July 24 posts
Note: Since my blogging time is going to be sporadic and limited for at least the next six weeks, I will not be able to spend much time editing, formatting, etc. This blogging business is tricky. I never know how something’s going to turn out; if it’s too weird looking, I won’t publish it. Trust me; you wouldn’t want to strain your eyes trying to read it. This includes articles, e-mails, everything. Most likely to get blogged: clean e-mails/articles, good spelling & punctuation; formatting that transfers well to blogging (something I can’t control and which can be very tricky, frequently requiring me to retype the whole thing). I am lumping a lot of things together into several long posts today in an effort to blog the most from my backlog of vacation e-mail (about 300) in the shortest time. Will catch up as I can. Thanks for bearing with me. KBB 7/24/06
_______
Plain Dealer, July 23, 2006
Subject: Who is planning to put more of the "ouch" in voucher?
Another voucher joust Sunday, July 23, 2006 As if it weren't already obvious from the campaign commercials cropping up on TV, it's an election year.
And with members of Congress soon to head home to the stump, strategists from both parties have started pumping out proposals perfect for political speeches.
On the education front, GOP leaders last week trotted out one of their old favorites: a nationwide school voucher program. This iteration would spend $100 million to allow poor children "trapped" in struggling public schools to escape to successful private ones.
In an accident of timing, the Republicans ended up rolling out their plan immediately after the federal Department of Education released a report showing that, on average, public schools perform as well as or better than private ones. Voucher critics - largely aligned with Democrats - used those results to assail the GOP's voucher announcement this week as pure partisanship. To press for vouchers in the wake of such a damning report, one complained, proves that Republicans don't care about students.
The silliness of that comment should be self-evident, but in case it's not, consider two key points: First, the Education Department report compared schools on average; a voucher affects a particular student at a particular school. Second, the Republicans' proposal specifically targets students in schools that have posted abysmal scores for several consecutive years.
Which is not to say the GOP eschews politics. For one thing, representatives acknowledged this ballyhooed proposal is not likely to be voted upon until after November's election. For another, federal officials have done little to enforce existing laws establishing public school choice or free tutoring for students in failing schools. Indeed, various studies have shown that at least two-thirds of districts with eligible students failed to notify families of their options; no wonder, then, that only about 1 percent of eligible students have taken advantage of the choices.
Several states, including Ohio, have voucher programs of their own, while Congress already has approved its own voucher measures for Washington, D.C., and for areas that were affected by Hurricane Katrina. So far, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has not said whether private schools that participate in a national voucher program would be subject to the federal accountability measures that apply to public schools. So, let's be clear: Any institution that takes public education money must comply with public rules; the abysmal performance of many charter schools in Ohio has shown quite clearly the dangers of a laissez faire approach.
Before Congress tries to add any more provisions to the federal government's already mammoth federal education program, lawmakers need to figure out how to give meaning to ones they've already passed. Otherwise, they will have done little but add to the waves of rhetoric already aired on these issues.
_______
From John Curry, July 20, 2006
Subject: My hometown rag has "done us proud!" - or - How the pillmakers and Congress thumb their noses at NAFTA!
Note from John - when a newspaper editor of a rural newspaper in conservative northwest Ohio recognizes a need for reform of our nation's current "giveaway" to the pill makers - THERE IS HOPE! I will mention that Mr. Laney didn't mention the other "giveaway" to big Pharma which is the millions of your and my taxpayer dollars that aid these U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers in the development of their wares via the National Institute of Health. We pay to invent the pill that we pay through the nose to buy. Way to go, William Laney!
Congress needs to revisit prescription drugs from Canada
By WILLIAM LANEY
Managing Editor
Wapakoneta Daily News
July 20, 2006
Congressional leaders need to open the gates for seniors to receive their prescription drugs from across the border — if America is truly about competition.
The truth of the matter is it is more about protectionism and political special interest groups and lobbying.
Seniors should not be receiving threatening letters from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents when they seek mail order drugs from Canadian pharmeutical companies that are filling their prescriptions, but that is exactly what is happening.
Not only do they have to worry about being bullied by border patrol, they have to worry about ever receiving their prescriptions — including high-blood pressure medication.
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida introduced legislation that would prohibit U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents from seizing prescription drugs imported from Canadian pharmacies by mail or carried over the border.
