Debbie Rudy-Lack: Letter to 9 senators whose SB 5 votes are yet undecided

From Debbie Rudy-Lack, February 20, 2011

Senator Daniels,

I am writing this email to share with you my concerns regarding SB 5. As a retired, 32 year veteran of the public schools, I am concerned and disappointed in the direction this state is heading.

Repealing the collective bargaining laws will not address the issues of the deficits this state is facing. Only 9% of the state budget is spent on public employees, an amount of about $2.6 billion dollars. The budget deficit is $8 billion. Where is the remaining $5.4 billion going to come from? It appears to me as if the deficit is being placed on the backs of public servants across the state. This is coming at a time when public employees have already taken pay freezes, furlough days, and are paying more for their health care. In my opinion, this bill is a smoke screen that is being used to break the unions in Ohio. The Governor recently gave raises to some on his staff, who by the way are also public servants. Some of those positions already had salaries of over 6 figures. His rationale: "if you want the best, then you have to pay them a good wage". Shouldn't that also be true of ALL public service employees?

SB 5 calls for sweeping changes that will impact employees of the state and communities for years to come. The "domino effect" of these changes won't be realized until SB 5 has been in place for a period of time. By then, it might be too late to undo the damage it has caused. One of those changes outlined in SB 5 is allowing districts to RIF any teacher, rather than based upon seniority. I have a colleague who has been an educator for 20 years. Should her district decide that a RIF is necessary, she would most likely be the first to go because she is an "expensive" teacher. Someone who has only taught for 10 years and has a contracted salary that is much lower would be spared. What is that 20 year veteran suppose to do? She won't be able to find another teaching job because of her years of experience and additional degree, she's too expensive. She will become one of the unemployed, drawing unemployment benefits, which the state doesn't need in this economy. With the present economic issues at STRS and looming legislation that impacts retirees benefits, losing veteran teachers will have severe economic consequences for our public pension system. Losing large numbers of educators will impact the financial solvency of a retirement system that at this time is fragile. As you can see, this is just one of the fallouts of SB 5. Are there more? We'll most likely never know until years down the road.

Another point I would like to make is that districts are already gearing up for the proposed state budget cuts. When I retired in June of 2010, my position was not filled. My former superintendent has already talked about not filling future retired positions like music, art and physical education. If positions such as math, science, social studies are cut due to RIF's, the teachers remaining would see bigger class sizes. If collective bargaining is taken away, teachers may well be teaching more than the 6 classes a day as already written in our master agreement.

The point I am trying to make is that there might need to be some changes made to the collective bargaining laws. But rather than making "sweeping and drastic" changes, wouldn't it be better to work together with public employees and their employers to address those issues? Wouldn't it be better to talk with those of us who work in these positions in order to find out how this bill is going to impact us and the people we serve?

At this time, I am asking you to vote "NO" on SB 5. Doing so would allow all of the parties involved to meet and discuss their concerns and address them to the betterment of the state, public employees and the communities they serve.

Respectfully,

Deborah Rudy-Lack
A proud retired educator
District 68
Aurora, Ohio