The first paragraph in an article, by Jill Kelley, in today’s DDN states, “Kettering and Oakwood each have a levy on the ballot for Nov. 8. Both are renewals, and neither would increase taxes.” The DDN would do a service to its readers to more fully explain how renewal levies actually work, and, explain that current trends indicate that the approval of these renewal levies will mean the effective rates for property taxes in Kettering and Oakwood will increase.

In Kettering, the school district is urging voters to renew a 0.6 mill “permanent improvement levy.” This levy was originally approved in 1987. According to Ohio law, a levy can never raise more tax revenue than its original amount. Because the total property value in Kettering has increased since 1987, to avoid generating revenue in excess of the legal limit, over the years the effective rate of this 0.6 mill levy gradually decreased. It is now .458860 mills. But the total property value in Kettering is now decreasing, and, if the levy is renewed, to maintain the same tax revenue, this effective rate may be increased, if necessary, back to its original 0.6 mill amount — an increase of 31%.  (It can never exceed the original ratified amount of 0.6 mills.)

The total increase over the last four years in the effective rate of this levy has been only about 1%, but voters should understand that the trend is upward. Voters should understand that, by approving this renewal, they are agreeing to further increases in the effective rate of this levy.

In Oakwood, voters are being asked to renew a 2.72 mill levy, originally ratified in 1991. Its effective rate is now 1.449251 mills, so renewal means, if total property values in Oakwood sink to the 1991 level, the effective rate of this levy could go back to 2.72 mills — potentially, a whopping increase of 88%.  Such a big change seems highly unlikely. But the trend is upward. Since 2008, the effective rate of this tax has increased 1.4%.

In July, 2009,  I officially complained to the Ohio Election Commission that false advertising was being used to illegally promote a renewal levy in Kettering. I was offended that the leaders of the Kettering school district, who knew better, seemed intent on deliberate deception when they went way overboard in urging voters to support a 6.9 mill operating levy renewal with phrases like “not a penny more,” and, “absolutely zero increase.”

Ms Kelly probably didn’t do enough research to understand the matter. But, when she wrote, about the current Kettering and Oakwood renewal levies, that “neither would increase taxes,” she was misinforming the public. Once a levy is established, its effective rate is on a sliding scale. In order to maintain a fixed amount of tax revenue, when the total property value in a district decreases — as is the established trend in both Kettering and Oakwood — the “effective tax rates” must increase.

If officials want to guarantee voters that their effective tax rates will not increase, instead of renewal levies, they could offer replacement levies, pegged at the current effective rates. If Kettering offered a 0.46 mill levy to replace the current 0.6 mill levy that is expiring, the revenue to the school would not change in the first year. Likewise, Oakwood could offer a 1.45 mill levy to replace the current 2.72 mill levy that is expiring. Then, if the total property value of the community decreased, tax revenue for those levies would also decrease. A system of tax revenue instability may not be in the public interest. But, if our elected officials want the revenue stability provided by renewal levies, they should show transparency, they should educate the public. They should not hide the fact that, in a time of economic downturn, renewals cause effective tax rates to increase and thus increase the tax liability for individual property owners.  And our local newspaper, rather than misinforming, should explain the details of these tax issues.

See: OEC Says “Absolutely No Increase In Taxes” Is Not A False Statement — Dismisses Kettering Complaint, July 17th, 2009

Recently The League of Women Voters taped a “Meet the Candidates” video with candidates for the Kettering Board of Education. The video, unfortunately, shows a very bland discussion that fails to help a viewer distinguish between the candidates. The LWV needs to develop a different type of format.

Of the five member Kettering School Board, two positions are up this year and both incumbent members — Lori Sims and Jim Trent — are seeking reelection. There are two challengers: Jim Ambrose and Frank Spolrich. At the taping, Lori Sims failed to appear.

In the taping,  Jim Ambrose emphasized the concept of “collaboration.” Frank Spolrich spoke of the need for clear guidance of the board, particularly concerning the budget. Jim Trent spoke of his pride in the district, his love for the children. And, they seemingly were all in agreement with each other’s views.

