will be paid at an annual rate of $155,000 and the next day, doing the same job, he will be paid at an annual rate of $250,000. This whopping $95,000 annual increase, the Board says, is a win-win — a big bonus for a Superintendent they want to reward, and, at the same time, a savings in the school budget of $40,000 each year.

According to the requirement of Ohio Revised Code, there must be a public hearing concerning this retire and rehire decision. The hearing is set for July 13.

In my view, this retire / rehire practice is ethically challenged and, it seems to me, retiring and rehiring Superintendent Schoenlein, as a win-win money scheme, will make it more difficult to keep the public’s support for Kettering Schools.

Yes, there are many retired teachers, principals and superintendents who retire, leave their place of employment, and are rehired by some other school or district. These retirees receive their pension from their first career and, in addition, a new salary from their post-retirement career. This “double dipping” is legal and a great deal for the person involved.

If Dr. Schoenlein were to retire from Kettering Schools and be immediately hired as superintendent of some other district, then, his $250,000+ annual income would be in keeping with the rules of the State Teachers Retirement System rules. It is a generous system.

But, the Kettering School Board is proposing that Superintendent Schoenlein “retire,” and then, the next day, seamlessly continue to do the same job. Some Kettering voters will not appreciate the fact that Schoenlein’s “retirement” is a fraud — what, no retirement party? no gold watch? — some voters will see it as an insider scheme to deliberately sidestep the intent of STRS rules. It seems to me the ethical dimension of retire / rehire scheme should be carefully evaluated by the Kettering Board and the board should consider the impact this decision may have with the public.

Evidently, since they are going forward with the July 13 hearing, the Kettering Board sees no ethical problem with this retire / rehire proposal and agrees with the view expressed by Superintendent Schoenlein, quoted in the DDN: “School employees build up a retirement fund over their entire career, and that’s that individual’s money. At some point, when you’re eligible, you say, I’m going to start collecting. Whether you’re working or not doesn’t matter.”

According to the STRS web-site, it does matter, but only a little bit. If you are re-employed by the same employer, you must forego two months of retirement benefits.

Scheonlein’s comment raises some questions. Yes, educators contribute to their own retirement account. They are exempt from contributing to Social Security and when they retire they can withdraw, if they choose, all of their contributions to the system. But if the retiree takes a lump sum settlement, he or she has no claim on the bigger part of his or her retirement package. Most of the money in the STRS does not come from the individual educator, but from tax money paid by the school district that employs him or her. Individual educators pay 10% of their income to STRS and the school district pays uses tax money to contribute to the STRS system a sum equal to 14% of each educator’s income. This is an important part of every school district’s budget.

Schoenlein’s statement fails to explain that most of the money contributed to an educator’s retirement fund comes from tax money. In retirement, the first retirement monthly checks is the money the retiree himself or herself has put into the system. If the retiree suddenly dies before exhausting his own contribution, his or her estate can claim the balance of the retiree’s contribution. But most retirees, in receiving their monthly checks, soon exhaust their own contributions and live out their retirement from the 14% contributed by tax payers. Schoenlein, with a normal life span, could be collecting a retirement based on this 14% tax contribution many years after his own contributions are exhausted. The fact that retirees are quitting earlier and living longer has put a big strain on the STRS system and this fall it looks like new STRS rules will be implemented to shore up the STRS fund.

The retire / rehire scheme proposed by the Kettering Board is a strategy to game the system — setting up Superintendent Schoenlein to receive much more tax supported retirement benefits than he otherwise might receive. The attitude of “it doesn’t matter, because the local system is saving $40,000 each year” seems short sighted. The problem is, the tax money to fund this gaming of the system must come from somewhere — and, in the end, it must come from taxpayers. This retire / rehire scheme runs the risk of annoying a lot of voters by making them conclude that Kettering Schools is under control of an educational establishment clique — not under the control of the general public.

Superintendent Schoenlein is correct, according to STRS rules, a person receives retirement benefits when he or she is “eligible.” But, one condition for retirement benefit eligibility is that the person first “retire.” So here is the question, is there an ethical limit, to get what you want, to how far one can stretch the meaning of the word “retire,” or any word? A board that must continually ask the public for a vote of confidence via requests for new property taxes might remember that the public, I think, has already rejected the notion that legality is more important than ethics. The public has rejected a point of view that says, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘Is’ is.”

I love this exchange from “ALice in Wonderland”

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”