A measure in the House would allow the importation of pharmaceuticals from any country.
This is not a time for haggling or stalling legislation that would prove most beneficial to American’s in most need and who are the most vulnerable — seniors.
Seniors living on fixed incomes are spending billions of dollars each year on medications. Seniors and others purchasing drugs from Canada are saving an average of 50 percent on the same medication purchased in the United States, some drugs can be purchased at an 80 percent savings.
This is a huge advantage and would pit American companies against other companies and programs in Canada and around the globe — isn’t this the purpose behind the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to encourage competition to drive down prices.
The difference is U.S. lawmakers and politicians wanted to defend pharmaceutical companies who use the extra money for research and development and paying the high salaries of chemists and other researchers. It undoubtedly also goes to pay for above average salaries for upper management.
Congressional leaders need to take a page from Canada and allow Washington to negotiate the purchase of drugs in bulk. It also needs to open the borders for all pharmaceuticals.
This legislation moves the country in the right direction, a step it should have taken years ago.
_______
From John Curry
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: We have a symbol, how 'bout a flag?
CORE has a symbol (you know, the apple partially eaten), now - how 'bout a flag. I suggest we name it the "Stratton Flag" after Sondra Stratton - the CORE member who filed the official complaint with the Ohio Ethics Commission. Remember the first CORE shirts? They were in black letters with a yellow background - they were also created and distributed by Sondra. To her we all owe a debt of gratitude. John
[Flag picture will be posted separately – easier & faster. KBB]
_______
"American seniors deserve to hang onto as much of their money as they can. And they certainly shouldn’t be subsidizing the bulk of drug research and development that is benefiting the rest of the world. That burden should be shared by all who buy the drugs."
Canada goose
Congress should let Americans buy cheaper drugs north of the border
Monday, July 17, 2006
The poor and elderly of the United States long have paid through the nose for prescription drugs, while pharmaceutical-industry profits remain among the highest of any industry in the world. Meanwhile, drugprice controls in other nations mean that Americans are paying far more than their fair share.
The drug industry needs plenty of money to continue to develop medicines that work miracles. But Americans shouldn’t have to shoulder the bulk of the burden for the research and development necessary to come up with those medications. Preventing Americans from buying their drugs from the cheapest supplier is an unjust restriction on their freedom. It also violates free-market principles.
Congress should stop playing nanny and allow Americans to buy their prescription drugs from Canada, where, because of price controls, drugs are usually less expensive than they are in the United States.
The Senate voted on Tuesday to allow Americans to do this. The House has not yet acted on it but has approved similar plans in recent years.
But the House acts, past experience suggests the provision will be killed when the two bills go to a House-Senate conference committee because Republican leaders oppose the idea. Republicans have long championed free markets as the engine of innovation and prosperity, yet some seek to hold those same beneficial forces in check when it comes to pharmaceuticals.
They warn that the importation of drugs presents a safety problem. This is a bogus argument.
Canada has a drug-safety agency on par with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. And many of the medications sold in Canada are made in the United States or are identical to medications sold in the United States.
The FDA says it cannot guarantee the safety of imported drugs. That’s true. It can’t guarantee the safety of drugs sold in the United States, either. Anyone who remembers the Tylenol scare of 1982, when seven Chicago residents died after ingesting capsules that had been tampered with and laced with cyanide, knows that.
There are no guarantees in life. However, the drugs being sold in Canada and the United States are as safe as reasonably possible.
Some might wonder why American seniors would need to buy from Canada when they have a new Medicare prescription-drug benefit.
The benefit is complex, confusing and in many cases costs more than simply buying from Canada. Congress says one of the reasons there are so many plans in the program is it wanted seniors to have choices.
Having one more choice – Canadian drugs – would benefit seniors even more.
A Canadian study conducted last year showed that 85 percent of American seniors would save more buying from Canada than they would buying through the Medicare program, with an average savings of $565 a year.
Some people find themselves in the doughnut hole – the gap in benefits when a person’s drug expenses reach $2,250 to $5,100 in a year. Enrollees in this situation still have to pay premiums but receive no benefits. If a person reaches the gap near the end of the year, it might be cheaper to buy drugs outside the plan, perhaps from Canada.