Ambrose and Spolrich are facing, in the Jim Trent candidacy, a community icon, someone who has a major building in Kettering named after him: Trent Arena.  Trent has an attractive attitude. He says, “I believe I am making a difference. I would like to serve again, I love doing what I am doing and want to continue.” It would seem unlikely that the community would not once again reelect Trent.

The two challengers best shot at election is to unseat Lori Sims. Her no-show at this taping will hurt her, but, who can tell how much the public will pay attention?

Two years ago, when I was running for the board, I attempted to make the case that public education needs “transformation” and that a district deemed “excellent,” like Kettering, should show leadership in showing a new path for public education. I also criticized the current board for deceptive advertisements concerning school levies. Those committed to the status quo, I guess, are those who pay the most attention and who are more likely to vote. I don’t know if my outspokenness was my undoing, but, regardless, I lost the election and the other challenger, who was much more circumspect, Jim Brown, won.

I would have thought that Ambrose and Spolrich would have tried a little harder to make the case for why voters should seek a change in board membership. But all three men at this taping seemed pretty much to be on the same page.

All four candidates have important ties to the school district. Jim Trent and Lori Sims are incumbents, with a long history of activity within the schools — Trent, particularly so. Frank Spolrich was a long time teacher and principal in the district. And Jim Ambrose’s wife, Micki Ambrose, is currently a full time teacher in the district as an “Intervention Specialist” at John F Kennedy Elementary School.

Last week, I telephoned Jim Ambrose and eventually met with him for coffee and a 90 minute discussion. I was positively impressed. At the end of the conversation I told Ambrose that I would support him and would place a campaign sign in my yard showing my support. Even though I am bothered by the potential conflict of interest posed by the fact that Ambrose’s wife is an employee of the district, I have decided to support Ambrose, as a positive alternative to the current board. I am convinced that Ambrose is an independent thinker motivated by improving public education. Ambrose is a proven problem solver, and, if elected, I believe he will work to improve the board’s transparency and to positively engage the Kettering public. I’ve not yet met with Frank Spolrich, but I may support him as well.

The public will have an opportunity to meet the Kettering School Board candidates on Tuesday, October 25 at a League of Women sponsored event at 7:00 PM at the Kettering Library.  (At 6:00 the League will interview the City Council candidates.)

Jim Ambrose is the only Kettering School Board candidate with a web-site. Jim Trent and Lori Sims have a page on the Kettering Schools web-site, and here is a you-tube I made of Frank Spolrich two years ago, during his Kettering City Council race.

Some previous articles:

• To Transform A Local School System By Exercising “Local Control” — What Options May A Local Board Consider?, February 7th, 2011
• Strengthening Local Control Of Public Education Is Key To Achieving The Transformation That Is Needed, October 8th, 2010
• To Bring Excellence To Public Education We Must First Engineer A Better System, August 16th, 2010
• The Kettering School Board’s Biggest Challenge Is To Gain Public Support For Transformation, September 10th, 2009
• The League Asks This Question: “What Are The Biggest Challenges Facing The Kettering School System?”, September 9th, 2009
• What Quality Guru W. Edward Deming Had To Say About Reforming and Improving Public Education, August 30th, 2009
• OEC Says “Absolutely No Increase In Taxes” Is Not A False Statement — Dismisses Kettering Complaint, July 17th, 2009
• Throwing Money At Public Education Is Not The Answer, System Change Is Needed, January 14th, 2009
• Thinking Through Purposes and Principles Needed To Guide the Re-Design of Public Education, July 17th, 2008

Jonathan Turley, writing in an op-ed in the LA Times, says that President Obama has advanced policies that have proved a “disaster for civil liberties.”

Writes Turley, “Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. … Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.”

Turley decries the “utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama’s policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term.”

Turley says, “It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama’s policies have become secondary to his persona,” and warns,  “Obama may have flown by the fail-safe line, especially when it comes to waterboarding. For many civil libertarians, it will be virtually impossible to vote for someone who has flagrantly ignored the Convention Against Torture or its underlying Nuremberg Principles.”