Caroline Gentry spoke at our South of Dayton Democratic Club this week. Caroline is seeking the Democratic nomination to represent the strongly Republican south of Dayton region, OHD-41.

Caroline Gentry is seeking to be the Democratic Party’s candidate for election to the Ohio House representing the area where I live — Ohio’s newly created House District 41. December 7 is the deadline for candidates to file for the March primary and Mrs. Gentry is the first Democratic candidate, I am aware of, who has expressed interest.

Mrs. Gentry gave an impressive presentation at our South of Dayton Democratic Club meeting this week, saying that the time is ripe for a moderate, well qualified Democrat, such as herself, to win in districts that habitually have voted Republican.

Mrs. Gentry shared statistics showing that 53% of voters in the the new OHD-41 rejected SB5 — the Republican legislation curtailing rights of public employees — with a “No” vote on Issue 2. She said the radical Republican agenda has lost support from many moderate Republicans. In addition to SB5, Gentry cited other legislation that many moderate Republicans do not support, such as HB194, curtailing election rights, and, HB153, eliminating the estate tax effective January 1, 2013.

OHD-41 replaces the old OHD-37, currently represented by Republican Jim Butler — an enthusiastic backer of the most radical of Republican ideas. Mr. Butler, for example, a member of the House Education Committee, voted in that committee to approve HB136, legislation that is now pending for action by the whole Assembly. This bill, if approved, will transfer state money currently paid to public schools to private religious schools, via a generous voucher program. The HB136 law would apply to all schools — those rated as “excellent,” as well as failing schools.

These are how the new South of Dayton districts are defined.

The new OHD-41 includes areas with school districts rated “excellent” — Centerville, Kettering, Oakwood, and Riverside.  HB136, if approved, will be very disruptive to these districts and it is legislation that will be vigorously opposed by many citizens in these communities, Republicans as well as Democrats. Mr. Butler will need to defend his vote.

Because of the elimination of the estate tax in HB153, starting in 2013, these prosperous communities will be hit hard with a loss of revenue they long have counted on to maintain their local budgets. Kettering will lose, on average, revenue of about $3.2 million each year, and Oakwood will lose about $2.6 million each year. Officials in these communities, most of whom are Republicans, strongly opposed the elimination of this revenue source, and will soon reveal the consequences of what the loss of revenue caused by HB153 will mean to local services and tax rates. It seems certain, when the impact of this legislation is understood, Mr. Butler’s support of HB153 will lose him votes in these hard hit communities.

Mrs. Gentry says growing up in Yellowsprings, she always considered herself conservative. For example, as a devout Catholic, she holds to a pro-life POV. Only later, by comparison to the radicals who have overtaken the conservative label, did she realize she actually is best described as a moderate. She has an impressive resume. She received a law degree from Yale University and for two years worked for Judge Walter Rice, the highly respected federal judge for the U.S. District Court for this region. She is now a full partner at the law firm Porterwright, lives in Oakwood, is married to an attorney, has two children, age 12 and age 10 and is recognized for her pro bono legal work.

Mrs. Gentry is a very impressive individual. She is 41 years old and projects a calm, assured, and accessible personality. She shows a practical and incisive intelligence and perceptive empathy. I think her good sense and attractive personality will appeal to the voters of OHD-41, particularly women voters.

Mrs. Gentry says she knows the current representative for this district, Jim Butler, and has worked with him. She says she likes him personally, but strongly disagrees with some of the policies he supports.

The newly apportioned Ohio House Districts: Montgomery County used to have five districts, now it has 4 1/2. My district used to be OHD-37, now it is OHD-41.

Mr. Butler has not yet stood for a general election, but was appointed representative for OHD-37 by the Republican Party. The seat became open when the elected representative, Republican Peggy Lehner, was appointed to serve as senator for Ohio’s Senate District 6, taking the place of Jon Husted who was elected Secretary of State for Ohio. Mrs. Lehner, also, will be seeking reelection this year, and, as yet, no Democrat has announced his or her candidacy to represent the Democratic Party to challenge her reelection.

Mr. Butler is an Oakwood attorney. He graduated from the Naval Academy and flew a F-14 Tomcat. This election will be his first, and although the new OHD 41 was designed to be a “safe” Republican district, if the outcome of Issue 2 is any indication, Mr. Butler may find that his identification with and support of the most extreme of the Republican fringe, may not resonate with voters in this traditionally conservative region.

Mrs. Gentry with her calm and sensible intelligence and mainstream POV is a moderate, a reasonable alternative to the madness occurring in Columbus, a person who is representative of the mainstream of voters in south of Dayton. I’m thinking that many Republican voters in OHD-41 will decide to support her. The election for representative for OHD-41 promises to be an interesting and informative contest.

