Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

Bombs Away, or My Ode to The Police

Filed Under Politics | 7 Comments

Bombs Away from Zenyatta Mendatta.

Go ahead – click on them all. You know you want to.

Steve Chabot
Jean Schmidt
Deborah Pryce
Joy Padgett
Sandra O’Brien
Greg Hartmann
Mike Turner
Mary Taylor
Mike DeWine
Betty Montgomery

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:21 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | 7 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

The Hungarian Luddite: Ohio Republican voting Dem for first time, and NO on Issue 3

Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments

This blog looks interesting. And not just because he says to vote no on Issue 3.

I mean, he advises:

As a general rule, that’s pretty good advice, especially coming from a Republican, well, former Republican. I’d have to check and see just how many Dem. incumbents I do want to stay in though.

Check out the blogger’s bio here. Hope it stays around for a while.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:00 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

Reason #12 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment, Part VI.

The remainder of the Issue 3 proposed amendment language outlines the gambling aspects of what would become a constitutional provision, as opposed to statutory law.

Because of the poor drafting, I’m going to re-produce the first of the nine paragraphs (notice the education piece only had four) and then summarize, as opposed to going line by line.

If you want to remember the myriad problems with the education language, read the reasons to vote no Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16), Part III here (Reason 15) and Part IV here (Reason 14) and Part V here (Reason 13).

And if you want to follow along, here’s the amendment language in its entirety.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, slot machines shall be permitted at the seven permitted commercial horse racing tracks, and at two locations each fronting on the existing main channel of the Cuyahoga River in the City of Cleveland, one on the west bank within the area generally known as the Nautica Entertainment Complex and with frontage of approximately 1,430 feet in length, extending 560 feet to the northwest and 870 feet to the southeast of the intersection of the center line of vacated Main Avenue and the Cuyahoga River, and one on the east bank within the area generally known as Tower City and starting at the northeast corner of West Third Street, where it meets the east bank of the Cuyahoga River and extending north and west along the east bank of the Cuyahoga River for not more than 1,700 feet and having a depth of not more than 460 feet from the east bank of the Cuyahoga River. The games authorized in this section shall be conducted only at the locations authorized herein, and, in the discretion of the facility owner, may be conducted twenty-four hours each day. No more than three thousand five hundred such devices may be operated at any one facility, except that facilities located within the same county may, by agreement, provide for the transfer of such devices between such facilities, provided that no more than four thousand such devices may be operated at a facility not located at a permitted commercial horse racing track. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize live games associated with casinos, including, but not limited to roulette, card games, and dice games, except that such games may be conducted at the non-track facilities and at the facilities located at a permitted commercial horse racing track situated wholly or partially within Cuyahoga County if the voters of Cuyahoga County approve the conduct of such additional games by a majority vote. No such vote may be conducted prior to the fourth general election following the approval of this amendment.

Is that the longest damn single paragraph you’ve seen in a while? Did the person responsible for that even pass the OGT writing section? Man. And it’s not even the longest one in the proposed language.

Let’s go!

1. What are we talking about: Slot machines. But there’s no definition for “slot machines” until the end of the section. Again, some laws are organized with the definitions section first. I like that approach because then all readers are on the same page, from the start.

2. What about slot machines:

They will be permitted at

a. “the seven permitted commercial horse racing tracks…” Again, “permitted commercial horse racing tracks” has a definition but it’s at the end of the section. What bothers me about this phrase is that it uses the definite article, “the.” Because only seven specific tracks will ever be able to benefit. None that come into existence after the amendment is passed, unless a “permit holder” relocates the facility, if it’s one authorized by the amendment, to another location within the same county.

Now, I don’t know much about how people get permits for tracks, but no one who does get a permit after the amendment passes gets to have slots.

That monopoly complaint others mention comes in at this point. And those monopolies will operate in very defined locales within the state. How fair is that to the remainder of the population? Here are the OLE people saying, oh, poor Ohioans, can’t lose money in their own state, and yet what they’re proposing will only be easily available (at least more easily available than going over state lines) to that portion of Ohioans who live in proximity to the nine facility locations.

This, by the way, is part of why folks like Ed Morrison assert that Issue 3 won’t raise the money it says it will: because to raise the money the proponents say will be raised, we need people from outside Ohio to come into Ohio, in addition to attracting Ohioans to Ohio locations.

But if the seven locations are so concentrated or placed in such places that they’ll fail to draw those out of state numbers, the money ain’t gonna be coming here. (I assume that this is part of how, if Issue 3 passes, the developers will sell the convention center, saying that having the convention center will bring in the necessary out of staters to keep the now existing slots parlors afloat – how sick is that?)

b. And at two other precisely defined locations in Cleveland, one on the east side of the Flats and one on the west side of the Flats.

Wow. An Ohio Constitutional provision that basically applies to one of 88 counties. Does any other constitutional provision so narrowly provide for only one of our state’s 88 counties?

Sure – as we’ll see, this proposed language metes out teeny bits of love to the other counties. But if you want a textbook definition of unfair and imbalanced, this would be it.

Two serious questions:

1) Can the Nautica Entertainment Complex have naming rights change hands? I don’t know the history of the Complex, but I thought it actually did have a different name when it first went up. If it’s name can change, does that mean that the slots will have to be removed? Because according to the constitution, it’s just the Nautica Entertainment Complex that’s allowed to have the slots. There’s no provision for a successor facility. (When you write contracts, you almost always include language about successor organizations etc. since you just can never know what names and owners can change.)

2) What exactly is described in this portion of the proposal? It’s a plot of land right? The location itself?

That just seems so odd to me – to grant permission to a location, a geographical place on a surveyor’s chart that currently has no such facility on it. Does that seem weird to anyone else?

3. What else about slot machines and these nine locations?

a. “Games authorized in this section shall be conducted only” at these locations, no where else in the state of Ohio.

b. This set of games can be conducted 24/7 is the facility owner wants to.

Two problems:

1) Are “games” the same as “slot machines”, or something else? Wouldn’t it be nice to know before the phrase pops up?

2) I don’t like this back and forth between “locations” and “facility owner.” I mean, there ARE no facility owners yet for the two locations described in excrutiating detail, even though we all know who is intended. There’s not even a facility.

What happens if Forest City sells itself? Or goes private the way so many other companies are going?

I so dont’ like this stuff.

And one extra thing I don’t like: 24/7 slot facilities in downtown Cleveland? Double blech.

4. How many slots can operate at each location?

a. No more than 3,500 at any one facility

b. BUT facilities in the same county can transfer devices between themselves as long as

-there are no more than a total of 4,000 at any one facility,
-and, isn’t this cute – the facility is not located at a race track – oh well – guess that means only the Flats locations can have 4000 each if the tracks want to give 500 to each Flats location.

