There's some shady stuff in there, to be sure (some shadier than others ... ceasing prospective 401(k) employer matching is different than deliberately underfunding established pension plans).  However, my question was specifically what mergers and acquisitions had to do with this issue.  Nothing in that article said anything about it.

 

The restructuring costs paid through raiding the pension funds were often the result of mergers and acquisitions.

Interesting:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/17/public-private-compensation-in-same-ballpark.html

 

Sure... when you use comparable employment, or at least as close as you can get.

 

But the pro SB5 folks would ask you to limit your talking points to studies that compare the pay of a police officer to burger flipper at McDonald's

I earn more than my classmate who works for NASA.

Some highlights from a more comprehensive report I reviewed yesterday:

 

- Public employees in Ohio have entered into concessions totaling more than $1 billion over the past 3 years

- Even prior to SB5, public unions were routinely agreeing to wage freezes, unpaid furlough days, increased contributions to both health care and pension, and boosted productivity standards to close the gap caused by job losses

- All of this was occurring as the cost of living (food, gas, medical care, etc) was rising

 

- 183 public employee strikes between 1978 and 1980 (when the current law was enacted)

- 5 public employee strikes between 2008 and the present

 

Results of study commissioned by Protecting Ohio Protectors:

- $1,059,881,500 – savings to the taxpayers through collective bargaining concessions since 2008

- Teachers and support staff accepted wage freezes in 90% of CBA’s this year

- In 2010, no less than 65% of CBA’s entered into included at least 1 year of wage freezes, furlough days, reduced compensation, rollovers, or economic re-openers

- Many of the lower paid public employees (such as school custodians) have foregone wage increases for up to 8 years in exchange for stable health care costs

- 2/3 of teachers’ CBA altered their health care plans to create economic savings to the school district

- More than 93% of public employees already pay their entire pension contribution, with no pick-up by their employer

- On average, county and state employees already pay more than 15% of health care plans

 

Report from Policy Maters Ohio reveals recent examples of:

- Safety officers negotiating for provisions which speed response times

- Teachers negotiating for more effective classroom policies

- Nurses advocating for better staffing ratios which resulted in improved patient care

 

- Ohio Education Association estimates that public education union contracts will save a total of $700 million for the 2010-11 school year.  This figure only accounts for pre-SB5 contracts, so it is expected to rise once the post-SB5 contracts are factored in

 

 

- State of Ohio employees recently accepted reduced pay or wage freezes, furlough days, and increased costs for benefits, saving the state approx. $350 million over the next 3 years

 

- The average income of Ohioans in general increased twice as fast as that of schoolteachers in the 5 years leading up to the recession

 

- Since 2008, arbitrators have been used to resolve less than 2 percent of contract negotiations and, in instances of binding arbitration, the unions have won only half the issues presented since 2008 (thus, the charges of bias are unfounded)

 

- Moreso than any trumped up concerns over health care costs and pension pick-ups, local government funds are hurting from Kashich’s cuts to the state’s local government fund and the elimination of the estate tax which accounted for roughly $230 million annually in local revenue across the state

 

Study conducted by the Dayton Daily News revealed:

- Only roughly half of public employees in the state are in unions

- Only 6.6% of public employees have some or all of their pension contribution picked up by their employers

- Pension pick ups are routinely negotiated individually by school superintendents, city managers, and other top management level officials

- A SERB survey reveals that public employees pay an average of 9.5% of their health care premium costs for a single plan and 10.7% for a family plan

- Public employers only paid 100% health care costs in 16% of the single plans and 12% of the family plans

 

Poll: S.B. 5 headed for big defeat

Business First by Jeff Bell, Staff reporter

Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 1:44pm EDT

 

Senate Bill 5, Ohio’s controversial collective bargaining law, is headed for a big defeat on Nov. 8, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

 

The survey by Raleigh, N.C.-based Public Policy Polling found voters intend to reject S.B. 5 by a 56-to-36 percent margin by voting “no” on State Issue 2.

 

MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2011/10/19/poll-sb-5-headed-for-big-defeat.html

New poll released today shows SB5/Issue 2 losing by an even bigger 25 point margin!