American seniors deserve to hang onto as much of their money as they can. And they certainly shouldn’t be subsidizing the bulk of drug research and development that is benefiting the rest of the world. That burden should be shared by all who buy the drugs.
If enough Americans buy Canadian drugs, drug makers will be forced to lower their prices here or to stop selling at a discount to nations that have price controls. Perhaps that would impel those nations to rethink price controls. The less interference with the free market, the better.
Last fall, U.S. border agents stepped up confiscations of foreign prescription drugs from elderly Americans who are just trying to keep themselves healthy by shopping for the best price for their medication. This should not be part of the border agents’ job description.
Congress should fix this situation by allowing the Canadian drug imports.
Note from John: This editorial mentions that we subsidize the pill makers by paying the some of the highest prices in the world for Rx produced in the good 'ol US of A. The author forgot to mention that many of the dollars that pharmaceutical companies spend on research comes to them complements of our own tax monies under the guise of the National Institute of Health. Not a bad deal for them - we give them tax money so that they can develop a product and turn around and sell it to us with a price that is significantly higher than they charge the rest of the world. We not only get goosed once - we get goosed twice! What a deal!! The U.S. Border Patrol Patrol and U.S. Customs have better things to do than being The Pill Police and shaking down seniors trying to save some shekels.
______
From John Curry, July 16, 2006
Subject: A "Supreme Act" and a Forgotten History - Educator Protection in the State of Ohio
From time to time, Dr. Dennis Leone "catches hell" from some at the OEA and even some on the STRS Board re. his reforms at STRS. Had they forgotten the Supreme Court ruling below that has and does protect the rights of active teachers? May they have chosen to forget? Active teachers all across Ohio should read and understand the depth of this Ohio Supreme Court ruling in which Dr. Leone fought for their dignity and protection. Will they read it or are they too busy? At the end of this summary, the chief legal counsel for BASA gave praise for this decision - where was the OEA's praise for this Leone initiated protection of the classroom educator - or - maybe I missed it! If I did, please forward it to me and I'll be glad to distribute it and give credit.
Some will say that $100,000 is a lot of money to spend out of a school system's coffers. To them I say, "What is the price of justice and protection from frivolous litigation against educators? Sometimes final justice comes at a cost and it 'ain't' cheap." Of course, there are some who feel that $ 1,000,000 isn't even significant enough to warrant the Board's prior approval before the money is spent!
John
Sensel v. Leone: On March 31, 1999, the State Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in Leone’s favor to reverse a 2-1 decision issued in 1997 by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The high court supported a decision Leone made in 1995 to discard unsolicited and anonymous hate letters he received about a teacher/coach. The case involved a parent who wanted a basketball coach fired after he benched her son. She organized a hate letter campaign and Leone received about a dozen letters – half of them anonymous – that heavily criticized the coach. Leone decided it was inappropriate to put the letters in the teacher’s file, so he discarded them. The parent made a public records’ request for the letters she organized and filed a lawsuit for records’ destruction when she saw the letters were not in the teacher’s personnel file. The Common Pleas Court judge ruled in Leone’s favor saying that the parent was attempting to use the Open Records Law to cause a statutory fine for records’ destruction. The judge described this as “gamesmanship” on the parent’s part. The judge also determined it was the superintendent’s right to determine what was, and what wasn’t, a record for the teacher’s personnel file. The parent admitted at trial that she was hoping the letters would cause the district “to create a new file” on the teacher. Leone was asked at trial if he had ever previously discarded letters about a teacher (prior to this case). He said yes and explained how a year earlier a parent improperly accused a first-year teacher in writing of having a romance with a high school girl. Leone said he discarded the letter because he knew the parent had made a terrible mistake and did not realize that the first-year teacher actually was dating the high school girl’s 21-year-old sister (who was a senior at Miami University). Leone told the court he could not allow a potentially career-ruining letter like that to go in a teacher’s personnel file. What was interesting about this case is that the Appellate Court in Cincinnati ruled against Leone and reversed the Common Pleas Court decision, 2-1. This meant that until the State Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in Leone’s favor in 1999 (in support of the Common Pleas Court decision), there was a two-year period in Ohio (1997-1999) when school administrators were expected to file all letters received – whether or not they were anonymous. Leone’s school district spent a total of $100,000 on this case.
