Lakewood Employee Residential Restrictions
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Chuck Greanoff
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:16 am
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
Having read various posts here I feel stronger than ever Lakewood's future would be better with a residency requirement placed on:
1). City Administration and safety forces
a). The Mayor and all his cabinet should be required to be Lakewood residents.
b). Both Police and Fire workers should be required to live in Lakewood.
c). The hiring practices for all other city positions should be such that Lakewood residents are heavily favored for positions.
2). Lakewood School System
a). School Administration should be required to be Lakewood residents.
b). School teachers should be required to be Lakewood residents.
c). The hiring practices for all other school positions should be such that Lakewood residents are heavily favored for positions.
Of course, little of this could happen overnight. Contracts need to be agreed to and new policies set. The entire process should be grandfathered in so it does not affect any existing employees. A clause would need to address what would be done if a spouse had a job for another city that had a residence requirement. By grandfathering the requirement in, the first year you would only be looking for a couple people. It makes the process gradual and easy to do.
Reading down the above list, I realize almost everyone in the a and b groups make more than Lakewood's average income. It is not good for these high paying positions to go to outside cities. I know from past discussions that many in Lakewood want to attract higher income people to Lakewood. That was one of the reasons for the failed West End project. While that was done all wrong, the goal of increasing our city's average income is a legitimate reason for taking action. A residency requirement for these public positions is a solid way to keep Lakewood dollars in Lakewood.
I have heard some argue that since a residency requirement will reduce the quality of our teachers. I find it slighty odd that teachers are mentioned and not any of the other professions. Won't that argument make more sense with Law Director or Mayor or our safety forces? If my house is on fire, I want the best darn firefighters working to put is out and maybe save my life.
But let's realistically look at the teaching arguement. I know there are educational degrees required to ensure any and all new teachers have been successfully trained to do their job (not something I could say about Mayors). I know of many Lakewood educated people who have gone through the Lakewood school system, admired the educational environment and determined that was what they wanted to do. They worked hard and got a degree to become a teacher. Now they are unable to find a teaching position. These are exactly the type of people I would think Lakewood would want being our teachers.
As I understand the teaching profession, you start at the beginning in a system and then you stay in that system until you retire. You start at the bottom of the teaching level and work your way up. Please keep in mind, this is a union. Many more decisions are based on years of service than the quality of the teacher. I'm not knocking unions, but their purpose is to work for the teachers best interests, not the quality of education. After a teacher works a few years and gets several increases, they are too expensive for another school system to hire. Is this true? Help me out. Take a look at Lakewood's hiring practices. Does Lakewood hire primarily new teachers or do they hire for top level teaching positions experienced teachers from outside the system?
I am usually a proponent of less government over more, but here, I need to look at getting the most value out of my tax dollars. Lakewood pays good salaries and provides good benefits. These are quality jobs that are in high demand. The people that have these positions are for the most part well respected. These are the type of people we want to live in Lakewood. I want these people to call Lakewood home. A residency requirement will more directly see that that happens than any of the other creative ideas I have read here and elsewhere.
Having read various posts here I feel stronger than ever Lakewood's future would be better with a residency requirement placed on:
1). City Administration and safety forces
a). The Mayor and all his cabinet should be required to be Lakewood residents.
b). Both Police and Fire workers should be required to live in Lakewood.
c). The hiring practices for all other city positions should be such that Lakewood residents are heavily favored for positions.
2). Lakewood School System
a). School Administration should be required to be Lakewood residents.
b). School teachers should be required to be Lakewood residents.
c). The hiring practices for all other school positions should be such that Lakewood residents are heavily favored for positions.
Of course, little of this could happen overnight. Contracts need to be agreed to and new policies set. The entire process should be grandfathered in so it does not affect any existing employees. A clause would need to address what would be done if a spouse had a job for another city that had a residence requirement. By grandfathering the requirement in, the first year you would only be looking for a couple people. It makes the process gradual and easy to do.
Reading down the above list, I realize almost everyone in the a and b groups make more than Lakewood's average income. It is not good for these high paying positions to go to outside cities. I know from past discussions that many in Lakewood want to attract higher income people to Lakewood. That was one of the reasons for the failed West End project. While that was done all wrong, the goal of increasing our city's average income is a legitimate reason for taking action. A residency requirement for these public positions is a solid way to keep Lakewood dollars in Lakewood.