 

Poll shows voters still sour on Issue 2

By Darrel Rowland, The Columbus Dispatch

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 11:59 AM

 

Two weeks before election day, Ohioans appear ready to stomp Senate Bill 5 out of existence.  The measure, on the statewide ballot as Issue 2, is going down by 25 points in a new Quinnipiac Poll released this morning.  That’s a return to the mid-summer levels, before TV advertising began.  The push to repeal the law was leading by only 13 points in a Quinnipiac Poll released Sept. 27, but by 24 points on July 20.

 

"With two weeks until Election Day, the opponents of SB 5 have strong reason to be optimistic," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in a release.  "The opponents had seen their 24-point margin in July close over the summer and early autumn.  As we enter the home stretch, however, they have once again taken a commanding lead.  Except for Republicans, just about every demographic group favors repealing the law."

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/25/poll-shows-voters-still-sour-on-issue-2.html

...

- Moreso than any trumped up concerns over health care costs and pension pick-ups, local government funds are hurting from Kashich’s cuts to the state’s local government fund and the elimination of the estate tax which accounted for roughly $230 million annually in local revenue across the state ...

 

The state's local government fund is a fairer way of paying for municipal services than local property taxes because it is funded from a progressive income tax and sales taxes.

Despite the large lead, pro repeal folks need to realize that this is not even a mid term election so it will be especially hard to forecast through polling.

Despite the large lead, pro repeal folks need to realize that this is not even a mid term election so it will be especially hard to forecast through polling.

Very true, but from the indications I've seen, the "No on 2" crowd is more motivated than the Yes crowd. That might help them turn out more people.

True.... but there are a lot of closet "yes on 2" folks.  I have yet to see a yes on 2 yard sign, bumper sticker, or pin.... and I take that to mean that people aren't being nearly as open and vocal about their support as the repeal crowd is

^my sentiments exactly

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot kind of answer is this....

 

Campaign finance reports are due Thursday to show the public who is bankrolling each side of the fight. We Are Ohio, which is backed mostly by unions, will disclose donors and amounts as well as spending, but Building a Better Ohio, which is advocating support of Issue 2, will disclose a list of donors, but not amounts.

 

When asked why Building a Better Ohio won’t disclose amounts from donors, Faber said: “It’s a simple question, ladies and gentlemen, do you want to keep doing what we have been doing, which hasn’t worked very well, or try something new?”

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/election/nation-eyeing-issue-2-result-1274650.html

True.... but there are a lot of closet "yes on 2" folks.  I have yet to see a yes on 2 yard sign, bumper sticker, or pin.... and I take that to mean that people aren't being nearly as open and vocal about their support as the repeal crowd is

This includes me, no signs, no bumper stickers..  Though I was asked by a double-dipping school administrator/neighbor if I would put a sign in my yard, while he was cleaning up his new Harley & 26 ft boat for the season.  Mums the word..

This is my "issue two" experience....I cannot believe how many of my Republican friends and relatives (and I have many) who are voting no on issue 2 and are vocal about.  These are people who, in the past, I could not convince to vote "my way" if my life depended on it no matte how hard I tried.  I almost fell over the other day when my very right of center brother told me to vote no on issue 2 and wondered where he could get a yard sign.  Very interesting.

True.... but there are a lot of closet "yes on 2" folks.  I have yet to see a yes on 2 yard sign, bumper sticker, or pin.... and I take that to mean that people aren't being nearly as open and vocal about their support as the repeal crowd is

This includes me, no signs, no bumper stickers..  Though I was asked by a double-dipping school administrator/neighbor if I would put a sign in my yard, while he was cleaning up his new Harley & 26 ft boat for the season.  Mums the word..

 

"School administrator"?  Sounds like you should be voting NO on 2 since your issue is with management.

Last thing I'll say on the issue is that there really is there is little solidarity amongst the public & private unions.  I have several firemen in my neighborhood here in Cleveland who have the signs out front.  They all drive Toyota trucks and non-UAW cars.  Ditto for local cops & teachers.  I have a buddy who is a union steward for a local manufacturing plant and he said they asked him to come in Saturday and send mailers, make calls for Issue 2 but instead he went & watched football & got drunk.  Ditto for construction guys.  Makes me wonder how many of them might accidentally forget to vote on Nov 8th.

There is very little solidarity in private unions--I have known construction trade unions that refuse to call another local in the next town over (like Cleveland to Akron) because they cannot stand the guys.  Instead they call unskilled trades and bill them out at the full skilled rates. 