See Related Recent Posts:

• Why Some Libertarians Oppose Ohio’s HB136 — A Big Increase In Tax Funded Vouchers For Private Schools, By Mike Bock, on October 4th, 2011
• Kettering Treasurer Says Local Cost Of Voucher Plan, HB136, Is $2.5+ Million Yearly — 2+ Mills Of New Taxes, By Mike Bock, on September 30th, 2011
• Ohio’s Proposed Voucher Law HB136 — Should Tax Money Be Used To Fund Religious Education?, By Mike Bock, on September 29th, 2011
• The Plague Of Radicalized Legislators — Caused By The Antidemocratic Practices Of Political Parties, By Mike Bock, on August 5th, 2011
• Jim Butler — Rep For Ohio’s 37th District — Explains Why He Voted “Yes” For SB5, By Mike Bock, on July 30th, 2011
• Without Adequate Public Debate — Republican Assembly Rushes To Eliminate Ohio’s Long Standing Estate Tax, By Mike Bock, on June 20th, 2011
• Is It In The Public Good To Restrain The Right Of Public Employees To Collectively Bargain?, By Mike Bock, on June 11th, 2011
• Republican Senator Lehner and Representative Butler Defend Ohio’s SB-5 At Kettering Town Hall Meeting, By Mike Bock, on June 6th, 2011
• Superintendent Urges Citizens To Protest “Unfair” Cut In State Revenue To Kettering Schools, By Mike Bock, on April 27th, 2011

Jim Ambrose -- photo taken from his web-site.

• Before his campaign to be elected to the Kettering School Board, I hadn’t met Jim Ambrose, but after meeting him, I decided to vote for him. I put a sign in my yard showing my support. As it turned out, the incumbents Jim Trent and Lori Simms were reelected.

By returning the two incumbents to the school board, at first look, it appears that Kettering voters expressed a strong allegiance to the status quo. However, the 11,564 votes (42% of the votes cast) to the challengers were significantly more than either incumbent received. Incumbent Jim Trent received 9191 votes (33.54% of votes cast) and incumbent Lori Simms received 6652 votes (24.27% of votes cast).  The election can be seen as a message from the voters that they prefer change. It’s just that the anti-status quo votes were evenly split between two challengers, Jim Ambrose and Frank Spolrich, diluting their impact.

In my note to Jim after the election, I suggested a study project concerning school transformation that he might consider participating in, and said, “I am disappointed, and surprised, that you didn’t win election to the Kettering School Board. If every Kettering voter had had a 90 minute conversation with you, over coffee, as I did, I’m sure the results would have been different. I think you have a lot to contribute and I hope in two years you may consider another attempt.”

Jim,

Here are some thoughts:

Though I ran for election to the Kettering School Board two years ago, for myself, I am not overly ambitious to become a board member. I am, however, keenly interested in helping to transform public education, and I think the place to start is here in my local community. Our task as interested citizens, in our local community, is to help the present board be as successful as possible. I believe you think that way as well. I’d like to suggest a way during these next two years we might work together.

16.6% of the voters, casting a ballot, left their vote for school board blank, not choosing even one of the four board candidates. It’s interesting to speculate why, having made the effort to cast a ballot, one in six voters showed no preference for any board candidate. By comparison, to determine if the .6 mill tax levy for Kettering schools should be renewed, only 1.5% of voters left their vote blank.

Two years ago, 25% of voters left their ballot blank for school board candidates, so this year’s 16.6% is actually an improvement. I’m thinking more voters made a choice this board election, as compared to last, because Jim Trent has such high name recognition. It’s a fair question: What percentage of voters have enough information to make informed choices?

In my prediction of your victory, I gave a lot of weight to the endorsement you received from the Kettering teachers’ union, the KEA, and I gave a lot of weight to the force of your personality and the overall quality of your campaign. I figured that many voters would be loyal to Trent, but I miscalculated the loyalty shown to Simms. Both incumbents, however, are attractive personalities and the attitude of Jim Trent, no doubt, resonated with many voters, when he said, “I believe I am making a difference. I would like to serve again, I love doing what I am doing and want to continue.”

For more voters than I realized, the idea of continuing the status quo is attractive as in, “Why try to fix what isn’t broken?”

My POV, coming from a 30 year teaching career, is that the system of public education, in fact, is broken and is in need of basic transformation, one that would establish a well defined aim / purpose and that would align resources and the organizational structure of the system to accomplish that aim. One goal of this transformation would be to redefine teacher professionalism and teacher opportunity. My thought is that teachers, individually, would become enthusiastic about such a vision of transformation, even if, initially, it might be opposed by state and national unions. Ideally, KEA would support interested teachers to help in the task of developing a vision of long term transformation.