I have heard some argue that since a residency requirement will reduce the quality of our teachers. I find it slighty odd that teachers are mentioned and not any of the other professions. Won't that argument make more sense with Law Director or Mayor or our safety forces? If my house is on fire, I want the best darn firefighters working to put is out and maybe save my life.
But let's realistically look at the teaching arguement. I know there are educational degrees required to ensure any and all new teachers have been successfully trained to do their job (not something I could say about Mayors). I know of many Lakewood educated people who have gone through the Lakewood school system, admired the educational environment and determined that was what they wanted to do. They worked hard and got a degree to become a teacher. Now they are unable to find a teaching position. These are exactly the type of people I would think Lakewood would want being our teachers.
As I understand the teaching profession, you start at the beginning in a system and then you stay in that system until you retire. You start at the bottom of the teaching level and work your way up. Please keep in mind, this is a union. Many more decisions are based on years of service than the quality of the teacher. I'm not knocking unions, but their purpose is to work for the teachers best interests, not the quality of education. After a teacher works a few years and gets several increases, they are too expensive for another school system to hire. Is this true? Help me out. Take a look at Lakewood's hiring practices. Does Lakewood hire primarily new teachers or do they hire for top level teaching positions experienced teachers from outside the system?
I am usually a proponent of less government over more, but here, I need to look at getting the most value out of my tax dollars. Lakewood pays good salaries and provides good benefits. These are quality jobs that are in high demand. The people that have these positions are for the most part well respected. These are the type of people we want to live in Lakewood. I want these people to call Lakewood home. A residency requirement will more directly see that that happens than any of the other creative ideas I have read here and elsewhere.
-
Dan Slife
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:58 am
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Somewhere in the depths of this vast post one good neighbor had mentioned the idea of ëbreedingàpublics servants for the job. This got me to thinking about education in general. If weÃÂre going to talk about customized education for public servants it will be helpful to discuss the shortfalls of a post-modern college education regarding preserving the soul/essence of our urban space. This is fundamental to countering the problem of absentee public servants and their drawing of resources (some of the best middle-class jobs out there), away from a cyclic relationship to the economics and civics WITHIN the city. The linear mode of extraction from the public good shares a symbiotic relationship to the linear mode by which credentialing ëeducationalàinstitutions process students.
I assume a correlation beyond time/coincidence between the mass urban exoduses to auto-dependent caucasian communities and the shift in North American liberal arts curriculum from educating to credentialing. Insofar as both events are indicative of a values reorientation, both indicate a disinvestment in urban space in favor of a class climbing, consumption oriented paradigm.
In Dark Age Ahead, economist and urbanist Jane Jacobs devotes an entire chapter to the transformation of public universities during the 1960ÃÂs from ìeducating to credentialingî. Complaints from students during this era included ìdetached professorsÖÖ..not placing them in the path of wisdomî. Jacobs goes on to explain that as the decade progressed, the next generation of students apathetically accepted that college was a necessary initiation into the career world. ItÃÂs import to remember that prior to this shift, a B.A. was nothing close to a career credential. The ideal of such was to foster a critically thinking and culturally knowledgeable mass of citizenry in hopes of maintaining the strength of the nation-state. This mode of educating was/is essential to maintaining democratic society and is other than the professionalism that has since uprooted it. Pre-1960ÃÂs ideals spoke more to vocation and civility than class climbing and material wealth. Inflated class climbing and consumption based values go hand-in-hand with desirability for sub/exurbia as commodity over authentic community in dense urban space.
The dilemma in LakewoodÃÂs public service sector can be seen as phenomena of the times, for better of for worse, it is what it is.
The question is; Does Lakewood, as the community that might know itself, value preserving something of the old? Obviously, things should/could transform. Preservation does not mean regression. IÃÂm suggesting that a curriculum capturing some of the values that have historically animated our urban space may serve to counter the negative effects of the credentialing university education. These negative effects include, but are not limited to, class-climbing (exit Leakwood) public servants, disinvestment in civic health and the negative energy brought to the scene by those not finding a sense of reverence in the place and people they serve.
I would like to see public service education coming out of the high school as a vocational program. Perhaps this could carry-over into a post-secondary, library-based program taping volunteer hours and getting these kids into internships and eventually gainful employment in the very city that invested so much in them.