SENSEL v. LEONE FOOTNOTE: Following the court decision, Kimball Carey, the chief legal counsel for Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA), published the following in a BASA newsletter: “The good news in the Sensel v. Leone decision is that the parents’ unsolicited letters were found NOT to be “public records” because they were never actually used in any decision-making process…….clearly this is one of the most sensible decisions on public records that our State Supreme Court has ever issued.”
_______
Plain Dealer, July 23, 2006
Subject: Who is planning to put more of the "ouch" in voucher?
Another voucher joust Sunday, July 23, 2006 As if it weren't already obvious from the campaign commercials cropping up on TV, it's an election year.
And with members of Congress soon to head home to the stump, strategists from both parties have started pumping out proposals perfect for political speeches.
On the education front, GOP leaders last week trotted out one of their old favorites: a nationwide school voucher program. This iteration would spend $100 million to allow poor children "trapped" in struggling public schools to escape to successful private ones.
In an accident of timing, the Republicans ended up rolling out their plan immediately after the federal Department of Education released a report showing that, on average, public schools perform as well as or better than private ones. Voucher critics - largely aligned with Democrats - used those results to assail the GOP's voucher announcement this week as pure partisanship. To press for vouchers in the wake of such a damning report, one complained, proves that Republicans don't care about students.
The silliness of that comment should be self-evident, but in case it's not, consider two key points: First, the Education Department report compared schools on average; a voucher affects a particular student at a particular school. Second, the Republicans' proposal specifically targets students in schools that have posted abysmal scores for several consecutive years.
Which is not to say the GOP eschews politics. For one thing, representatives acknowledged this ballyhooed proposal is not likely to be voted upon until after November's election. For another, federal officials have done little to enforce existing laws establishing public school choice or free tutoring for students in failing schools. Indeed, various studies have shown that at least two-thirds of districts with eligible students failed to notify families of their options; no wonder, then, that only about 1 percent of eligible students have taken advantage of the choices.
Several states, including Ohio, have voucher programs of their own, while Congress already has approved its own voucher measures for Washington, D.C., and for areas that were affected by Hurricane Katrina. So far, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has not said whether private schools that participate in a national voucher program would be subject to the federal accountability measures that apply to public schools. So, let's be clear: Any institution that takes public education money must comply with public rules; the abysmal performance of many charter schools in Ohio has shown quite clearly the dangers of a laissez faire approach.
Before Congress tries to add any more provisions to the federal government's already mammoth federal education program, lawmakers need to figure out how to give meaning to ones they've already passed. Otherwise, they will have done little but add to the waves of rhetoric already aired on these issues.
_______
From John Curry, July 20, 2006
Subject: My hometown rag has "done us proud!" - or - How the pillmakers and Congress thumb their noses at NAFTA!
Note from John - when a newspaper editor of a rural newspaper in conservative northwest Ohio recognizes a need for reform of our nation's current "giveaway" to the pill makers - THERE IS HOPE! I will mention that Mr. Laney didn't mention the other "giveaway" to big Pharma which is the millions of your and my taxpayer dollars that aid these U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers in the development of their wares via the National Institute of Health. We pay to invent the pill that we pay through the nose to buy. Way to go, William Laney!
Congress needs to revisit prescription drugs from Canada
By WILLIAM LANEY
Managing Editor
Wapakoneta Daily News
July 20, 2006
Congressional leaders need to open the gates for seniors to receive their prescription drugs from across the border — if America is truly about competition.
The truth of the matter is it is more about protectionism and political special interest groups and lobbying.
Seniors should not be receiving threatening letters from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents when they seek mail order drugs from Canadian pharmeutical companies that are filling their prescriptions, but that is exactly what is happening.
Not only do they have to worry about being bullied by border patrol, they have to worry about ever receiving their prescriptions — including high-blood pressure medication.
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida introduced legislation that would prohibit U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents from seizing prescription drugs imported from Canadian pharmacies by mail or carried over the border.
A measure in the House would allow the importation of pharmaceuticals from any country.
This is not a time for haggling or stalling legislation that would prove most beneficial to American’s in most need and who are the most vulnerable — seniors.
Seniors living on fixed incomes are spending billions of dollars each year on medications. Seniors and others purchasing drugs from Canada are saving an average of 50 percent on the same medication purchased in the United States, some drugs can be purchased at an 80 percent savings.
