My name is in the newspaper today, in an article entitled, “Kettering Undecided On School Levy Timing.” The article is in the “Neighbors” Section for Kettering and Oakwood and revisits comments made during DDN’s group interview with all five board candidates, September 23.  The article says, “One board member seeking reelection, Julie Gilmore, and a challenger, Mike Bock, told the DDN editorial board that Kettering will place a levy on the 2010 ballot.”

At that meeting, I said that, after talking with Board Treasurer, Steve Clark, and Interim Superintendent, Jim Schoenlein, it seemed clear to me that there will need to be a new levy next year and that it looks like the recommendation will be to place 7 mill levy on the ballot next May.  Julie Gilmore confirmed my comment that there would probably be a need for a levy next May, but didn’t predict what amount might be needed.

The DDN the next day wrote a short article that said Steve Clark verified that a levy, of uncertain amount, will be needed sometime next year.   Today’s article indicates that Clark has “backed away” from his previous statement to the DDN.

My point is that the district must have more transparency with Kettering voters and that if, as appears obvious to me, there will be a need for new local property taxes next year in Kettering to fund the schools, then the time to have that discussion in now, during the election of new board members.

During the DDN group interview, I appreciated the fact that Julie Gilmore took a stand and verified my levy prediction.  The DDN today quotes her as saying, during our group interview, “He (CLark) said we are running out of money and it looks like we’re going to have to go with new money in 2010 based on the five-year forecast.” As I reported, I felt that Gilmore, overall, of the three incumbents running for reelection, during that DDN interview, seemed the most informed, the most analytical.

Certainly the other current board members, Frank Maus and George Bayless, have heard the same information as Gilmore, but, they were not as forthright.  It seems to me, Maus and Bayless must feel their chance for reelection will be harmed if news of the new levy becomes part of the election campaign.

Maus, in the DDN article, comes across as attempting to deflect discussion.  Maus is quoted as saying, “We have not been approached by the administration.  We have not been formally told that we need to have a levy.”

“Formally told” — I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like Frank is attempting to side-step the question.  Whether “formally told” or not, certainly Maus heard the same five year forecast as Gilmore.  I hope Frank, the next time he gets a chance, will be more forthright.  I’ve known Frank for years, and as I said in an earlier post, I have a lot of confidence in him.  He seemed a little flat-footed, however, concerning this issue at the DDN interview.

George Bayless is quoted in today’s DDN article as saying, “We haven’t specifically talked about any levy.” But Bayless also confirmed, “That’s what the five-year forward looking plan says we will need.”

It seems to me that on the issue of the need for a new levy, of the three incumbents, Maus should be in a stronger position than Gilmore or Bayless because, last May, Maus and Board President, Jim Trent, voted “No” to approving a new Kettering teachers’ contract giving the teachers a 3% raise over two years (1.5% each year for two years).  Gilmore and Bayless voted in favor of the raise, along with board member, Lori Simms, and the teachers’ pay increase was approved by a vote of 3-2.  Part of the reason why Kettering is facing a budget shortfall is because of this new teachers’ contract.  During the DDN interview, Maus said that in his view, giving the teachers a raise, during a time when so many voters are facing economic troubles, would be seen by voters as a “kick in the teeth.”

All five candidates participated in a videotaped program this week with League of Women Voters that will be shown on cable starting next week.  At that taping, I said I agreed with the “No” vote made by Frank Maus and Board President, Jim Trent, concerning giving the teachers a raise.  I am all in favor of teachers being as well paid as possible.  After all, I retired from teaching and I have great respect for the work that teachers do. But, again, the issue is transparency.  Kettering voters have a right to know how their board candidates view all of these issues.

The board voted for the teachers’ pay increase just days after the community voted to renew a 6.9 mill levy last May, and the point I attempted to make at the LWV taping is that during that 6.9 mill renewal levy campaign there was not a peep of information available to the general public that by voting for the levy, voters were approving a raise for teachers.

