The Observation Deck

So I guess I just struggle with the apparent double standard of not allowing BOE employees from running for city offices, but city employees are allowed on the BOE.

While I'm not necessarily sure how I'd vote on issue 11, I struggle with the idea that one is more ok than the other.

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:That's why board votes are 5-0

Ivor,

That may be common, but not entirely accurate. Check the news of the last couple of weeks.

Also, I think the Lakewood School Board usually does a pretty go job of arguing and then consensus building before they vote.

Steve

Bryan Schwegler wrote:So I guess I just struggle with the apparent double standard of not allowing BOE employees from running for city offices, but city employees are allowed on the BOE.

While I'm not necessarily sure how I'd vote on issue 11, I struggle with the idea that one is more ok than the other.

I would be in favor of a charter amendment to ban city employees from serving on the Board of Education. I don't have a double standard. Neither scenario is okay with me.

By the way, Ohio law does not allow school employees to serve on the BOE in the district that they work in. Unfair? No. If those employees could negotiate their own contracts as both employers AND employees, it would be completely unfair to taxpayers.

Mr. Davis,

Your contention only points out and obvious conflict of interest. Nobody is claiming that City employees should be able to run for City Council. Do me a favor, carry the argument further for the rest of us. Should we ban county and state employees from running fro public office?

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:Your contention only points out and obvious conflict of interest. Nobody is claiming that City employees should be able to run for City Council. Do me a favor, carry the argument further for the rest of us. Should we ban county and state employees from running fro public office?

Ryan,

I think your question is on track. It's certainly worth looking at. These overlaps have the potential to impact voters' representation in ways that they don't expect/suspect.

I sometimes hear things that make me wonder if we are getting "fair" representation. Granted, some of this can be sorted out by voting for people that we feel will represent us fairly, but I am not opposed to maintaining or initiating legislation to maintain and protect voter representation from obvious, or perhaps, less than obvious conflicts of interest.

"Fair" is a funny word that really depends on perspectives. Attempts at fairness can provide interesting wrestling matches between between individual and "the greater good". I understand both.

In the case of your Issue 11, I think our present charter provides a balance of low impact on individuals, considering the size of the population of the affected group, versus the expectations of the overall voting population.

I think your issue will pass, but I think it will be passed by people that haven't considered some of the pitfalls. By charter we have some amount of home rule. We can decide how our town is run. Again, some conflicts of interest are obvious, and some are not. Intertwining all governing bodies can provide some efficiencies and advantages, but it makes us less Lakewood-centric and more open to abuse by outsiders and other less obvious interest groups.

This is a matter for lengthy study, debate, and consensus building. Obviously, I will abide by the voter decision, but I am voting AGAINST Issue 11 on Tuesday.

Steve

[quote]
Colleen:

It seems that way, doesn't it? It seems that there is some confusion, some intermingling of Issue 11 with its chief proponent, Mr. Demro. That's really a disservice.
[/quote]

To Mr. Endress:

It seemed to me that there was little or no discussion of Issue 11, and it was headed to ballot in less than a week. I felt it was important to point out some some facts. (By the way Ryan, you did manage to point out that I had run in your race, and yes, you won. Good job.) Nonetheless, as someone involved in local politics, I want people to understand what is really going on behind the scenes on this Issue 11:

In 2005, Mr. Demro came to the Charter Review Commission and raised this issue for consideration. The Commission chose not to recommend a change.

In 2006, Mr. Demro raised the issue with Council, who chose not to act on his request to change the Charter.

Now in 2007, Mr. Demro is spearheading a Ballot issue to change the Charter.

Well? It's pretty easy to connect the dots here - and voters should see the complete picture.

Mr. Endress, I don't believe it's a disservice to point out who has always been involved in this issue, and I believe, the reason he is behind it. As I have stated, irrespective of the reasoning behind the 1910 Charter, the fact is I don't want to support any ballot issue, or vote, or decision that might personally or professionally benefit any member of council, or the Mayor, or any city official. That's what is happening here and that is why Issue 11 should be defeated.

Finally, all the comparison reagarding other city or state employees, or Ed Favre's situation are not applicable here. None of those people, Ed included, are involved with students. Why hasn't anyone pointed this out?