One significant goal of transformation would be to decrease cost to taxpayers, but the defining goal would be to make a big leap in overall system quality. The idea would be to articulate a vision that would gain wide spread support within the community. Creating a core group of voters interested in transformation is the challenge and articulating a vision of change that would initially inspire such a group is the first task. In the campaign two years ago, I proclaimed that I intended on writing a book, and, since then, I revised the title — When Anna Is Nineteen: Public Education In Kettering, Ohio, In The Year 2030 — with the thought that topics developed in such a book could help generate public discussion and public support.

Doing the research needed to produce this book is an ambitious goal, and, had I been elected to the board two years ago, I would have attempted to find consensus among the other board members to organize a process of research and community involvement in thinking through the issues about the future. Regardless if I am on the board, or not, I’m thinking that this project should still be presented to the board as a proposal for their consideration. I think there would be a lot of community support for the notion that Kettering should be a leader in transforming public education.

Anyway, if this vague idea could come together as a community study, I hope you would consider becoming part of the process. I’ve enjoyed meeting you and hope we can create opportunities to work productively together.

Sincerely,  Mike Bock

Other posts concerning this topic:

• Bob Sommers — Ohio’s New Director Of 21St Century Education — Explains His Vision Of The Future, By Mike Bock, on April 6th, 2011
• Throwing Money At Public Education Is Not The Answer, System Change Is Needed, By Mike Bock, on January 14th, 2009
• To Transform Our System Of Education, We Must Redefine The Aim Of The System, By Mike Bock, on May 27th, 2008
• Strickland Should Use Charter Schools To Help Fulfill His Promise: “Reform and Renew the System of Education Itself”, By Mike Bock, on November 13th, 2007

Currently, Ohio law prohibits any candidate whose age is more than 70 to seek election to a position of judge. Someone elected at age 70 would be age 76 by the end of his or her term. Issue 1 proposes to add five years to the mandatory retirement age and if Issue 1 passes, judges may seek election up to age 75. And, someone elected at age 75, who completes a full term of 6 years, will be age 81 by the end of his or her term.

The answer to the question, “How old is too old?” is different for each individual. The current law allows a judge to serve until age 76, and for some judges, that may be an age well past his or her capacity to do a competent job. But, many judges at age 76 are full of vitality, and many at age 81 would make great judges.

I’m voting “Yes” for Issue 1, because, the reality is that in Ohio judges are elected to their positions by the voting public. If there is a reason to believe a judge is serving incompetently, or a reason to believe that a judge should not be reelected, then this decision should be revealed and discussed as part of the election process. What is needed is a means to better inform the public about the work of judges, so the public can make more educated choices.

The bigger question that Issue 1 raises is: Does our curent system of choosing judges make sense? Should the selection of judges be determined by an uninformed and incompetent public? In my view, we need to brainstorm to find a better system. As it is, the public has little information with which to evaluate judges or candidates seeking to be elected to the position of judge. We need a system that will give the public better information — maybe a system of peer review, or a system of citizen nonpartisan panels empowered to make evaluations. We need to look at the big picture and brainstorm meaningful systemic change that will improve the quality of our judges, regardless of age.

From an article By MARC KOVAC

The Ohio State Bar Association also has endorsed the Issue 1. In a released statement, the group’s president, Carol Seubert Marx, said “The times have changed, life expectancy has changed and expectations of life in the workforce have changed. Extending the age limit to 75 would allow for more experienced judges to stay on the bench and benefit the judiciary.”

She added, “So what happens if Issue 1 fails? Up to 10 percent of Ohio’s judges could be forced to retire in the next six years resulting in the loss of tremendous judicial experience in Ohio’s courtrooms.”

But opponents of Issue 1 question the value of extending the age limit.

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association is urging a “no” vote on the issue, saying that the wording of it could allow judges to serve until they are 82 years old or older.

“The provision would allow for judges serving into their eighties,” John Murphy, executive director of the prosecutors association, said in a released statement. “While some senior judges are valued and effective, it is not the case with all. The potential for limits to an elderly judge’s schedule and capacity is not good for an active courtroom.”

He added, “Ohio prosecutors think the current age limit is appropriate and should be retained, even if it keeps some capable, experienced candidates off the bench. In our experience, many prosecutors have practiced before older judges who should not have been serving.”

The Democratic Party, which also opposes, questioned the politics behind the move.

According to a released statement from the group’s executive committee, “This extension would increase the length of service for individuals already entrenched on the bench. Moreover, State Issue 1 is likely to perpetuate a 6-to-1 Republican imbalance on the Ohio Supreme Court and similar imbalances on lower courts.”