This is a huge advantage and would pit American companies against other companies and programs in Canada and around the globe — isn’t this the purpose behind the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to encourage competition to drive down prices.
The difference is U.S. lawmakers and politicians wanted to defend pharmaceutical companies who use the extra money for research and development and paying the high salaries of chemists and other researchers. It undoubtedly also goes to pay for above average salaries for upper management.
Congressional leaders need to take a page from Canada and allow Washington to negotiate the purchase of drugs in bulk. It also needs to open the borders for all pharmaceuticals.
This legislation moves the country in the right direction, a step it should have taken years ago.
_______
From John Curry
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: We have a symbol, how 'bout a flag?
CORE has a symbol (you know, the apple partially eaten), now - how 'bout a flag. I suggest we name it the "Stratton Flag" after Sondra Stratton - the CORE member who filed the official complaint with the Ohio Ethics Commission. Remember the first CORE shirts? They were in black letters with a yellow background - they were also created and distributed by Sondra. To her we all owe a debt of gratitude. John
[Flag picture will be posted separately – easier & faster. KBB]
_______
"American seniors deserve to hang onto as much of their money as they can. And they certainly shouldn’t be subsidizing the bulk of drug research and development that is benefiting the rest of the world. That burden should be shared by all who buy the drugs."
Canada goose
Congress should let Americans buy cheaper drugs north of the border
Monday, July 17, 2006
The poor and elderly of the United States long have paid through the nose for prescription drugs, while pharmaceutical-industry profits remain among the highest of any industry in the world. Meanwhile, drugprice controls in other nations mean that Americans are paying far more than their fair share.
The drug industry needs plenty of money to continue to develop medicines that work miracles. But Americans shouldn’t have to shoulder the bulk of the burden for the research and development necessary to come up with those medications. Preventing Americans from buying their drugs from the cheapest supplier is an unjust restriction on their freedom. It also violates free-market principles.
Congress should stop playing nanny and allow Americans to buy their prescription drugs from Canada, where, because of price controls, drugs are usually less expensive than they are in the United States.
The Senate voted on Tuesday to allow Americans to do this. The House has not yet acted on it but has approved similar plans in recent years.
But the House acts, past experience suggests the provision will be killed when the two bills go to a House-Senate conference committee because Republican leaders oppose the idea. Republicans have long championed free markets as the engine of innovation and prosperity, yet some seek to hold those same beneficial forces in check when it comes to pharmaceuticals.
They warn that the importation of drugs presents a safety problem. This is a bogus argument.
Canada has a drug-safety agency on par with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. And many of the medications sold in Canada are made in the United States or are identical to medications sold in the United States.
The FDA says it cannot guarantee the safety of imported drugs. That’s true. It can’t guarantee the safety of drugs sold in the United States, either. Anyone who remembers the Tylenol scare of 1982, when seven Chicago residents died after ingesting capsules that had been tampered with and laced with cyanide, knows that.
There are no guarantees in life. However, the drugs being sold in Canada and the United States are as safe as reasonably possible.
Some might wonder why American seniors would need to buy from Canada when they have a new Medicare prescription-drug benefit.
The benefit is complex, confusing and in many cases costs more than simply buying from Canada. Congress says one of the reasons there are so many plans in the program is it wanted seniors to have choices.
Having one more choice – Canadian drugs – would benefit seniors even more.
A Canadian study conducted last year showed that 85 percent of American seniors would save more buying from Canada than they would buying through the Medicare program, with an average savings of $565 a year.
Some people find themselves in the doughnut hole – the gap in benefits when a person’s drug expenses reach $2,250 to $5,100 in a year. Enrollees in this situation still have to pay premiums but receive no benefits. If a person reaches the gap near the end of the year, it might be cheaper to buy drugs outside the plan, perhaps from Canada.
American seniors deserve to hang onto as much of their money as they can. And they certainly shouldn’t be subsidizing the bulk of drug research and development that is benefiting the rest of the world. That burden should be shared by all who buy the drugs.
If enough Americans buy Canadian drugs, drug makers will be forced to lower their prices here or to stop selling at a discount to nations that have price controls. Perhaps that would impel those nations to rethink price controls. The less interference with the free market, the better.
