A MUST-READ FOR ACTIVE TEACHERS!!! Tom Curtis, George Doyle, RH Jones on Strickland, Petro, Montgomery, charter schools; also STRS, OEA and ORTA

From: Tom Curtis
December 2, 2005

Hello George,

Yes, I was sitting there last night listening to Ted Strickland, thinking exactly what you said. We have had two Governors who ran with big promises of funding education, received the big educational vote, then did not fulfill their promise. They simply moved on to bigger and better things.

Unfortunately, that is at least 50% our own fault. Teachers have never stood up and banded together and said, NO, we will not accept this. We want what we were promised. We have always gone along; stayed in our classrooms and fulfilled the promise we made to be there and educate our young.

Nor have we ever attempted to recall a Governor who promised such, but did not deliver. We have NO power or money. That is what this country is all about today. Take from the poor and make the rich richer.

This is so sad to face, as we just simply do not choose to exercise the strength we could have. We have the possibility of the power necessary to bring about change; we just have never exercised it. If all teachers walked out of their classrooms and simply demanded that they receive what they have been promised, we would have the power to do such. Would teachers ever do it? Absolutely not! Far too many teachers are simply very passive, non-confrontational people and will settle for whatever they receive and consider themselves OK with that. That is admirable on the teacher's part, but is does not pay the bills once you retire.

When you retire, they just keep on abusing you and kicking you in the teeth. That becomes very painful. It is very hard for me to be civil with those that operate the STRS, because they full well know they are screwing us and they just don't care. Their attitude is simply, we have the money and you have no power to force any changes any quicker then we desire to make them, and only if we choose to do so. Those fine OEA board members we have thrown out recently placed us in this position. They permitted the STRS management to handle them and raise the cost of operation far beyond any of the other four pension systems. Now the management is not willing to give any of that up. Again, why should they, who are we the membership?

I have now realized, the OEA is nothing more then a parasite on the teachers' backs. In my opinion, they have been more detrimental to our progress in wages and benefits then one would ever have dreamed. They have misspent our money just as much as the STRS. A teacher pays dues to the OEA for an entire career and what do you get from the OEA? I know what I have gotten, absolutely nothing. Now that I am a retiree and no longer pay dues, I am nothing to them. They no longer feel any obligation to represent me. That is shameful and disgusting to think of the amount of money the OEA has gone through in the past thirty years and this is the situation they left us in.

Here is a good example of how little teachers back one another. One third of all retirees need to insure a dependent, which is roughly 30,000 educators. Many of us who have had our spousal and dependent child subsidy removed have been at the STRS each month since mid 2003, attempting to bring about a change in that issue. We have banded together and are known as CORE. Do we have the support of all 30,000 who have been affected? Well, you can answer that for yourself, but no, we do not. Where are all of these remaining people? They all certainly cannot be unable to attend due to age or health limitations. Many will not even back those attempting to bring about change. No, they are just not confrontational people, as the ORTA leadership so referred to CORE this whole time. We are classified as not being diplomatic. Well I ask you, what has being diplomatic gotten the ORTA leadership recently? They do not want to rock the boat. That is why those of us actively involved each month have to be almost overly confrontational to even be heard.

Teachers who are only lightly affected by the changes in the cost of HC could care less about those of us who are suffering the most. My cost for health care for my wife and I for 2004 was just over $13,000. That is over a third of my pension. How many other retirees give a hoot about that for me? No, their attitude is this, I got mine, isn't good to be me; too bad about you, I can't be bothered. Well, as you can tell, I have managed to get myself worked up about this situation again and I need to move on.

Take care,
Tom Curtis

From: George Doyle
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
Subject: RE: 120205 Curtis Resp To Jones; Re Petro's and Montgomery's Stand on Charter Schools

Tom:

Candidates can say anything, but doing it is another thing!! We have already experienced two so called "Education Governors" and look what has happened to education. SHOW ME THE MONEY!! as the saying goes.

George Doyle

From: Thomas Curtis
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
Subject: 120205 Curtis Resp To Jones; Re Petro's and Montgomery's Stand on Charter Schools

Hey Bob,

I went over to Alliance last night and listened to Congressman Ted Strickland speak at Mount Union College. After giving his introduction about where he came from in Ohio and how he has gotten to where he is today, he began to layout what he plans to do as Governor, if elected.

First, he started with his 5 principles for his candidacy.

1. Believes in a high standard of public service.
2. Wants to focus on core issues important to every Ohio family.
3. Will build on Ohio's strengths.
4. Will be an active Governor accessible to the people.
5. Will demand results.

He went on to say his highest priorities are jobs, education and health care
and gave examples of areas he plans to develop or continue to support already existing development.

He said he will be a law abiding Governor and obey the Supreme Court ruling and fund schools properly. He will attempt to get the legislature to abide by such as well. If the legislature will not work to that end, he will continue on a statewide crusade for proper school funding. He will force all schools to be held to the same high standard of testing and operation. He wants to focus on an early childhood or pre-school program to get children better prepared to enter public schools. He also wants to make sure every student can afford to attend a state college at an affordable cost.

During the short question and answer period he was asked about vouchers and charter schools. He is totally against vouchers. No way will he support that issue. He is against for-profit schools, but not totally against not-for-profit ones. Strong believer in public education and feels if that were to change it would be the demise of education in Ohio and the rest of the country.

He seems to be a strong candidate and would seem to have much appeal to the voter. He said very little against the Republican candidates other then indicating that a few of them want some constitutional amendments he feels would be very detrimental to the state.

Take care,
Tom Curtis

From: RH Jones
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
Subject: Petro's and Montgomery's Stand on Charter Schools

To all:

The Beacon, yesterday, 12-1-05, front & A8 pages, lists GOP gubernatorial candidate, Jim Petro as saying: "Providing choices for primary and secondary education through charter schools and vouchers ---". The Beacon, today, 12-2-05, front & A4 pages, lists GOP gubernatorial candidate, Betty Montgomery as saying only: "---improving our educational opportunities from preschool through college."My take on these two candidates: Petro at least came right out and backed charter schools while Montgomery cleverly avoided the charter school issue with a veiled comment. And, I wonder how she will improve educational opportunities while at the same time saying that she would reduce state spending. To me, however, she seems to be a politically "savvy" Republican candidate.Complete profiles of all the candidates can be found on the politics pages of the web at: www.Ohio.com

RHJones