Questions:

1) “Such devices” is used in this part to refer to the slot machines. Why don’t they just say, “slot machines” – why do they say “such devices” – consistency is not a four-lettered word.

2) What did the drafters anticipate with this section? It’s not quite clear to me. Will subcontracts be allowed between the Flats facility owners and the tracks for those 1000 machines? I know I’m missing something here.

5. What games, machines and devices are not authorized here

First – please notice: usually you don’t say “not authorized” when you don’t want something somewhere. You say, “prohibitied.” Again, what did they have in mind by saying “not authorized”? Do they want to say that other machines aren’t prohibited?? simply “not authorized”? Not sure.

“Live games associated with casinos, including, but not limited to roulette, card games, and dice games,…”

There’s no definition of “live.” Laugh, but I keep imagining the Sally, Euclid Beach Lady - didn’t she talk? I also think about that fortune teller guy, Zoltan, in the movie Big.

Then there are cyber and virtual hosts. Will they be considered live and therefore prohibited, or could games conducted by such beings be constitutional? Can you believe that we’re even talking about this crap in the constitution?

Who will further define “live”? The Gaming Integrity Commission, the General Assembly or the Lottery Commission?

6. Games like these that we just said aren’t authorized may eventually be conducted

-at non-race track facilities or
-tracks located wholly or partially in Cuyahoga County

IF

voters of Cuyahoga County approve, by majority vote, the conduct of such additional games

Hmm. What about the residents of the other counties for those facilities only partially located in Cuyahoga County? They don’t get a say.

Again, we know the authors of this language had goals in mind – what were they? What are they?

7. When is “eventually” re: approving live games?

No vote on approving the conduct of the games can occur prior to 2014 (a mid-term year).

Why that year is picked, I’m not sure – although obviously a midterm election year has a lower turnout than a presidential election year so one would assume that the proponents believe lower turnout favors approval to expand gambling options in Cuyahoga County.

My comments:

1. If passed, this constitutional amendment would legalize discrimination and monopolies.

2. This proposed language is overly prescriptive (much like the education language which purports to leave everything to the Regents and then specifies at least 15 criteria which must be met by Ohio college-ready residents who want to be considered for the tuition grants) thus setting in concrete criteria about conditions which can and possibly should change but would require further constitutional action to do so.

3. Words defined should be used consistently (i.e., instead of using slot machines, devices and games, just slot machines should be used, unless they’re not talking about slot machines). No need to pull out the thesaurus here.

4. The entire portion of this single section, known as titled “Learn and Earn Amendment,” should be a separate section entirely from the education portion.

Ohioans need to recognize that what is written in this portion of the proposed language fails to represent the best our economic development intelligentsia can produce. Rather, this proposed language represents the design by which corporate interests believe they can best enshrine and guarantee for themselves a deeper foothold in the gambling industry in Ohio.

For remember, as Bill Cohen’s report indicated today, no school or college groups have endorsed Issue 3.

Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:

Reason 13
Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57

Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:56 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

Jimmy Dimora: Show me the language, because you are lying in your robocall on Issue 3

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

And I quote (because I just received the call about 25 seconds ago):

$850 million dollars in college tuition assistance for Ohio graduate students (I can’t believe he really said that, he must have meant Ohio students who graduate?), “NOT JUST FOR THOSE IN THE TOP 5%.”

Mr. Dimora – where on earth are you seeing in the Issue 3 language that the money is for students other than those in the top 5%?????????????????

Show me the language.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:55 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

[Updated] WCPN two-part series on Issue 3

Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments

It runs today and tomorrow on WCPN. I can’t find a link to today’s Bill Cohen piece yet, but h You can listen to the first portion here on KSU. Highlights include:

-how race track owners are motivated by plummeting profits, not making higher education affordable; and

-school and college groups do not endorse Issue 3, despite the $20 million poured into the proponent’s ad coffers (half of which CPN reports is from the track owners and the 2 Cleveland location developers) and the use of a young person’s voice in advertisements that declares, “It’s the opportunity of a lifetime.” More like, to kill a lifetime.

Here’s CPN’s Sound of Ideas show on Issue 3.

Here’s a useful collection of CPN’s election coverage so far – links to debates, others’ websites, etc.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:28 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

Delaware North gets snookered by Issue 3

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

Issue 3 proponents lie like a rug, but most of us have come to expect that. From this Opener’s piece, it sounds like Delaware North (why look here, there’s a bunch of Jacobses with Delaware North – could be coincidence, I’m sure) has a need to believe, but they may be the ones going down the river because here’s how the proposed Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn) amendment language defines, “permitted commerical horse racing track”:

For purposes of this section “permitted commercial horse racing track” means any place, track, or enclosure where a permit holder conducted live horse racing for profit at a racing meeting during the two calendar years prior to the approval of this amendment, and which continues to conduct live horse racing for profit following the approval of this amendment, and includes facilities on premises contiguous to, or separated only by a roadway from, those places, tracks, or enclosures, provided that a permit holder that currently conducts racing meetings on public land may relocate the facility authorized in this section if that permit holder relocates its permitted commercial horse racing track within the same county as provided by law.

I see no openings in that language that would allow Delaware North in on the action. Anyone have a different, plausible and not tortured reading of this definition re: which race tracks can have slots?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:36 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

Bombs Away, or My Ode to The Police

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

Bombs Away from Zenyatta Mendatta.

Go ahead – click on them all. You know you want to.

Steve Chabot
Jean Schmidt
Deborah Pryce
Joy Padgett
Sandra O’Brien
Greg Hartmann
Mike Turner
Mary Taylor
Mike DeWine
Betty Montgomery

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:21 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

The Hungarian Luddite: Ohio Republican voting Dem for first time, and NO on Issue 3

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

This blog looks interesting. And not just because he says to vote no on Issue 3.

I mean, he advises:

As a general rule, that’s pretty good advice, especially coming from a Republican, well, former Republican. I’d have to check and see just how many Dem. incumbents I do want to stay in though.

Check out the blogger’s bio here. Hope it stays around for a while.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:00 pm October 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

[Updated] WCPN two-part series on Issue 3

Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments

It runs today and tomorrow on WCPN. I can’t find a link to today’s Bill Cohen piece yet, but h You can listen to the first portion here on KSU. Highlights include:

-how race track owners are motivated by plummeting profits, not making higher education affordable; and

-school and college groups do not endorse Issue 3, despite the $20 million poured into the proponent’s ad coffers (half of which CPN reports is from the track owners and the 2 Cleveland location developers) and the use of a young person’s voice in advertisements that declares, “It’s the opportunity of a lifetime.” More like, to kill a lifetime.