I would call this stemming ëcivic brain-drainÃÂ
I assume a correlation beyond time/coincidence between the mass urban exoduses to auto-dependent caucasian communities and the shift in North American liberal arts curriculum from educating to credentialing. Insofar as both events are indicative of a values reorientation, both indicate a disinvestment in urban space in favor of a class climbing, consumption oriented paradigm.
In Dark Age Ahead, economist and urbanist Jane Jacobs devotes an entire chapter to the transformation of public universities during the 1960ÃÂs from ìeducating to credentialingî. Complaints from students during this era included ìdetached professorsÖÖ..not placing them in the path of wisdomî. Jacobs goes on to explain that as the decade progressed, the next generation of students apathetically accepted that college was a necessary initiation into the career world. ItÃÂs import to remember that prior to this shift, a B.A. was nothing close to a career credential. The ideal of such was to foster a critically thinking and culturally knowledgeable mass of citizenry in hopes of maintaining the strength of the nation-state. This mode of educating was/is essential to maintaining democratic society and is other than the professionalism that has since uprooted it. Pre-1960ÃÂs ideals spoke more to vocation and civility than class climbing and material wealth. Inflated class climbing and consumption based values go hand-in-hand with desirability for sub/exurbia as commodity over authentic community in dense urban space.
The dilemma in LakewoodÃÂs public service sector can be seen as phenomena of the times, for better of for worse, it is what it is.
The question is; Does Lakewood, as the community that might know itself, value preserving something of the old? Obviously, things should/could transform. Preservation does not mean regression. IÃÂm suggesting that a curriculum capturing some of the values that have historically animated our urban space may serve to counter the negative effects of the credentialing university education. These negative effects include, but are not limited to, class-climbing (exit Leakwood) public servants, disinvestment in civic health and the negative energy brought to the scene by those not finding a sense of reverence in the place and people they serve.
I would like to see public service education coming out of the high school as a vocational program. Perhaps this could carry-over into a post-secondary, library-based program taping volunteer hours and getting these kids into internships and eventually gainful employment in the very city that invested so much in them.
I would call this stemming ëcivic brain-drainÃÂ
Dan Slife
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
Last week, as I was waiting for a departing flight at Hopkins, I ran into Mayor George. The Council meeting which caused this issue to "awaken" was fresh in my mind, and I mentioned my concerns to the Mayor. While not taking a position on the issue, he did indicate that there has been some constitutional issues with residency requirements. He also seemed very concerned with the Union work rules that tend to bind the administration's hands when attempting to institute novel or needed programs.
I would tend to believe that, given the existence of residency requirements in a good number of communities, a carefully drawn ordinance could survive any potential challenge (realizing that there may/will be costs associated with the fight).
The union issue is another matter. I can envision a very strong push against any such legislation, although, given the absence of residency of the bulk of the memberships, it would certainly have to be a fight through a proxy. Clearly the political ramifications by way of labor endorsements would be huge for any Politician seeking such legislation.
As I consider the issue, it appears to me that there is probably little interest in such a politically charged, suicidal, fight. I don't see the effort towards and residency requirements coming from City Hall. I think what would be required is a grass roots, charter amendment petiton drive to allow the voters to decide the issue.
So, as we discuss the issue further, I see only three choices:
1) Allow the current situation to continue;
2) Attempt to generate a residency DESIRE though various programs, loans, hiring preferences, overall better quality of Lakewood life and creating a reward for making the "right" residency choice;
3) Forcing the issue through charter amendments (with a grandfather clause to avoid constitutional issues).
Option #1 is unacceptable. Option # 2 may be workable, but would nevertheless require the active participation of City Hall to provide the underlying programs, financing, etc. which leads me to believe that it is unlikely to be undertaken. Option # 3, if done outside the City Hall environs, might possibly work, but would require one hell of an effort.
Bottom line still remains ownership. Without question, owner/employees are more "dialed in", more likely to view the "big picture" and do more towards maintaining the quality of life as it affects both their home and paycheck.
So....what now?
Jeff
I would tend to believe that, given the existence of residency requirements in a good number of communities, a carefully drawn ordinance could survive any potential challenge (realizing that there may/will be costs associated with the fight).
The union issue is another matter. I can envision a very strong push against any such legislation, although, given the absence of residency of the bulk of the memberships, it would certainly have to be a fight through a proxy. Clearly the political ramifications by way of labor endorsements would be huge for any Politician seeking such legislation.