Last fall, U.S. border agents stepped up confiscations of foreign prescription drugs from elderly Americans who are just trying to keep themselves healthy by shopping for the best price for their medication. This should not be part of the border agents’ job description.
Congress should fix this situation by allowing the Canadian drug imports.
Note from John: This editorial mentions that we subsidize the pill makers by paying the some of the highest prices in the world for Rx produced in the good 'ol US of A. The author forgot to mention that many of the dollars that pharmaceutical companies spend on research comes to them complements of our own tax monies under the guise of the National Institute of Health. Not a bad deal for them - we give them tax money so that they can develop a product and turn around and sell it to us with a price that is significantly higher than they charge the rest of the world. We not only get goosed once - we get goosed twice! What a deal!! The U.S. Border Patrol Patrol and U.S. Customs have better things to do than being The Pill Police and shaking down seniors trying to save some shekels.
______
From John Curry, July 16, 2006
Subject: A "Supreme Act" and a Forgotten History - Educator Protection in the State of Ohio
From time to time, Dr. Dennis Leone "catches hell" from some at the OEA and even some on the STRS Board re. his reforms at STRS. Had they forgotten the Supreme Court ruling below that has and does protect the rights of active teachers? May they have chosen to forget? Active teachers all across Ohio should read and understand the depth of this Ohio Supreme Court ruling in which Dr. Leone fought for their dignity and protection. Will they read it or are they too busy? At the end of this summary, the chief legal counsel for BASA gave praise for this decision - where was the OEA's praise for this Leone initiated protection of the classroom educator - or - maybe I missed it! If I did, please forward it to me and I'll be glad to distribute it and give credit.
Some will say that $100,000 is a lot of money to spend out of a school system's coffers. To them I say, "What is the price of justice and protection from frivolous litigation against educators? Sometimes final justice comes at a cost and it 'ain't' cheap." Of course, there are some who feel that $ 1,000,000 isn't even significant enough to warrant the Board's prior approval before the money is spent!
John
Sensel v. Leone: On March 31, 1999, the State Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in Leone’s favor to reverse a 2-1 decision issued in 1997 by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The high court supported a decision Leone made in 1995 to discard unsolicited and anonymous hate letters he received about a teacher/coach. The case involved a parent who wanted a basketball coach fired after he benched her son. She organized a hate letter campaign and Leone received about a dozen letters – half of them anonymous – that heavily criticized the coach. Leone decided it was inappropriate to put the letters in the teacher’s file, so he discarded them. The parent made a public records’ request for the letters she organized and filed a lawsuit for records’ destruction when she saw the letters were not in the teacher’s personnel file. The Common Pleas Court judge ruled in Leone’s favor saying that the parent was attempting to use the Open Records Law to cause a statutory fine for records’ destruction. The judge described this as “gamesmanship” on the parent’s part. The judge also determined it was the superintendent’s right to determine what was, and what wasn’t, a record for the teacher’s personnel file. The parent admitted at trial that she was hoping the letters would cause the district “to create a new file” on the teacher. Leone was asked at trial if he had ever previously discarded letters about a teacher (prior to this case). He said yes and explained how a year earlier a parent improperly accused a first-year teacher in writing of having a romance with a high school girl. Leone said he discarded the letter because he knew the parent had made a terrible mistake and did not realize that the first-year teacher actually was dating the high school girl’s 21-year-old sister (who was a senior at Miami University). Leone told the court he could not allow a potentially career-ruining letter like that to go in a teacher’s personnel file. What was interesting about this case is that the Appellate Court in Cincinnati ruled against Leone and reversed the Common Pleas Court decision, 2-1. This meant that until the State Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in Leone’s favor in 1999 (in support of the Common Pleas Court decision), there was a two-year period in Ohio (1997-1999) when school administrators were expected to file all letters received – whether or not they were anonymous. Leone’s school district spent a total of $100,000 on this case.
SENSEL v. LEONE FOOTNOTE: Following the court decision, Kimball Carey, the chief legal counsel for Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA), published the following in a BASA newsletter: “The good news in the Sensel v. Leone decision is that the parents’ unsolicited letters were found NOT to be “public records” because they were never actually used in any decision-making process…….clearly this is one of the most sensible decisions on public records that our State Supreme Court has ever issued.”
posted by Kathie Bracy at 11:40 PM
<< Home