Here’s CPN’s Sound of Ideas show on Issue 3.

Here’s a useful collection of CPN’s election coverage so far – links to debates, others’ websites, etc.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:28 am October 30th, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

30

[Updated] WCPN two-part series on Issue 3

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

It runs today and tomorrow on WCPN. I can’t find a link to today’s Bill Cohen piece yet, but h You can listen to the first portion here on KSU. Highlights include:

-how race track owners are motivated by plummeting profits, not making higher education affordable; and

-school and college groups do not endorse Issue 3, despite the $20 million poured into the proponent’s ad coffers (half of which CPN reports is from the track owners and the 2 Cleveland location developers) and the use of a young person’s voice in advertisements that declares, “It’s the opportunity of a lifetime.” More like, to kill a lifetime.

Here’s CPN’s Sound of Ideas show on Issue 3.

Here’s a useful collection of CPN’s election coverage so far – links to debates, others’ websites, etc.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:28 am October 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

27

Ohio2006 gets the Poynt(er); Connecticut on blogs’ influence on politics

Filed Under Politics | 1 Comment

Did you know that the MacBook has no telephone jack? I didn’t know that.

Did you know that an Apple USB modem costs $49.99? I didn’t know that either.

Did you know that although my mother has been through something like five Macs, since they were first introduced, and thus qualifies as being pretty hip for a woman her age, she refused to upgrade to cable modem or wireless until the companies doing her television and phone offered her better deals on all the services she wants (and you think I’m stubborn).

The result? Painfully slow connections while I’m out of town.

Sadly for those of you who have been following the reasons to vote no on Issue 3, there will be no posting of Reason 12 today. I worked on it (and the next three) during the airplane flight. We have to be up early tomorrow and will be in NYC all day and pretty much all night, driving back to CT after midnight I expect, and returning to Cleveland Sunday evening.

However, I’m going to hop it to the local free coffee wifi connection on Sunday and post THREE – yes, THREE reasons to vote no on Issue 3. Talk about your bloggapalooza.

In the meantime, please check out this mention by Peter Zollman of PoynterOnline re: Ohio2006. Jeff – I am so glad that you weren’t dissed or belittled. I breathed a sigh of relief, I promise. I would never want you to think I was mean or anything, ;)

Also, I have to tell you – checking out the landscape in Connecticut on the ride from the Hartford airport down the Merritt Parkway and into the small towns, I saw no Lamont yard signs, two Lieberman yard signs and two Schlesinger yard signs (he’s actually a lawyer from my hometown, though no one in my family knows him, and he is Jewish; unless you know this area, you might not understand, but believe me – the Jews in Woodbridge are probably betwixt and between; my parents, however, say that most will go for Lieberman and indeed, in the primary, Woodbridge was the only wealthy-ish town in CT, out of 26, that went for Lieberman – the rest went for Lamont; word on the street is that the guy is very, very nice). The New Haven Advocate has some fun stuff to read about the CT races, including governor, here.

But the best thing? An insert in the Advocate that had Lieberman’s face on one side with a caption over it that reads, “Who is Joe Lieberman today?” and Bush’s face on the other. The paper instructs you to 1) cut out the mask, 2) attach a string so that you can slip the mask over your face and have the string go around the back of your head and 3) “Turn over and agree with whatever George Bush does. Now you’re Joe Lieberman!”

This charming Halloween accessory is “Paid for by Ned Lamont for Senate.”

Finally, there’s an interesting article in the November Connecticut magazine (not available online as of today, 10/27) about blogs and CT politics. Wouldn’t it be nice if Ohio Magazine followed suit and did a spread on Ohio’s political blogs?

As my only Jewish friend at Georgetown, born and raised in Selma. Alabama used to say, Shabbat shalom ya’ll.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:48 pm October 27th, 2006 in Politics | 1 Comment 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

27

Ohio2006 gets the Poynt(er); Connecticut on blogs’ influence on politics

Filed Under Politics | 1 Comment

Did you know that the MacBook has no telephone jack? I didn’t know that.

Did you know that an Apple USB modem costs $49.99? I didn’t know that either.

Did you know that although my mother has been through something like five Macs, since they were first introduced, and thus qualifies as being pretty hip for a woman her age, she refused to upgrade to cable modem or wireless until the companies doing her television and phone offered her better deals on all the services she wants (and you think I’m stubborn).

The result? Painfully slow connections while I’m out of town.

Sadly for those of you who have been following the reasons to vote no on Issue 3, there will be no posting of Reason 12 today. I worked on it (and the next three) during the airplane flight. We have to be up early tomorrow and will be in NYC all day and pretty much all night, driving back to CT after midnight I expect, and returning to Cleveland Sunday evening.

However, I’m going to hop it to the local free coffee wifi connection on Sunday and post THREE – yes, THREE reasons to vote no on Issue 3. Talk about your bloggapalooza.

In the meantime, please check out this mention by Peter Zollman of PoynterOnline re: Ohio2006. Jeff – I am so glad that you weren’t dissed or belittled. I breathed a sigh of relief, I promise. I would never want you to think I was mean or anything, ;)

Also, I have to tell you – checking out the landscape in Connecticut on the ride from the Hartford airport down the Merritt Parkway and into the small towns, I saw no Lamont yard signs, two Lieberman yard signs and two Schlesinger yard signs (he’s actually a lawyer from my hometown, though no one in my family knows him, and he is Jewish; unless you know this area, you might not understand, but believe me – the Jews in Woodbridge are probably betwixt and between; my parents, however, say that most will go for Lieberman and indeed, in the primary, Woodbridge was the only wealthy-ish town in CT, out of 26, that went for Lieberman – the rest went for Lamont; word on the street is that the guy is very, very nice). The New Haven Advocate has some fun stuff to read about the CT races, including governor, here.

But the best thing? An insert in the Advocate that had Lieberman’s face on one side with a caption over it that reads, “Who is Joe Lieberman today?” and Bush’s face on the other. The paper instructs you to 1) cut out the mask, 2) attach a string so that you can slip the mask over your face and have the string go around the back of your head and 3) “Turn over and agree with whatever George Bush does. Now you’re Joe Lieberman!”

This charming Halloween accessory is “Paid for by Ned Lamont for Senate.”

Finally, there’s an interesting article in the November Connecticut magazine (not available online as of today, 10/27) about blogs and CT politics. Wouldn’t it be nice if Ohio Magazine followed suit and did a spread on Ohio’s political blogs?