As I consider the issue, it appears to me that there is probably little interest in such a politically charged, suicidal, fight. I don't see the effort towards and residency requirements coming from City Hall. I think what would be required is a grass roots, charter amendment petiton drive to allow the voters to decide the issue.
So, as we discuss the issue further, I see only three choices:
1) Allow the current situation to continue;
2) Attempt to generate a residency DESIRE though various programs, loans, hiring preferences, overall better quality of Lakewood life and creating a reward for making the "right" residency choice;
3) Forcing the issue through charter amendments (with a grandfather clause to avoid constitutional issues).
Option #1 is unacceptable. Option # 2 may be workable, but would nevertheless require the active participation of City Hall to provide the underlying programs, financing, etc. which leads me to believe that it is unlikely to be undertaken. Option # 3, if done outside the City Hall environs, might possibly work, but would require one hell of an effort.
Bottom line still remains ownership. Without question, owner/employees are more "dialed in", more likely to view the "big picture" and do more towards maintaining the quality of life as it affects both their home and paycheck.
So....what now?
Jeff
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
In thinking about this further, I can see where there is a process to alter the practice of City government by way of either a Charter Amendment.
But I have to ask, if the majority of citizens would support a residency requirement for School employees such as Administrators and teachers, how could we affect this change? I do not believe the School system's operation can be altered by a Charter Amendment or Referendum, or can it?
In thinking about this further, I can see where there is a process to alter the practice of City government by way of either a Charter Amendment.
But I have to ask, if the majority of citizens would support a residency requirement for School employees such as Administrators and teachers, how could we affect this change? I do not believe the School system's operation can be altered by a Charter Amendment or Referendum, or can it?
-
Ryan Patrick Demro
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:34 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Residency Requirements
I was asked to give my position on this issue in another thread. So here it is:
I believe that residency requirements unnecessarily restrict the potential pool of qualified candidates for a position, be it in the city or the schools. I also feel it is important and beneficial for our city and school employees to be members of the community. I would propose a system of incentives rather than a requirement to work for a public entity in Lakewood. I will just throw out some examples, please don't construe this as proposed legislation. Maybe we could have a housing rebate. We currently have a program to help renters become homeowners in the city. Why not expland the program to include public employees? We could offer a benefits package that includes a housing allowance of some type. There are many other ways to encourage people to live and work here. What I think is appalling and should have been corrected by the charter commission is the section of the charter that does not allow an employee of the Lakewood City Schools to be a member of Lakewood City Council. Now explain that logic to me? Here are some counter examples that you will need to also explain:
1) Why should Ed Favre, who works for the City, be allowed to serve on the school board? Isn't the principle the same just reversed?
2) If the issue is "double dipping" shouldn't we prohibit all employees of other government entities from serving on city council? That would throw off Dever, Madigan, Seelie before he retired, and Ed Fitzgerald before he left the county prosecutors office.
3) I worked with a few people at Lakewood High that have expressed interest in running for city council, and an even greater number who would be well qualified, but they are prohibited by this section of the charter.
Am I missing something here?
I believe that residency requirements unnecessarily restrict the potential pool of qualified candidates for a position, be it in the city or the schools. I also feel it is important and beneficial for our city and school employees to be members of the community. I would propose a system of incentives rather than a requirement to work for a public entity in Lakewood. I will just throw out some examples, please don't construe this as proposed legislation. Maybe we could have a housing rebate. We currently have a program to help renters become homeowners in the city. Why not expland the program to include public employees? We could offer a benefits package that includes a housing allowance of some type. There are many other ways to encourage people to live and work here. What I think is appalling and should have been corrected by the charter commission is the section of the charter that does not allow an employee of the Lakewood City Schools to be a member of Lakewood City Council. Now explain that logic to me? Here are some counter examples that you will need to also explain:
1) Why should Ed Favre, who works for the City, be allowed to serve on the school board? Isn't the principle the same just reversed?
2) If the issue is "double dipping" shouldn't we prohibit all employees of other government entities from serving on city council? That would throw off Dever, Madigan, Seelie before he retired, and Ed Fitzgerald before he left the county prosecutors office.
3) I worked with a few people at Lakewood High that have expressed interest in running for city council, and an even greater number who would be well qualified, but they are prohibited by this section of the charter.
Am I missing something here?