 

I tend to lean to the left but already voted yes for SB5.  I have had my first-hand fill of union cronyism and waste.  This is also true in the public sector on an equally grander scale.

^as opposed to political party cronyism (both parties) which naturally flows into the administration of government.  Unfortunately nobody in Columbus seems keen to pass legislation dealing with that.

Last thing I'll say on the issue is that there really is there is little solidarity amongst the public & private unions.  I have several firemen in my neighborhood here in Cleveland who have the signs out front.  They all drive Toyota trucks and non-UAW cars.  Ditto for local cops & teachers.  I have a buddy who is a union steward for a local manufacturing plant and he said they asked him to come in Saturday and send mailers, make calls for Issue 2 but instead he went & watched football & got drunk.  Ditto for construction guys.  Makes me wonder how many of them might accidentally forget to vote on Nov 8th.

 

Both me and a friend of mine separately posted a picture of a high end Hyundai with a "stop the war on workers" bumper sticker we saw recently. 

This is my "issue two" experience....I cannot believe how many of my Republican friends and relatives (and I have many) who are voting no on issue 2 and are vocal about.  These are people who, in the past, I could not convince to vote "my way" if my life depended on it no matte how hard I tried.  I almost fell over the other day when my very right of center brother told me to vote no on issue 2 and wondered where he could get a yard sign.  Very interesting.

 

It's the cops factor.  It's why Tim Grendell opposed SB5.  It was supremely dumb to not write them out of the bill.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if the unions let it pass the legislature on purpose.  The 1983 law would be reimplemented and it's worse, in the opposite direction.  It was also pushed through on a strictly party line basis.

SB5 changes much more than the 1983 law.

 

Btw, what model Hyundai was in the picture you posted?

Both me and a friend of mine separately posted a picture of a high end Hyundai with a "stop the war on workers" bumper sticker we saw recently.

 

So what?  Hyundai has plants in North America.  :shoot:

Washington Post: Internal labor memo warns SB5 vote could go either way

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-internal-labor-memo-says-ohio-union-fight-could-go-either-way/2011/10/27/gIQANLvQMM_blog.html

Both sides are sending the same message to their supporters...... this fight ain't over yet.  The pro SB5 folks don't want their supporters throwing in the towel and staying home on election night.  The pro repeal crowd doesn't want their supporters getting complacent and not rallying their family members, friends and neighbors to the polls in full force.  But the polling can't be disregarded, especially given the numbers in favor of repeal in nearly every demographic.  The only thing the repeal crowd has to worry about is turnout, so leaking a memo like this is just what the doctor ordered.

Well.... it looks like BBO is going to make one last push by getting Sarah Palin to voice her support for Issue 2.  Great sign for the repeal crowd IMO.

Since it's expected to be overturned, Batchelder was already discussing what a revised version might contain.  Perhaps the 10% & 15% contributions,  revised rules on seniority for teachers...  what else...?

 

Since it's expected to be overturned, Batchelder was already discussing what a revised version might contain.  Perhaps the 10% & 15% contributions,  revised rules on seniority for teachers...  what else...?

 

 

How about merit pay for legislators.  For instance, for each bill you pass that is so incredibly out of touch with the will of the people that it is overturned, you must return 5% of your salary/benefits regardless of whether or not you voted for it.

 

Also, how about revised seniority for legislators?  Once you hit age 65, you are automatically retired from office to bring in fresh blood.

65 for legislators?  What about all the great things Metzenbaum & Glenn did for the state will into their 70's?

Since it's expected to be overturned, Batchelder was already discussing what a revised version might contain.  Perhaps the 10% & 15% contributions,  revised rules on seniority for teachers...  what else...?

 

In other words, what it should have been all along.  Ensuring benefits packages are similar to what private sector people see, etc.  It's probably too late to just exempt police and fire, which is what should have been done from the start (if I am not mistaken that's the way it was in Wisconsin).

65 for legislators?  What about all the great things Metzenbaum & Glenn did for the state will into their 70's?

 

I'm talking about state legislators.

 

In other words, what it should have been all along.  Ensuring benefits packages are similar to what private sector people see, etc.

 

Private sector benefits like McDonald's or Wal-Mart?  Or private sector like Goldman Sachs?