As my only Jewish friend at Georgetown, born and raised in Selma. Alabama used to say, Shabbat shalom ya’ll.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:48 pm October 27th, 2006 in Politics | 1 Comment 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

27

Ohio2006 gets the Poynt(er); Connecticut on blogs’ influence on politics

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

Did you know that the MacBook has no telephone jack? I didn’t know that.

Did you know that an Apple USB modem costs $49.99? I didn’t know that either.

Did you know that although my mother has been through something like five Macs, since they were first introduced, and thus qualifies as being pretty hip for a woman her age, she refused to upgrade to cable modem or wireless until the companies doing her television and phone offered her better deals on all the services she wants (and you think I’m stubborn).

The result? Painfully slow connections while I’m out of town.

Sadly for those of you who have been following the reasons to vote no on Issue 3, there will be no posting of Reason 12 today. I worked on it (and the next three) during the airplane flight. We have to be up early tomorrow and will be in NYC all day and pretty much all night, driving back to CT after midnight I expect, and returning to Cleveland Sunday evening.

However, I’m going to hop it to the local free coffee wifi connection on Sunday and post THREE – yes, THREE reasons to vote no on Issue 3. Talk about your bloggapalooza.

In the meantime, please check out this mention by Peter Zollman of PoynterOnline re: Ohio2006. Jeff – I am so glad that you weren’t dissed or belittled. I breathed a sigh of relief, I promise. I would never want you to think I was mean or anything, ;)

Also, I have to tell you – checking out the landscape in Connecticut on the ride from the Hartford airport down the Merritt Parkway and into the small towns, I saw no Lamont yard signs, two Lieberman yard signs and two Schlesinger yard signs (he’s actually a lawyer from my hometown, though no one in my family knows him, and he is Jewish; unless you know this area, you might not understand, but believe me – the Jews in Woodbridge are probably betwixt and between; my parents, however, say that most will go for Lieberman and indeed, in the primary, Woodbridge was the only wealthy-ish town in CT, out of 26, that went for Lieberman – the rest went for Lamont; word on the street is that the guy is very, very nice). The New Haven Advocate has some fun stuff to read about the CT races, including governor, here.

But the best thing? An insert in the Advocate that had Lieberman’s face on one side with a caption over it that reads, “Who is Joe Lieberman today?” and Bush’s face on the other. The paper instructs you to 1) cut out the mask, 2) attach a string so that you can slip the mask over your face and have the string go around the back of your head and 3) “Turn over and agree with whatever George Bush does. Now you’re Joe Lieberman!”

This charming Halloween accessory is “Paid for by Ned Lamont for Senate.”

Finally, there’s an interesting article in the November Connecticut magazine (not available online as of today, 10/27) about blogs and CT politics. Wouldn’t it be nice if Ohio Magazine followed suit and did a spread on Ohio’s political blogs?

As my only Jewish friend at Georgetown, born and raised in Selma. Alabama used to say, Shabbat shalom ya’ll.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:48 pm October 27th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

26

Reason #13 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3

Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments

Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment, Part V.

[It's long - but really? It's worth the punchline at the very end.]

Read Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16), Part III here (Reason 15) and Part IV here (Reason 14).

With Reason 14, I started to review how, even though the language of the amendment would seem to give the Board of Regents the ability to set ALL eligibility criteria for the scholarships and tuition grants created by the proposed language (as well as set the amounts of the awards), Paragraph A and Paragraph B both set out numerous criteria which would conceivably be constitutionally required to be met by every Ohio student who wants some of this money.

To re-cap, VERY contrary to OLE’s assertions that every child who lives in Ohio will have an opportunity to get all kinds of money to cover college costs, the following conditions would be constitutionally required to be met before any Ohioan could get any amount of the alleged proceeds from gambling that would go to scholarships and grants:

1-you’re a current or future student
2-who, prior to enrolling in college,
3-took core and advanced academic courses
4-participated in college readiness programs, assessment and testing
5-at any accredited public or non-public high school
6-in Ohio and
7-you contributed to public life
8-through voluntary civic activity and
9-you attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education 10-authorized by the Regents that
11-has its principle office in Ohio

Additionally, from the prior section you must be

12- US citizen and
13- resident of Ohio.

The bolded portion below is the specific section to be reviewed in this Reason:

Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents. Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:

(A) Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college, take core and advanced academic courses, participate in college readiness programs, assessment, and testing at any accredited public or non-public high school in this state, and contribute to public life through voluntary civic activity, and who attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state.

(B) For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.

So, to continue:

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes,”

What we have here is Paragraph (B) trying to set out conditions related to the awards and also more conditions related to who can receive the awards.

First, these conditions in (B) apply only to the first 12 “such” high school graduating classes.

Problem: Which “such” classes? Does that mean that entire classes – as opposed to individual students – must meet those first 13 criteria? Typically, that word “such” would refer to a subset of the larger group. In this case, it perhaps would refer to the classes within the first 12 graduating classes that met all the criteria in Paragraph (A).

Of course, “classes” don’t meet those criteria, “students” do. Or even graduates of high school. Or Ohioans with high school diplomas as of a certain date.

This section should probably say something like, “For all students in the first 12 high school graduating classes, beginning with the class for which the graduation occurred on or after X date…. and who met the criteria in Paragragh (A)…”

But it doesn’t say that. So really, this paragraph is almost unenforceable from the get-go. The word “such” really messes things up. There are much better ways to legally define a distinguish the group of people who might be eligible, from the group who will not be.

The problem in doing it the right way would be that then OLE would have to expose to everyone that NOT all Ohio kids can get this money, not by a long shot.

The second problem is with the term “graduating.” How many people graduate but still have classes left? What exactly constitutes graduating? Do you have to go through the ceremony? What if you go through the ceremony but you don’t have all the credits?

Just as with “take” a course versus “complete” a course, “graduating” versus complete all required courses and pass the Ohio Graduation Test may or may not be required, based on just using the word “graduate.”

Next section:

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants,…”

“Uniform” means that the amounts of the tuition grants shall all be the same.

Hmm, but what about the scholarships? We don’t know, since the word “scholarships” isn’t mentioned anywhere.

Hmm – so, what exactly can the Regents award? Just tuition grants? Not scholarships? Then why does the amendment refer to scholarships earlier on? I’m confused. I didn’t think scholarships and tuitions grants were interchangeable. Seems like that definitions section sure would have been a handy thing to have. And if this thing passes, I bet there will be lots of folks looking up these words, with no luck, too. Kind of like trying to figure out what a “current” form of ID is for voter registration and ID when you go to vote.