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
Ryan;
I think the "talent pool" argument is hollow. In this day and age, relocation for employment tends to be the norm. Yes, there may be some qualified persons who don't wish to leave the Shangrala of Westlake to obtain employment here, but I dare say that there are an equal number from Buffalo, Pittsburgh and other depressed areas who would welcome the opportunity. The talent pools issue only arises when you limit your pool to Northeastern Ohio, and the pool members already have established homes, schools, etc. Is the lure of a job in Lakewood sufficient to force a move? However, compete nationally, and the issue is dramactically minimized. If an out of town employee would have to relocate anyway, then requiring that relocation to Lakewood as a job requirement shouldn't be a deal breaker. So, the issue revolves around how the talent pool is defined, and what measures are undertaken to import those who would be relocating in any event. We have all witnessed the job fairs sponsred by out of state hospitals to recruit nurses, out of state police departments luring away laid off Cleveland Cops. So, you expand the scope of your search. I'd be willing to bet that as other cities are forced into lay-off mode, we could pick up some well qualified workers.
As far as Ed serving on the school board while being a city emploee, I would agree it the reverse of the School employee/council member issue. I would also agree that it makes no sense, assuming that there is no conflict of interest involved. Let's look into changing it.
As to the "double dip" issue, I certainly agree with you. As things now stand, qualified persons are forced to limit the manner in which they can serve. I would assume that the basis for the limitation is avoidance of the appearance of impropriety, not dealing with legislative or regulatory issues which may also affect your income. But, by and large, the numbers here would be limited to elective part time paying positions, and there are only a handful.
I think that the ideas of financials incentives is wonderful....AND it works into the discussion elsewhere on Lakewood Community Currency (Is it too late to buy those silver bars?). Extending some type of tax rebate, low interest low interest loan or the like might well provide the city the ability to offer employees more while actually paying out less. It should be investigated.
Jeff
I think the "talent pool" argument is hollow. In this day and age, relocation for employment tends to be the norm. Yes, there may be some qualified persons who don't wish to leave the Shangrala of Westlake to obtain employment here, but I dare say that there are an equal number from Buffalo, Pittsburgh and other depressed areas who would welcome the opportunity. The talent pools issue only arises when you limit your pool to Northeastern Ohio, and the pool members already have established homes, schools, etc. Is the lure of a job in Lakewood sufficient to force a move? However, compete nationally, and the issue is dramactically minimized. If an out of town employee would have to relocate anyway, then requiring that relocation to Lakewood as a job requirement shouldn't be a deal breaker. So, the issue revolves around how the talent pool is defined, and what measures are undertaken to import those who would be relocating in any event. We have all witnessed the job fairs sponsred by out of state hospitals to recruit nurses, out of state police departments luring away laid off Cleveland Cops. So, you expand the scope of your search. I'd be willing to bet that as other cities are forced into lay-off mode, we could pick up some well qualified workers.
As far as Ed serving on the school board while being a city emploee, I would agree it the reverse of the School employee/council member issue. I would also agree that it makes no sense, assuming that there is no conflict of interest involved. Let's look into changing it.
As to the "double dip" issue, I certainly agree with you. As things now stand, qualified persons are forced to limit the manner in which they can serve. I would assume that the basis for the limitation is avoidance of the appearance of impropriety, not dealing with legislative or regulatory issues which may also affect your income. But, by and large, the numbers here would be limited to elective part time paying positions, and there are only a handful.
I think that the ideas of financials incentives is wonderful....AND it works into the discussion elsewhere on Lakewood Community Currency (Is it too late to buy those silver bars?). Extending some type of tax rebate, low interest low interest loan or the like might well provide the city the ability to offer employees more while actually paying out less. It should be investigated.
Jeff
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
What I think is appalling and should have been corrected by the charter commission is the section of the charter that does not allow an employee of the Lakewood City Schools to be a member of Lakewood City Council. Now explain that logic to me? Here are some counter examples that you will need to also explain:
1) Why should Ed Favre, who works for the City, be allowed to serve on the school board? Isn't the principle the same just reversed?
Ryan, this was in the existing charter and the charter commission considered it. There were members of the charter who felt strongly that teachers have a very special role in our children's lives. They were concerned about the possibility of conflict between the child of a parent who strongly opposed a council persons position on something and were worried about the ramifications to that child. The reverse isn't really a problem.