Dan Shields

Dan Shields wrote:Finally, all the comparison reagarding other city or state employees, or Ed Favre's situation are not applicable here. None of those people, Ed included, are involved with students. Why hasn't anyone pointed this out?

So just so I'm clear, you're saying as long as there is no student interaction, there is no conflict of interest?

I happen to disagree with you on that one. I'm not saying Ed particularly has a conflict, what I'm saying is that most people seem to be saying Issue 11 is bad because of a conflict of interest and I think if that's the case, then the rule should apply both ways.

I should also point out that I haven't yet made up my mind on Issue 11. I don't know if I necessarily buy the "fairness" or "civil rights" argument for it. However, the fairness issue in my mind comes in by the fact we allow city --> school system but not the other way around.

So in the end I have hard time believing Issue 11 will be all that damaging if we haven't found it necessary to stop city employees from sitting on the school board.

Mr. Schwegler:

Thanks for your reply.
Let me say this about the 2005 Charter Review Commission. I recall that our discussions centered around the potential for conflict in the classroom, primarily whether or not it could be a problem for a student who shared (or maybe who's parents shared) a different political point of view. On the one hand, we didn't want a student to be subjected to one-sided politics in the classroom, while on the other hand, we didn't want a student to be punished in some way (grades?) for his or her (or their parents') political beliefs and/or participation. Maybe some other commission member can add to his or her recollection of our discussions, but that is what I recall.
Now, that may not be the comprehensive answer to the issues raised in this debate; I certainly believe there should be a more thorough community discussion of this potential charter change before being hurried to a vote.

Dan Shields

Dan Shields wrote: I recall that our discussions centered around the potential for conflict in the classroom, primarily whether or not it could be a problem for a student who shared (or maybe who's parents shared) a different political point of view. On the one hand, we didn't want a student to be subjected to one-sided politics in the classroom, while on the other hand, we didn't want a student to be punished in some way (grades?) for his or her (or their parents') political beliefs and/or participation.
Dan Shields

Dan,

Wouldn't that type of activity be cause for dismissal? I believe the school board and the school system have the capacity to manage their employees.

I don't advocate conflict of interest and we have laws and regulations to address that. I'm somewhat concerned that you are advocating laws that punish in anticipation of an action. Is that even constitutional?


Suzanne

Dan and Suzanne,

The Charter Commission's concerns were not necessarily that a teacher may act against a student because of politics. We did not indict teachers in our discussions. We talked about the negative impact of perceptions.

It was agreed that Council meetings and the political environment are not always friendly. The concern was that a PERCEPTION of unfair treatment of a student by a teacher/councilperson because of political positions might harm the student, the teacher, the schools, or the city.

For example, a teacher/councilperson could be harmless in the case of awarding a student a "D" for "D" work, but be caught up in the court or public opinion because the student's relative was a political opponent.

Keeping the effects of politics, real or perceived, in our schools to a minimum was the goal.

Steve

stephen davis wrote:
Keeping the effects of politics, real or perceived, in our schools to a minimum was the goal.

Steve

When did that become the job of the Charter Review Committee?

Suzanne Metelko wrote:When did that become the job of the Charter Review Committee?

Suzanne,

A charter review is a systematic citizen review of government. A broad study IS "the job". I can't see where you could have a problem with that.

Give it a rest, my friend. You shouldn't be complaining about one of the few rational things that happen in Lakewood city government.

Steve

So first the arguement is keeping the politics of city government out of the school system and now it is the job of the city government to manage the employees of the school system?

Which one is it going to be?

There are a few threads running simultaneously with regard to the proposed Lakewood City Charter Amendment – Issue 11.

Here are links to the most active threads for your review.


http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... 72&start=0


http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0


http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... 77&start=0


I am voting AGAINST Issue 11 tomorrow. You should all read and decide.


At the very least, Vote FOR 4.

Suzanne Metelko wrote:...now it is the job of the city government to manage the employees of the school system?

Not within the schools, but certainly in the context of city government, just like the rest of us.


Suzanne,

Don't make it what it isn't.

My position on Issue 11 comes out of many years of supporting Lakewood Public Schools and extremely long looks at our city government. Yours seems to be blind support for an aspiring young politician.

Don't worry. You're going to win this Issue with your team, but don't gloat when it's over. The campaign has been irrational, misleading, and unforthcoming.

We have a history of being better than that.

Steve