In yesterday’s DDN editorial, “Maus, Gilmore, Bayless best picks for Kettering school board,” the DDN recommended, regardless that there are two good challengers, that Kettering voters stick with the three current board members who are seeking reelection

The DDN in its editorial seems to try extra hard to say nice things about the two candidates it rejected — the also-rans, the challengers — myself and Jim Brown.    The DDN says, “It was fortunate that Mr. Bock and Mr. Brown chose to run. They have made the debate in this race more fruitful.” The DDN describes Mr. Brown and me as, “impressive and pushing the right issues.”

So, given the fact that all candidates to the Kettering Board are, “very good candidates,”  if the names had been put in a hat, there could have been ten different combinations of three winners.  But the DDN chose all current board members, the incumbents, as the “best picks.”

The DDN’s explanation for choosing all three incumbents over the two “impressive” challengers?  The DDN explains in the last paragraph, “They (Mr. Bock and Mr. Brown) have not made a strong enough case that they would be better.”

Yikes.  In the 90 minute group interview, one of my goals was to show my personality, show that I know the rules of manners.  I tried to make a case for change and I thought the DDN would pick up on the themes that Mr. Brown and I presented, but I guess not.

I do intend on writing a letter — I will post it later today — to the DDN about this little bombshell: “He  (speaking of me) rubbed some in the district the wrong way by campaigning against Kettering’s necessary renewal levy last May.” During the group interview, there was not a peep about my actions during the 6.9 mill levy.  If the editor had intended on dropping this bombshell in the published article, then it seems I should have had some opportunity, during the group interview, to make some input into the matter, but I had none.  So to put this accusation in an editorial as if it is a matter of fact is unfair.

If I had sought to “campaign against the levy,” I certainly would have done more than make blog posts (see here, here, and here).  I would have done more than, two days before the election,  deliver a note of explanation to voters in my precinct.   Kettering Schools has 64 precincts.  I visited voters in only one.  I would have made large signs or written a letter to the DDN.  My efforts cannot accurately be described as a “campaign against the levy.” Defeating the levy was not my motive.  I feel the DDN owes me a little space to explain.

During the DDN group interview, I did indicate that I objected to the way that the 6.9 mill renewal levy was advertised.   Part of my case for change is that the present leadership has shown policies concerning transparency and citizen education that must be changed if Kettering is to fulfill its potential.  Trifling with the trust of the public is very unwise, because the foundation for school improvement must be built on public trust.

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