I don't think that the pool of available talent is an issue either. We have to get over this "we are not worthy" syndrome. I'm tired of hearing that qualified people wouldn't want to live in Lakewood. We already have extremely qualified people living here. Of all the positions discussed, I think the planning director most importantly should live in Lakewood.
There were also good cases made by citizens in a post 9/11 world why safety forces should be living in Lakewood. We didn't change it in the charter but many people thought a grandfather clause was a good idea.
1) Why should Ed Favre, who works for the City, be allowed to serve on the school board? Isn't the principle the same just reversed?
Ryan, this was in the existing charter and the charter commission considered it. There were members of the charter who felt strongly that teachers have a very special role in our children's lives. They were concerned about the possibility of conflict between the child of a parent who strongly opposed a council persons position on something and were worried about the ramifications to that child. The reverse isn't really a problem.
I don't think that the pool of available talent is an issue either. We have to get over this "we are not worthy" syndrome. I'm tired of hearing that qualified people wouldn't want to live in Lakewood. We already have extremely qualified people living here. Of all the positions discussed, I think the planning director most importantly should live in Lakewood.
There were also good cases made by citizens in a post 9/11 world why safety forces should be living in Lakewood. We didn't change it in the charter but many people thought a grandfather clause was a good idea.
-
Ryan Patrick Demro
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:34 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Residency Requirement
Lynn & Jeff,
Good points on the residency requirement. I guess I hadn't looked at it that way and maybe we should limit residency.
Lynn, as far as the teacher bit goes, that is pure BS. I know who the actors were on the committee who stopped that change. Teachers are held to professional requirements that demand that they represent all opinions and perspectives in their teaching. It is not a place to spout off one's personal opinion. Disciplinary action can be used to address those scenarios. Teachers are one of the most trusted professions, up there with nurses. I think this one is going the way of the citizen initiative :)
Good points on the residency requirement. I guess I hadn't looked at it that way and maybe we should limit residency.
Lynn, as far as the teacher bit goes, that is pure BS. I know who the actors were on the committee who stopped that change. Teachers are held to professional requirements that demand that they represent all opinions and perspectives in their teaching. It is not a place to spout off one's personal opinion. Disciplinary action can be used to address those scenarios. Teachers are one of the most trusted professions, up there with nurses. I think this one is going the way of the citizen initiative :)
-
Mary Anne Crampton
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:34 am
With regard to teachers and residency requirements, we are missing a key element....diversity. I think it is safe to say that those of us who are active in this civic community have a great appreciation for the value of the diversity of thought, race, background, education and lifestyle. Why would we say that a person who, for any reason, does/can not move here is not worthy of teaching our kids? And why are we talking about securing laid-off teachers from other communities and not talking about securing the best possible candidates to teach here? Period.
These judgements about people who may not want to live here are simplistic and deny them their human nature. Teachers have lives....that means they have spouses, kids, parents, special needs and special interests that all play into where they live.
What does where someone live have to do with their abililty to teach? If we want to hire civic activists, then lets hire civic activists. If we want teachers, let's hire teachers, and in the meantime, let's keep working our tail off to make this school system and this community is so desirable that we are attracting top talent who want to call Lakewood home. I just don't like the idea of forced "sameness" for the people who have such a huge impact on our kids lives. Shades of the book, The Giver.
That said, I fully support the incentive concept....teaching is a tough job with limited financial reward and anything we can do to support great teachers is worthwhile.
Mary Anne[/u]
These judgements about people who may not want to live here are simplistic and deny them their human nature. Teachers have lives....that means they have spouses, kids, parents, special needs and special interests that all play into where they live.
What does where someone live have to do with their abililty to teach? If we want to hire civic activists, then lets hire civic activists. If we want teachers, let's hire teachers, and in the meantime, let's keep working our tail off to make this school system and this community is so desirable that we are attracting top talent who want to call Lakewood home. I just don't like the idea of forced "sameness" for the people who have such a huge impact on our kids lives. Shades of the book, The Giver.
That said, I fully support the incentive concept....teaching is a tough job with limited financial reward and anything we can do to support great teachers is worthwhile.
Mary Anne[/u]
-
stephen davis
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:49 pm
- Location: lakewood, ohio
Ryan,
Yes, you are missing something here.
You are mixing issues a little bit. I am not prepared to address the residency issue, but I am a little prepared to address your Charter Commission misunderstandings. Maybe a Lakewood Observer Forum administrator could later move this all to a new thread. The Lakewood City Charter, and the debates around it are so interesting that it could be its own topic, or even have its own heading in the Forum Index.