I’m glad the DDN ran their article today.   In my judgment, Kettering’s New Levy Need, Teachers’ Pay Raise, Should Be Discussed As Part Of Board Election Campaign

At 11:00 AM today, I will meet with the other four candidates at the Miami Valley Cable Council (MVCC) on Alex Bell Rd to participate in a video taped discussion organized by the League of Women Voters.  The video produced from today’s meeting will be shown several times — either on channel five or channel six — between now and the election.

I’ve not decided, as yet, what to say in my opening statement.  I have two minutes.  I know I will start by praising the school system.  I was in three Kettering school buildings yesterday.  It’s obvious that all Kettering voters have a lot of reason to be proud of their schools.  I want to put an emphasis on the future, on planning for the future, so that Kettering Schools can take leadership in making the big leap in quality and purpose needed in public education.

In my opening statement, I am tempted to take a stand on the new teachers’ contract approved last May.  Of the three current members who are seeking election, Frank Maus voted against giving the teachers a 3 % raise (1.5% each year for two years).  Julie Ann Gilmore and George Bayless both voted in favor of the increase.  I agree with Frank that the timing of this pay increase was wrong and that last May the board should have said “No” to the teachers.

I want to emphasizethat the biggest task the Kettering Board School Board is to provide the kind of leadership that will increase the support and involvement of the Kettering community in their system of public education.  I keep coming back to the 75 words I submitted to the League for their “Meet the Candidates” publication, yet to be distributed.

Public education needs a big leap in quality — including a big leap in cost effectiveness. We need a ten year process of transformation that will result in a 21st century system of education. Community consensus is needed. Leadership is needed. The biggest challenge for the Kettering School Board is to lead the community in creating a shared vision of the future, and, in creating a well-thought out, long-term plan to bring that vision to reality.

Yesterday, I met briefly with the Kettering Education Association’s president, Melissa Gallagher,  in her classroom at Orchard Park Elementary.  Melissa teaches the fourth grade and just this past year was chosen to be the leader of the Kettering teachers’ union.  She said that she has taught in Kettering for ten years.  I asked her if she had had any competition in her election to the union presidency, and she laughed and said “No,” that the thirty or so teachers active in the union were in agreement.  All teachers in Kettering are required to join the association — and the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) — or, in lieu of joining, required to pay “fair share.”

I asked Melissa if the Kettering teachers’ union would endorse board candidates and she indicated that the group, as yet, had not decided, but that some members thought that they should.  She noted that the incumbents seeking election were divided on the new teachers’ contract, with one (Maus) voting against the contract.

“Leadership” is a big word, a big topic.  The leadership that is needed is the leadership that works to vitalize democracy, that works to get the best from everyone, that works to bring the community into active partnership.  At the MVCC taping I will, no doubt, quote David Matthews again, that a vital democracy is needed for a vital system of public education.

Leadership that aims to vitalize democracy is a leadership that is:

• respectful of the point of view of all stakeholders
• transparent and assessable,
• dedicated to using democratic processes,
• centered on educating and informing all stakeholders,
• focused on articulating the best dreams and hopes of the group,
• intent on finding and implementing practical and workable solutions.

Frank Maus in his “No” vote, I believe, was showing respect for Kettering voters.  In Frank’s words, giving the teachers a raise in pay, in these economic times amounted to a “kick in the teeth” to voters who are struggling financially.

So, I’m debating with myself if, at today’s MVCC meeting, I should take a stand on the teachers’ new contract.  I’m also debating if I should take a stand on the false advertisements used to promote the 6.9 mill renewal levy approved last May.  Both of these matters speak to the general topic of leadership.

I’m seeking to show leadership by offering my little book — “Kettering Public Education In 2022” — as a first step in, hopefully, in “leading the community in creating a shared vision of the future, and, in creating a well-thought out, long-term plan to bring that vision to reality.” The book is not finished as yet, but I will mention it sometime in the taping.

I was surprised to see my letter published today in the Dayton Daily News — “DDN Editorial Took Cheap Shot At Kettering Schools.” I sent that letter in a month ago and had given up on it ever being published.