One more thing about the uniform amounts: What’s really curious about that is that previously, the amendment stated that the Regents would be establishing the amounts for the scholarships and tuition grants. I guess the Regents will determine the specific amount – so long as they’re all uniform?

Again, clarity is a really important concept in legal writing.

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities,…”

So, the amount to be given to the students can’t be higher than the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities.

“Average” as determined by whom? And as of when? Will kids in 2012 get the same uniform amount as kids got in 2009? Sounds cheap and unfair. Of course, if the slots don’t in fact turn in the gross receipts OLE says they will, but the average tuition keeps going up, then what? Who will make up the difference so that all these Ohio students OLE says will benefit, will in fact benefit, as promised, constitutionally? Forest City – will they be making up the difference?

Determined by whom and as of when should be stated in this section. And if you’re thinking that that seems to specific for a constitutional amendment, you’re right – because it should be in the statutes, not the constitution. But if you don’t like this level of specificity, or lack of clarity that makes it unconstitutionally vague, just wait until we start going over the paragraphs about gambling!

Next section:

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school…”

So, the same amount of money, in the form of grants, must be given to the top 5% of students at EACH accredited public and non-public high school…uh oh! They didn’t say in this state. But okay – we know they MEAN top 5% of students at each of those public and independent private or parochial schools that operate in Ohio.

And again, we see here how the 60,000 residents who are homeschooled will NOT reap this benefit. (And that word “accredited” should be “chartered.”)

Well – the public school population in Ohio is around 1.7 million. Each graduating class is…I don’t know actually, how many kids graduate every year from Ohio’s public and parochial and private schools and five minutes googling the web and searching the Ohio Department of Education website didn’t turn up anything.

I believe that there are about 613 school districts in the state. My district only graduates about 160 kids a year, but some districts graduate as many as 500 or 1000. Cleveland Muni had 69K students in 127 schools in the 2005-2006 year. I’ve read that its graduation rate is less than 50% and for African-American males, it’s about 29%. HOWEVER, I could not find any specific numbers from the district’s site itself.

So – for my district, out 160 kids graduating, 99% of whom go to college, and a large number who go to college in Ohio, only 8 kids would be eligible in 2009. How much you want to bet that of those eight students, all the families would love the help – but how many actually need help?

For Euclid, where I spent two years as a freelance writer, the graduating class is somewhere around 500 students. So out of 500 students, 25 would be eligible (remember, they still have to meet all those other criteria).

Now, in Cleveland, with less than 50% of all students graduating high school, then only 5% of that total would be eligible. And, again, they have to have taken core and advanced courses, done community service, gone to readiness programs and through assessments and testings as required by the constitution and the Regents.

How many kids you think are gonna get this money?

I don’t know – but I bet all of them can spell “sham” “scam” and “flimflam.”

Okay – next section:

Now, before you read the next section, remember this part about how the amount of the tuition grant is “not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities.”

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education…”

Now this language is truly fascinating. If a high school graduate attends a public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education. What exactly is an independent not-for-profit institution of higher education?

Well, according to this definitions section at the Regents website, and this front page of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (which lobbies by the way; think they had something to do with this language?), there are 52 of these types of institutions on Ohio. You can see which ones here (think: Case Western, Oberlin, Xavier, Marietta, Hiram, University of Dayton). And how much do you want to bet that their tuition is multiple times higher than “the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities”?

So, first, the money goes to kids whether they go to Ohio’s publicly supported universities, or go to private universities.

But the amount of the awards is to be uniform. So the kids who go to private universities will only get a smidge of whatever their tuition is, which will be an even smaller smidge in proportion to their tuition and in comparison to what the kids who’ll attend public universities will get.

And? Those independent schools’ tuitions aren’t figured into the amount the Regents will award. Wouldn’t want to unnecessarily inflate what you’re going to give college students to alleviate the unaffordable nature of college tuition these days.

In all honesty, I don’t know how I feel about this. I mean, every kid should get the money, if in fact we’re going to be told that every kid can get the money.

But for starters, in addition to all the hoops they must jump through that I outlined yesterday, only 5% of the graduates will even get a chance to get the money. Even. get. a chance.

And they can’t have been homeschooled.

And maybe they can’t have gone to a charter school.

And if they’re in the 2009 class, and that’s the one that OLE says is the first class to get the money, well – what if they haven’t done the requirements outlined for all four years of school, since we’re talking about the graduating class TWO YEARS following when this thing is approved?

But in the future, will kids have to do this stuff for all four years? What about schools that only have 10, 11 and 12 in the high school, so the offerings are different?

And then they only get the average of the tuitions of Ohio public universities. But we don’t know if that average will be adjusted (up or down) annually, if at all, between 2009 and 2021.

And now, by reading, we learn that, indeed, private universities can receive these tuition dollars.

What a mess.

I suppose I want the kid to get what the kid is going to get, regardless of what institution he or she chooses in Ohio. However, if you’re going to let a kid go to a private Ohio college, why can’t the kid go to a private school anywhere in the country since there’s nothing in the proposed language that says one of the goals is to keep kids and the money in Ohio?

The argument that we want to keep them and the money in Ohio doesn’t do much for me because 1) the proposed amendment doesn’t say anything about inspiring students, from an early age, to want to go to college IN OHIO, and improve their academic preparation so that they can compete for this money (because this is actually going to be a VERY competitive grant, given all the requirements even before the Regents get a hold of it) AND STAY IN OHIO, and make college affordable IN OHIO.

In which case, hey. The kids should get this money and go to any school they want. Screw the Ohio thing. That’s not in the proposed language, at all.

VERY cool! Though of course, it isn’t really cool. Because ideally, a grant like this could and maybe even should be geared to keep kids and the money in Ohio.

But whoops – no one was watching those paralegals or quasi-legals or pseudo-legals who drafted this proposed amendment language.

And now – guess what? The intent of the amendment has nothing to do with keeping the money in Ohio. In which case, someone could easily challenge that if kids can take money to private universities in Ohio, why can’t they take the money to a private university outside Ohio? There is NO constitutional reason that the money needs to stay in Ohio. Even if there should have been one written in.

By the way, where do the gross receipts sit and accrue interest while the Regents are figuring this all out and the kids are jumping through the hoops?

Sigh. Okay – last piece of this very first sentence in Paragraph (B):

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state.”

Anyone know how to assess whether an office is a principal office or not? Like for your taxes, what is a business deduction, or whether you can take a home office deduction?

Yeah, me neither.

And now, the last words written in the entire proposed language about anything having to do with kids, money and education (because the next three pages, single-spaced typed proposed language? all about gambling. all. about. gambling.)