I was on the CitizensàGovernance Task Force that helped to create our current charter. I was also a member of the most recent Charter Commission. I was recommended to that commission by Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Dunn, and you.
First, I donÃÂt feel that it is ìappallingî that the Charter does not allow an employee of the Lakewood City Schools to be a member of Lakewood City Council. The hyperbole, notwithstanding, I donÃÂt even agree that the Charter be changed in this area.
LetÃÂs talk about your three numbered ìcounter examplesî.
Number 1):
The Schools and the City are entirely separate governing bodies. Each has their own responsibilities and rules, or ìcharters,î if you will.
All organizations must determine the best practices and protections to achieve their goals. Between them, at times, these practices may appear to be contradictory. For example, a foreign born person cannot be president of the United States, but could be mayor of Lakewood.
You will remember the lively discussion about why a teacher might not serve on City Council. I remember, in particular, your long conversation with Commission Chairman Ed Patton. EdÃÂs opinion was that because the council/public relationship is sometimes very contentious, a student might (Might, not will.) suffer a lower grade because a relative had an opinion contrary to his/her teacher/councilperson.
This scenario, if played out in a real, or even perceived way, would be damaging to the student, school system, city, parent, and not the least, teacher.
Professional requirements and standards have never stopped all humans from abusing their professional positions.
I donÃÂt recall the exact numbers of the CommissionÃÂs vote on this, but I do remember that it was very close to unanimous to leave that part of the Charter unchanged.
Number 2):
I donÃÂt remember ANY discussion of ìdouble dippingî, for OR against.
I was the only one with perfect attendance for both Charter reviews, but I could have missed something.
Number 3):
I have known teachers that work, but not live, in Lakewood that have held elected positions in their own town. IÃÂm not sure, but I donÃÂt think a Lakewood teacher can be on the Lakewood School Board. (If somebody knows the facts on this, please pass them on.)
I guess ALL people just have to set priorities, and choose how, and where, to best live their lives.
Steve
Yes, you are missing something here.
You are mixing issues a little bit. I am not prepared to address the residency issue, but I am a little prepared to address your Charter Commission misunderstandings. Maybe a Lakewood Observer Forum administrator could later move this all to a new thread. The Lakewood City Charter, and the debates around it are so interesting that it could be its own topic, or even have its own heading in the Forum Index.
I was on the CitizensàGovernance Task Force that helped to create our current charter. I was also a member of the most recent Charter Commission. I was recommended to that commission by Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Dunn, and you.
First, I donÃÂt feel that it is ìappallingî that the Charter does not allow an employee of the Lakewood City Schools to be a member of Lakewood City Council. The hyperbole, notwithstanding, I donÃÂt even agree that the Charter be changed in this area.
LetÃÂs talk about your three numbered ìcounter examplesî.
Number 1):
The Schools and the City are entirely separate governing bodies. Each has their own responsibilities and rules, or ìcharters,î if you will.
All organizations must determine the best practices and protections to achieve their goals. Between them, at times, these practices may appear to be contradictory. For example, a foreign born person cannot be president of the United States, but could be mayor of Lakewood.
You will remember the lively discussion about why a teacher might not serve on City Council. I remember, in particular, your long conversation with Commission Chairman Ed Patton. EdÃÂs opinion was that because the council/public relationship is sometimes very contentious, a student might (Might, not will.) suffer a lower grade because a relative had an opinion contrary to his/her teacher/councilperson.
This scenario, if played out in a real, or even perceived way, would be damaging to the student, school system, city, parent, and not the least, teacher.
Professional requirements and standards have never stopped all humans from abusing their professional positions.
I donÃÂt recall the exact numbers of the CommissionÃÂs vote on this, but I do remember that it was very close to unanimous to leave that part of the Charter unchanged.
Number 2):
I donÃÂt remember ANY discussion of ìdouble dippingî, for OR against.
I was the only one with perfect attendance for both Charter reviews, but I could have missed something.
Number 3):
I have known teachers that work, but not live, in Lakewood that have held elected positions in their own town. IÃÂm not sure, but I donÃÂt think a Lakewood teacher can be on the Lakewood School Board. (If somebody knows the facts on this, please pass them on.)