Private sector benefits like McDonald's or Wal-Mart?  Or private sector like Goldman Sachs?

 

That is kinda a problem when people (not necessarily anyone here) will want to compare a teacher to a structured daycare provider their double masters be damned.  I know, not everyone has that much education (and I'm sure there are plenty will argue it's foolish to have that much to teach) but in the district I came up in if you didn't have your masters degree applying wasn't worth your time.

During the SB5 debate, I thought both sides were being just plain pigheaded.  Now I wonder if they were thinking "let them pass what they want, we'll just get it repealed" all along.

 

The decision Tuesday is between two extremes.  Two bills passed through the legislature on strictly party line votes with abosultely no interest shown in working with the other side.  When Issue 2 fails, the 1983 law, pretty much openly passed as an effort to help the unions, not state employees, comes back.

 

Throw in the fact that it's an off year election, which usually favors smaller groups with a higher level of commitment.  Then consider that there's a lot of local elections this year, and local officials who would theoretically benefit from SB5's confirmation may not want to support it and anger union-sympathetic constituents.

I think that SB5 went to far. Once it is most likely repealed, I would like to see them come back with education reform. Remove tenure completely, make raises based on performance, not how long you've been there, and make employees pay more into their healthcare.

 

To many bad teachers are out there that cant be touched. Its a shame. Even one terrible teacher can really hurt a child's education.

I think that SB5 went to far. Once it is most likely repealed, I would like to see them come back with education reform. Remove tenure completely, make raises based on performance, not how long you've been there, and make employees pay more into their healthcare.

 

To many bad teachers are out there that cant be touched. Its a shame. Even one terrible teacher can really hurt a child's education.

 

There is no bad teacher epidemic.  Certainly some bad teachers do exist and they should be eliminated, but failure to do so is a failure on the part of administrators, not the system.  Tenure has its place.  It also protects good teachers and gives them the freedom to experiment with curriculum, disagree with supervisors on important issues, and not have to worry about losing their job to a BOE member's niece who just got her teaching license and would initially be paid significantly less.

 

How would you fairly measure "performance"?  Testing, especially not the current ODE testing, is not going to fly.

 

As for paying more into health insurance, while that would be nice, this is a bit of a red herring.  If health insurance costs weren't rising exponentially, it wouldn't even be an issue.  Perhaps we need to do something about truly instituting health insurance reform? (And no, I do not believe that Obama's plan is the answer.) 

 

But let's say that that teachers and other public sector employees begin paying no less than 15% for health insurance and 10% for pension.  The problem with SB5 is that not only is there no maximum, but now that public sector employees can no longer even negotiate for such benefits, there is little doubt that those percentages will begin to creep up as years go by (with little chance of being lowered even when the economy gets better).

 

Education is one of the few professions where everyone seems to think they're an expert despite a lack of experience or connection with the reality of the schools.  This is part of the reason why unionization is, in many ways, a necessary evil.  The people actually working in education should be the ones making the important decisions.

To many bad teachers are out there that cant be touched. Its a shame. Even one terrible teacher can really hurt a child's education.

 

Or, (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/too)

 

too

 

adverb

 

1. in addition; also; furthermore; moreover: young, clever, and rich too.

 

2. to an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable, fitting, or right: too sick to travel.

 

3. more, as specified, than should be: too near the fire.

 

4. (used as an affirmative to contradict a negative statement): I am too!

 

5. extremely; very: She wasn't too pleased with his behavior.

I believe there are more bad teachers out there then some would like to believe. And it should be a decision of the Principal, BOE and possibly fellow teachers, not just one person. And there are way more bad teachers than "BOE member's niece who just got her teaching license" out there.

 

And any scenario can be made up just like that one. What about the teacher fresh out of college who wants to make a difference and can be a great teacher. There are no openings though because although one school has five terrible teachers, it is almost impossible to fire them. Those jobs could have be given to people who cared, if it weren't for tenure.

 

And I said SB5 went too far. But 15% is far less than the national average. Ive heard people who make over $90,000 saying they wouldn't know what they would do if they had to pay 15%. Now that is being out of touch with society.

I'd say fellow teachers would be a necessity.  Otherwise, you give too much influence to the local book burners club or any other highly vocal group of parents in the process because the BOE has to listen to them and the Principals are pretty much direct agents of the Board.  Not that involving peers doesn't create it's own set of issues, but I still think it's important.