For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.

WTF is that? I have no CLUE what that means, since the previous gobbledyguck was all about all the other things the students have to do – you know:

-community service
-”take” core and advanced courses – not get the highest score in each
-participate in college readiness programs, assessments and testing

WTF is this proposed amendment now, in the absolute last f-ing sentence of the whole g-damned thing saying, “Oh, never mind! We’re only giving you the grants based on your academic merit.”

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ABOUT? And you can bet your sweet definitions section for slot machine paraphenalia that NO ONE, not a single person who signed those petitions has a CLUE that this money – this money that the flyers say will go to every child in Ohio for full scholarships (yup, that’s what some of the ads say) – shall be given out solely on academic merit.

Unless you want to argue about what “shall be based solely on” means. Soley sure doesn’t seem to mean by oneself, given how the amendment says the Regents establish criteria “solely” and then the amendment does it for them.

Also – “based solely on” – does that mean awarded “based solely on”? Or just assessed “based solely on”?

No one knows. I am 100% certain of that. Because no one with a brain read this language. I must believe that because I can’t believe that someone would purposely make something this awful. That would be too mean of me. And I don’t usually go in for conspiracy theories.

Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:

Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57

Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:25 pm October 26th, 2006 in Politics | 5 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

26

Lauren Rich Fine: Newspaper industry profit predicted to stay flat for years

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

From Editor & Publisher: [Ms. Fine lives in NEO]

It could take as long as 30 years for online revenue to represent at least 50% of a newspaper’s bottom line, according to a new report issued by Merrill Lynch on Tuesday.

“Even if the rapid [online] growth continues for the next few years, we don’t see online representing over 50% of newspaper ad revenues for at least a couple of decades, suggesting that industry profit could stay flat for the foreseeable future,” wrote analyst Lauren Rich Fine.

…

Generally, the industry bounces back but there’s concern that won’t be the case. “We are fearful the recovery coming out of the current downturn could be even more muted as online continues to transform the newspaper’s most lucrative, and most cyclical category, classifieds,” wrote Fine. “Put another way, moving from a near monopoly to a competitive model is having the impact of restraining blended ad rates and absolute dollar profits.”

Interesting take on going from a lazing away with high profit margins as a monopoly to slumming it with profits staying flat as the monopolies come to exist among competition.

Have just given up my subscription (as of 11/9, I’ll eventually blog about the excellent 17 minute call I had with Rick at the PD when I cancelled) and learning about how expensive ads actually are (they want you to remember how many people you’re reaching for the money, and that their ad buy is a good deal comparatively speaking, but I still can’t believe what it costs), I can believe this news.

Though I’m still not sure what it all means for us readers.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:45 pm October 26th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

26

Important Issue 3 blog posts from others

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

Brewed Fresh Daily has them categorized here and as a collection of posts, provides an excellent survey of the arguments, including newspaper endorsements for and against Issue 3.

Bill Callahan’s take is here on Callahan’s Cleveland Diary. Note the final comment:

Ashley Says: September 28th, 2006 at 11:09 am

I was told that 12 years after it passed, supposedly every student in Ohio will have a full scholorship to a state univeristy or will receive a voucher for a private school. It would be nice if it were true. We’ll see.

Actually, Ashley, I’m guessing that we won’t see. A voucher or a penny.

Roldo Bartimole writes about it as only he can here at RoldoLINK on Cool Cleveland.

And please take the time to open this pdf from Ed Morrison. I barely touch the fuzzy math of it all, but Ed knows exactly how fuzzy it is.

And if you want to find more, just go to Technorati and search on “Ohio Issue 3.”

Or go to Google and search via Google News for the latest.

Finally, if you’re just not sure. And you know people who go over the border. And you know kids need money for school. And you know that there is gambling anyway.

READ. READ. READ. Read all of these and anything else you find. Ohio Learn and Earn is being pushed. Pushed by money. Pushed by extremely well-off companies. Pushed by paid public relations people, whose careers depend upon them to sell whatever it is they are asked to sell. Including you down the river.

They didn’t care a FIG about what the proposed amendment language said as far as education, so long as they could make the constitutional amendment have all the details they wanted to outline where the slot machines would go and how much money they’d get back from them.

Feh.

Please, educate yourself. Maybe you’ll want to vote yes. You can do that in this country. But maybe you won’t want to vote yes. And you can do that too.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:32 pm October 26th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

26

Reason #13 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3

Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments

Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment, Part V.

[It's long - but really? It's worth the punchline at the very end.]

Read Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16), Part III here (Reason 15) and Part IV here (Reason 14).

With Reason 14, I started to review how, even though the language of the amendment would seem to give the Board of Regents the ability to set ALL eligibility criteria for the scholarships and tuition grants created by the proposed language (as well as set the amounts of the awards), Paragraph A and Paragraph B both set out numerous criteria which would conceivably be constitutionally required to be met by every Ohio student who wants some of this money.

To re-cap, VERY contrary to OLE’s assertions that every child who lives in Ohio will have an opportunity to get all kinds of money to cover college costs, the following conditions would be constitutionally required to be met before any Ohioan could get any amount of the alleged proceeds from gambling that would go to scholarships and grants:

1-you’re a current or future student
2-who, prior to enrolling in college,
3-took core and advanced academic courses
4-participated in college readiness programs, assessment and testing
5-at any accredited public or non-public high school
6-in Ohio and
7-you contributed to public life
8-through voluntary civic activity and
9-you attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education 10-authorized by the Regents that
11-has its principle office in Ohio

Additionally, from the prior section you must be

12- US citizen and
13- resident of Ohio.

The bolded portion below is the specific section to be reviewed in this Reason:

Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents. Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:

(A) Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college, take core and advanced academic courses, participate in college readiness programs, assessment, and testing at any accredited public or non-public high school in this state, and contribute to public life through voluntary civic activity, and who attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state.

(B) For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.

So, to continue:

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes,”

What we have here is Paragraph (B) trying to set out conditions related to the awards and also more conditions related to who can receive the awards.

First, these conditions in (B) apply only to the first 12 “such” high school graduating classes.

Problem: Which “such” classes? Does that mean that entire classes – as opposed to individual students – must meet those first 13 criteria? Typically, that word “such” would refer to a subset of the larger group. In this case, it perhaps would refer to the classes within the first 12 graduating classes that met all the criteria in Paragraph (A).

Of course, “classes” don’t meet those criteria, “students” do. Or even graduates of high school. Or Ohioans with high school diplomas as of a certain date.