I guess ALL people just have to set priorities, and choose how, and where, to best live their lives.
Steve
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
Ms. Crampton, IÃÂm all for diversity. Diversity is good. I want Lakewood to have diversity. So, I see no problem in bringing that diversity inside our city limits. These diverse teachers can live in Lakewood and we will be able to enjoy the diversity they offer both in the classroom and throughout the rest of the day.
As far as hiring the best possible candidate, I have to ask: ArenÃÂt these teachersàtrained professionals? ArenÃÂt they taught to the same level of expertise as directed by the State of Ohio, just like Doctors? ArenÃÂt the teachers members of a union? How does their union and contract call for granting senior positions? Is it based on seniority or quality of the teacher? As I asked earlier in the thread, doesnÃÂt Lakewood hire new teachers at the entry level? I was led to believe that experienced teachers cost more than entry level teachers and therefore the system would hire the entry level. If Lakewood needs a new Physics teacher what is the process used to select that teacher?
Ms. Crampton, IÃÂm all for diversity. Diversity is good. I want Lakewood to have diversity. So, I see no problem in bringing that diversity inside our city limits. These diverse teachers can live in Lakewood and we will be able to enjoy the diversity they offer both in the classroom and throughout the rest of the day.
As far as hiring the best possible candidate, I have to ask: ArenÃÂt these teachersàtrained professionals? ArenÃÂt they taught to the same level of expertise as directed by the State of Ohio, just like Doctors? ArenÃÂt the teachers members of a union? How does their union and contract call for granting senior positions? Is it based on seniority or quality of the teacher? As I asked earlier in the thread, doesnÃÂt Lakewood hire new teachers at the entry level? I was led to believe that experienced teachers cost more than entry level teachers and therefore the system would hire the entry level. If Lakewood needs a new Physics teacher what is the process used to select that teacher?
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
I think that weÃÂre kind of putting the cart before the horse a little. There may be a reason why a particular civic employee (or class) should either be exempted or specifically included (noting that teachers ARE NOT city employees). City employees would include various civil servants, safety forces, administrators and department personnel as well as clerical, streets and parks, etc. If we were to expand BEYOND city employees, then I suppose you may want to discuss Library, School, and other independent tax supported employers. My original suggestion was not as expansive as to include the schools, library and so on.
Teachers, in particular pose a very interesting issue (one not particularly present with a sanitation worker or secretary). It is sometimes difficult for people to realize that once youÃÂre ìoff the clockî, your time is your own. I think teacher identity (and perhaps parental expectations) might pose certain difficulties for a teacher. Coach Smith likes to occasion MalloyÃÂs sports barÖ..pupils and parents see him going in and outÖ.Problems arise vis-‡-vis parents who do not condone drinking (ìWELL, it sets such a bad example for the kids on the football team!î) Or, we develop a new group of TeePee targets for students (or worse if the teacher is unpopular). It is because teachers hold such an important position in educating and influencing the young lives with whom theyÃÂre entrusted, that the parents feel entitled to have input in matters of their off-time activities, a potential problem which is avoided when the teacher does not live in the community in which she/he teaches.
I think if a residency requirement has any chance, we really need to start with a limited target and not attempt to encompass anyone whose check is drawn from taxpayer funds.
Thus, IÃÂm back to pushing for a residency requirement for City of Lakewood employees.
Jeff
Teachers, in particular pose a very interesting issue (one not particularly present with a sanitation worker or secretary). It is sometimes difficult for people to realize that once youÃÂre ìoff the clockî, your time is your own. I think teacher identity (and perhaps parental expectations) might pose certain difficulties for a teacher. Coach Smith likes to occasion MalloyÃÂs sports barÖ..pupils and parents see him going in and outÖ.Problems arise vis-‡-vis parents who do not condone drinking (ìWELL, it sets such a bad example for the kids on the football team!î) Or, we develop a new group of TeePee targets for students (or worse if the teacher is unpopular). It is because teachers hold such an important position in educating and influencing the young lives with whom theyÃÂre entrusted, that the parents feel entitled to have input in matters of their off-time activities, a potential problem which is avoided when the teacher does not live in the community in which she/he teaches.
I think if a residency requirement has any chance, we really need to start with a limited target and not attempt to encompass anyone whose check is drawn from taxpayer funds.
Thus, IÃÂm back to pushing for a residency requirement for City of Lakewood employees.
Jeff