I believe there are more bad teachers out there then some would like to believe.

 

Why do you "believe" that?

It is far from imposssible to fire a "terrible" teacher.  It may be difficult to uphold the termination of a "questionable" teacher, but nothing prevents just cause terminations..... not union contracts, not tenure.  Now firing bad parents on the other hand.....

I'd love to see some statistics on how many "bad" teachers have been fired in the last decade.  Even more interesting would be to compare public school unionized teachers vs private school non-union teachers. 

There have been plenty of "for cause" teacher firings.  Try google for confirmation of that.  But the specific statistic you are looking for is too subjective to be quantified as a statistic.  It would be just as difficult to determine how many "good" teachers have been fired from private schools.

 

The assumption that all unions do is save bad teachers' jobs is unfortunate.  That's what those who think they can manipulate your POVs will tell you.  They fail to mention that unions have no power to decide whether just cause exists.  That is done by a MUTUALLY SELECTED third party neutral who evaluates the facts without bias or prejudice and, more importantly, without an agenda.  The process saves more "good" teachers' jobs than it does for the truly bad teachers.

The assumption that all unions do is save bad teachers' jobs is unfortunate.  That's what those who think they can manipulate your POVs will tell you.  They fail to mention that unions have no power to decide whether just cause exists.  That is done by a MUTUALLY SELECTED third party neutral who evaluates the facts without bias or prejudice and, more importantly, without an agenda.  The process saves more "good" teachers' jobs than it does for the truly bad teachers.

 

^ What is your experience with teachers and/or teachers unions that leads you to believe this?  I certainly don't think the exclusive purpose of a union is to save a bad teacher's job, but I know it happens (along with other things that don't make a lot of sense to me).  So, could you be clear:  are you suggesting bad teacher's don't frequently keep their job because of union influence?

Hts121 you really are sugarcoating the process...  schools need to build an airtight case to fire a lazy or incompetent teacher, and this takes alot of time and effort.  Even then, when schools have put in the time & effort, they still have to battle with the teacher's union rep which will undoubtedly appeal the matter, request more documentation, more evidence, more hearings, etc which keeps the teacher on board even longer.  In the face of this lengthy, costly and draining process, schools have little choice but to keep these bad teachers on staff because they don't have the time & energy to get rid of them.  Everybody in the school system knows this.

^"Airtight"... hardly.  Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof which the administration needs to meet.  It simply needs to tilt the balance in its favor.  50.1%.  Yes, there is an appeal process.  SB5 does nothing to change this.  SB5 does nothing to change the fact that teachers can challenge their terminations.  SB5 has nothing to do with terminations, so why are we even discussing it?  SB5 addresses "LAYOFFS".  There is a difference.  A big difference.  Not that the talking heads want you to know that.  Talk about sugarcoating.  People, people..... KNOW WHAT YOU ARE VOTING ON TOMORROW.

 

^^I've done some light work with teachers, but my main focus is on safety forces.  But, regardless, there are plenty of times when a union simply won't defend one of its members who clearly have committed a terminable infraction.  The cost to the union has to be justified.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that what you may call a "bad" teacher never keeps his/her job because of union assistance ("influence" is more of a talking point in this context).  The union hires an attorney to defend the teacher against the charges purportedly justifying termination (which must be provided in advance pursuant to the Federal Constitution's due process clause) and secure the teacher's rights (i.e. making sure the grievance is timely filed and processed).  The burden (oince again due to the Federal Constitution) is on the administration to show that just cause exists.  If the administration fails to make that showing and/or the union satisfactorily shows that the firing was for ulterior motives, then the teacher is reinstated.  But if the administration does meet its burden of proof, then the termination would be upheld.  Simple as that.  Being a "bad" teacher would constitute just cause for termination, especially when the principles of progressive discipline have alreay been met. 

 

More from No on 2 Republicans..

 

Thanks for reiterating my point.  Having a legal hearing to justify such a move is absurd.  Of course school districts don't want to mess with attorney fees and legal hearings.  What are the chances that a local school administration will have an attorney who is as skilled or experienced as the one the union provides???