This section should probably say something like, “For all students in the first 12 high school graduating classes, beginning with the class for which the graduation occurred on or after X date…. and who met the criteria in Paragragh (A)…”

But it doesn’t say that. So really, this paragraph is almost unenforceable from the get-go. The word “such” really messes things up. There are much better ways to legally define a distinguish the group of people who might be eligible, from the group who will not be.

The problem in doing it the right way would be that then OLE would have to expose to everyone that NOT all Ohio kids can get this money, not by a long shot.

The second problem is with the term “graduating.” How many people graduate but still have classes left? What exactly constitutes graduating? Do you have to go through the ceremony? What if you go through the ceremony but you don’t have all the credits?

Just as with “take” a course versus “complete” a course, “graduating” versus complete all required courses and pass the Ohio Graduation Test may or may not be required, based on just using the word “graduate.”

Next section:

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants,…”

“Uniform” means that the amounts of the tuition grants shall all be the same.

Hmm, but what about the scholarships? We don’t know, since the word “scholarships” isn’t mentioned anywhere.

Hmm – so, what exactly can the Regents award? Just tuition grants? Not scholarships? Then why does the amendment refer to scholarships earlier on? I’m confused. I didn’t think scholarships and tuitions grants were interchangeable. Seems like that definitions section sure would have been a handy thing to have. And if this thing passes, I bet there will be lots of folks looking up these words, with no luck, too. Kind of like trying to figure out what a “current” form of ID is for voter registration and ID when you go to vote.

One more thing about the uniform amounts: What’s really curious about that is that previously, the amendment stated that the Regents would be establishing the amounts for the scholarships and tuition grants. I guess the Regents will determine the specific amount – so long as they’re all uniform?

Again, clarity is a really important concept in legal writing.

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities,…”

So, the amount to be given to the students can’t be higher than the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities.

“Average” as determined by whom? And as of when? Will kids in 2012 get the same uniform amount as kids got in 2009? Sounds cheap and unfair. Of course, if the slots don’t in fact turn in the gross receipts OLE says they will, but the average tuition keeps going up, then what? Who will make up the difference so that all these Ohio students OLE says will benefit, will in fact benefit, as promised, constitutionally? Forest City – will they be making up the difference?

Determined by whom and as of when should be stated in this section. And if you’re thinking that that seems to specific for a constitutional amendment, you’re right – because it should be in the statutes, not the constitution. But if you don’t like this level of specificity, or lack of clarity that makes it unconstitutionally vague, just wait until we start going over the paragraphs about gambling!

Next section:

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school…”

So, the same amount of money, in the form of grants, must be given to the top 5% of students at EACH accredited public and non-public high school…uh oh! They didn’t say in this state. But okay – we know they MEAN top 5% of students at each of those public and independent private or parochial schools that operate in Ohio.

And again, we see here how the 60,000 residents who are homeschooled will NOT reap this benefit. (And that word “accredited” should be “chartered.”)

Well – the public school population in Ohio is around 1.7 million. Each graduating class is…I don’t know actually, how many kids graduate every year from Ohio’s public and parochial and private schools and five minutes googling the web and searching the Ohio Department of Education website didn’t turn up anything.

I believe that there are about 613 school districts in the state. My district only graduates about 160 kids a year, but some districts graduate as many as 500 or 1000. Cleveland Muni had 69K students in 127 schools in the 2005-2006 year. I’ve read that its graduation rate is less than 50% and for African-American males, it’s about 29%. HOWEVER, I could not find any specific numbers from the district’s site itself.

So – for my district, out 160 kids graduating, 99% of whom go to college, and a large number who go to college in Ohio, only 8 kids would be eligible in 2009. How much you want to bet that of those eight students, all the families would love the help – but how many actually need help?

For Euclid, where I spent two years as a freelance writer, the graduating class is somewhere around 500 students. So out of 500 students, 25 would be eligible (remember, they still have to meet all those other criteria).

Now, in Cleveland, with less than 50% of all students graduating high school, then only 5% of that total would be eligible. And, again, they have to have taken core and advanced courses, done community service, gone to readiness programs and through assessments and testings as required by the constitution and the Regents.

How many kids you think are gonna get this money?

I don’t know – but I bet all of them can spell “sham” “scam” and “flimflam.”

Okay – next section:

Now, before you read the next section, remember this part about how the amount of the tuition grant is “not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities.”

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education…”

Now this language is truly fascinating. If a high school graduate attends a public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education. What exactly is an independent not-for-profit institution of higher education?

Well, according to this definitions section at the Regents website, and this front page of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (which lobbies by the way; think they had something to do with this language?), there are 52 of these types of institutions on Ohio. You can see which ones here (think: Case Western, Oberlin, Xavier, Marietta, Hiram, University of Dayton). And how much do you want to bet that their tuition is multiple times higher than “the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities”?

So, first, the money goes to kids whether they go to Ohio’s publicly supported universities, or go to private universities.

But the amount of the awards is to be uniform. So the kids who go to private universities will only get a smidge of whatever their tuition is, which will be an even smaller smidge in proportion to their tuition and in comparison to what the kids who’ll attend public universities will get.

And? Those independent schools’ tuitions aren’t figured into the amount the Regents will award. Wouldn’t want to unnecessarily inflate what you’re going to give college students to alleviate the unaffordable nature of college tuition these days.

In all honesty, I don’t know how I feel about this. I mean, every kid should get the money, if in fact we’re going to be told that every kid can get the money.

But for starters, in addition to all the hoops they must jump through that I outlined yesterday, only 5% of the graduates will even get a chance to get the money. Even. get. a chance.

And they can’t have been homeschooled.

And maybe they can’t have gone to a charter school.

And if they’re in the 2009 class, and that’s the one that OLE says is the first class to get the money, well – what if they haven’t done the requirements outlined for all four years of school, since we’re talking about the graduating class TWO YEARS following when this thing is approved?

But in the future, will kids have to do this stuff for all four years? What about schools that only have 10, 11 and 12 in the high school, so the offerings are different?

And then they only get the average of the tuitions of Ohio public universities. But we don’t know if that average will be adjusted (up or down) annually, if at all, between 2009 and 2021.

And now, by reading, we learn that, indeed, private universities can receive these tuition dollars.

What a mess.

I suppose I want the kid to get what the kid is going to get, regardless of what institution he or she chooses in Ohio. However, if you’re going to let a kid go to a private Ohio college, why can’t the kid go to a private school anywhere in the country since there’s nothing in the proposed language that says one of the goals is to keep kids and the money in Ohio?