Very good as a matter of fact.  School boards tend to hire from big, employer based firms.  Unions can't afford that.  I'm pretty sure this is the guy who handles CMSD - http://www.superlawyers.com/ohio/lawyer/Craig-M-Brown/eb27df2c-10e7-4a72-889b-75de3d6f71ed.html

 

While I realize it is impossible to sway a rock, you may want to look into how public employment and due process intermingle.  The United States Supreme Court has held that civil servants in Ohio have a constitutionally protected property right in their employment that can not be deprived without due process of law.  But, again, why do the pro-SB5 folks keep bringing up issues with firing bad teachers?  How is that relevant to the debate?  Can anyone intelligently explain that to me?  I guess I should just start telling people that I am voting No on 2 because I want our cops to be able to carry guns.

SB5 addresses "LAYOFFS"

 

Specifically layoffs dealing with finances, nothing else.  Reduction In Force (RIF).

 

All things equal the system does work.  Until a teacher is granted tenure (which is 7 years MINIMUM now after Strickland) a teacher is an “at will” employee, meaning they are on a yearly contract.  Administration has 7 years to decide if that teacher should or should not be teaching in that district.  Management, along with a school board (you know the public), have to vote on approving teachers for tenure as well.  And all tenure guarantees is that due process if followed, nothing more, nothing less.  I cannot emphasize this enough; bad teachers are usually a result of bad administration and their failure to manage their staff.  This is mainly due to the fact that they have been cut back to next to nothing over the last 10 years.  Firing a tenure teachers takes more paper work, but it is nothing near impossible. 

 

For the record, I am a teacher and I also sit on the board of directors for OEA (the teachers union).  I testified infront of the senate during the hirings in Feb and have worked with We Are Ohio since they formed in April.  If you got questions, ask away.  Minus what HTS has been saying, most of what I have seen here is woefully inaccurate .   

 

Of course school districts don't want to mess with attorney fees and legal hearings. 

 

Again, it goes back to management to do their job.  I have seen plenty of times were the association has refused legal services to people. 

 

In NE Ohio the big 3 law firms in education offer ”insurance" to district to handle these matters, so it is cheaper for the schools to take legal action.  Districts are equipped fairly well to handle these matters, not to sound patronizing, but you would know that if you spent 5 minutes in education. 

 

Like someone said above, because everyone went to a school they feel as if they are an expert in it. 

 

Did you know that the US has ALWAYS ranked in the middle of the pack in education, yep, even in the 50's and 60's. 

^"Airtight"... hardly.  Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof which the administration needs to meet.  It simply needs to tilt the balance in its favor.  50.1%.  Yes, there is an appeal process.  SB5 does nothing to change this.  SB5 does nothing to change the fact that teachers can challenge their terminations.  SB5 has nothing to do with terminations, so why are we even discussing it?  SB5 addresses "LAYOFFS".  There is a difference.  A big difference.  Not that the talking heads want you to know that.  Talk about sugarcoating.  People, people..... KNOW WHAT YOU ARE VOTING ON TOMORROW.

 

^^I've done some light work with teachers, but my main focus is on safety forces.  But, regardless, there are plenty of times when a union simply won't defend one of its members who clearly have committed a terminable infraction.  The cost to the union has to be justified.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that what you may call a "bad" teacher never keeps his/her job because of union assistance ("influence" is more of a talking point in this context).  The union hires an attorney to defend the teacher against the charges purportedly justifying termination (which must be provided in advance pursuant to the Federal Constitution's due process clause) and secure the teacher's rights (i.e. making sure the grievance is timely filed and processed).  The burden (oince again due to the Federal Constitution) is on the administration to show that just cause exists.  If the administration fails to make that showing and/or the union satisfactorily shows that the firing was for ulterior motives, then the teacher is reinstated.  But if the administration does meet its burden of proof, then the termination would be upheld.  Simple as that.  Being a "bad" teacher would constitute just cause for termination, especially when the principles of progressive discipline have alreay been met. 

 

More from No on 2 Republicans..

 

 

Seitz pretty much says it all, vis a vis SB5.  Tim Grendell, probably the most Tea Party oriented state legislator, said the same things.

 

However, Issue 2 reimposes the equally unbalanced Celeste-Branstool law.    I'm leaving it blank, and voting for Issue 3 (wish I could do that twice since I am not voting on 2 lol).

I still don't understand what the purpose of Issue 3 is.  It seems purely symbolic in its best light.

 

What's "unbalanced" about the 1983 law?