The argument that we want to keep them and the money in Ohio doesn’t do much for me because 1) the proposed amendment doesn’t say anything about inspiring students, from an early age, to want to go to college IN OHIO, and improve their academic preparation so that they can compete for this money (because this is actually going to be a VERY competitive grant, given all the requirements even before the Regents get a hold of it) AND STAY IN OHIO, and make college affordable IN OHIO.

In which case, hey. The kids should get this money and go to any school they want. Screw the Ohio thing. That’s not in the proposed language, at all.

VERY cool! Though of course, it isn’t really cool. Because ideally, a grant like this could and maybe even should be geared to keep kids and the money in Ohio.

But whoops – no one was watching those paralegals or quasi-legals or pseudo-legals who drafted this proposed amendment language.

And now – guess what? The intent of the amendment has nothing to do with keeping the money in Ohio. In which case, someone could easily challenge that if kids can take money to private universities in Ohio, why can’t they take the money to a private university outside Ohio? There is NO constitutional reason that the money needs to stay in Ohio. Even if there should have been one written in.

By the way, where do the gross receipts sit and accrue interest while the Regents are figuring this all out and the kids are jumping through the hoops?

Sigh. Okay – last piece of this very first sentence in Paragraph (B):

“For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state.”

Anyone know how to assess whether an office is a principal office or not? Like for your taxes, what is a business deduction, or whether you can take a home office deduction?

Yeah, me neither.

And now, the last words written in the entire proposed language about anything having to do with kids, money and education (because the next three pages, single-spaced typed proposed language? all about gambling. all. about. gambling.)

For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.

WTF is that? I have no CLUE what that means, since the previous gobbledyguck was all about all the other things the students have to do – you know:

-community service
-”take” core and advanced courses – not get the highest score in each
-participate in college readiness programs, assessments and testing

WTF is this proposed amendment now, in the absolute last f-ing sentence of the whole g-damned thing saying, “Oh, never mind! We’re only giving you the grants based on your academic merit.”

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ABOUT? And you can bet your sweet definitions section for slot machine paraphenalia that NO ONE, not a single person who signed those petitions has a CLUE that this money – this money that the flyers say will go to every child in Ohio for full scholarships (yup, that’s what some of the ads say) – shall be given out solely on academic merit.

Unless you want to argue about what “shall be based solely on” means. Soley sure doesn’t seem to mean by oneself, given how the amendment says the Regents establish criteria “solely” and then the amendment does it for them.

Also – “based solely on” – does that mean awarded “based solely on”? Or just assessed “based solely on”?

No one knows. I am 100% certain of that. Because no one with a brain read this language. I must believe that because I can’t believe that someone would purposely make something this awful. That would be too mean of me. And I don’t usually go in for conspiracy theories.

Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:

Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57

Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:25 pm October 26th, 2006 in Politics | 5 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

26

Lauren Rich Fine: Newspaper industry profit predicted to stay flat for years

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

From Editor & Publisher: [Ms. Fine lives in NEO]

It could take as long as 30 years for online revenue to represent at least 50% of a newspaper’s bottom line, according to a new report issued by Merrill Lynch on Tuesday.

“Even if the rapid [online] growth continues for the next few years, we don’t see online representing over 50% of newspaper ad revenues for at least a couple of decades, suggesting that industry profit could stay flat for the foreseeable future,” wrote analyst Lauren Rich Fine.

…

Generally, the industry bounces back but there’s concern that won’t be the case. “We are fearful the recovery coming out of the current downturn could be even more muted as online continues to transform the newspaper’s most lucrative, and most cyclical category, classifieds,” wrote Fine. “Put another way, moving from a near monopoly to a competitive model is having the impact of restraining blended ad rates and absolute dollar profits.”

Interesting take on going from a lazing away with high profit margins as a monopoly to slumming it with profits staying flat as the monopolies come to exist among competition.

Have just given up my subscription (as of 11/9, I’ll eventually blog about the excellent 17 minute call I had with Rick at the PD when I cancelled) and learning about how expensive ads actually are (they want you to remember how many people you’re reaching for the money, and that their ad buy is a good deal comparatively speaking, but I still can’t believe what it costs), I can believe this news.

Though I’m still not sure what it all means for us readers.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:45 pm October 26th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

26

Ian James and Ohio Learn and Earn

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

I found this fascinating Zoom listing on Mr. James. It’s worth reading the entire listing. I was promtped to Google him because this post directed me to his appearance on OSU Radio this morning.

You can also listen to Mr. James on this Meet the Bloggers podcast.

On the OSU show today, James accused the other guest of promoting a nanny state. But all I could think of, listening to Mr. James’ tone and speech, was that he’s the only one sounding like a parental figure, and a condescending one at that.

James’ closing statement was, “This is a legacy issue. We can either embrace it now or lose it for ever.”

What exactly is a legacy issue? And why do we lose it for ever, Mr. James? I do not get that.

On the other hand, I would love for this issue to be gone forever. But even I don’t expect that to ever happen.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:36 pm October 26th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

26

Important Issue 3 blog posts from others

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

Brewed Fresh Daily has them categorized here and as a collection of posts, provides an excellent survey of the arguments, including newspaper endorsements for and against Issue 3.

Bill Callahan’s take is here on Callahan’s Cleveland Diary. Note the final comment:

Ashley Says: September 28th, 2006 at 11:09 am

I was told that 12 years after it passed, supposedly every student in Ohio will have a full scholorship to a state univeristy or will receive a voucher for a private school. It would be nice if it were true. We’ll see.

Actually, Ashley, I’m guessing that we won’t see. A voucher or a penny.

Roldo Bartimole writes about it as only he can here at RoldoLINK on Cool Cleveland.

And please take the time to open this pdf from Ed Morrison. I barely touch the fuzzy math of it all, but Ed knows exactly how fuzzy it is.

And if you want to find more, just go to Technorati and search on “Ohio Issue 3.”

Or go to Google and search via Google News for the latest.

Finally, if you’re just not sure. And you know people who go over the border. And you know kids need money for school. And you know that there is gambling anyway.

READ. READ. READ. Read all of these and anything else you find. Ohio Learn and Earn is being pushed. Pushed by money. Pushed by extremely well-off companies. Pushed by paid public relations people, whose careers depend upon them to sell whatever it is they are asked to sell. Including you down the river.

They didn’t care a FIG about what the proposed amendment language said as far as education, so long as they could make the constitutional amendment have all the details they wanted to outline where the slot machines would go and how much money they’d get back from them.

Feh.

Please, educate yourself. Maybe you’ll want to vote yes. You can do that in this country. But maybe you won’t want to vote yes. And you can do that too.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:32 am October 26th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off 

← Previous Page — Next Page →

"));