| Vol. IV No. 1 | February 1999 |
"How should our political campaigns be financed?" This often-debated but never-resolved question will be the subject for the next C.L.U.R.T. discussion series, at the Lakewood Public Library for six Monday evenings beginning March 1. Beginning time is 7:15.
Three meetings will be in the Auditorium and three will be in the basement
Meeting Room. Two Mondays (March 22 and April 12) are left open, and the
group will either recess on those dates or meet elsewhere. The schedule
is:
| March 1 -- Auditorium | March 29 -- Auditorium |
| March 8 -- Meeting Room | April 5 -- Meeting Room |
| March 15 -- Auditorium | April 19 -- Meeting Room |
The topic of health care came in second in the selection of a topic, and it will become the subject of discussion in the unlikely event that campaign finance is exhausted as a subject. Other topics seriously considered were bioethics and welfare.
The meetings are free and open to residents of all communities and all
ages. Students are welcome. However, the enrollment is limited.
To register, or for information, call 226-6105.
"Should funding of Ohio public schools be restructured? If so, how?" This was the subject of eight meetings stretching from September 28 through November.
Six positions or plans were put forth, each emphasizing one or another of the three basic themes, basic/minimum education, equality and choice:
1) Basic for all. Each student is to receive state funding sufficient for a basic education, as determined by a board of experts. Individual districts, however, may use local resources to augment state revenues. The rationale is that the overall good of the state as a whole (the "conglomerate") would be served thereby. As the name implies, the idea of a basic minimum education is the foundation of this position.
2) Equal for all. Each student is to get the same state funding, and the level of funding is determined by the voters. Individual districts may not buy a better education for their own students. This plan aims not only for equality but also for a sense of community, a "one for all, all for one" feeling which will be advanced by insuring that each family may increase funding for its own children only by increasing funding for all.
3) Robin Hood (modeled after the current Texas system.). Wealthier school districts are required to transfer funds to the poorer school districts. Equality is the foundation.
4) Libertarian. All public support for the schools should be discontinued, leaving students to rely on private or charitable resources. The rationale is that public schools are inefficient and that absence of public education would mean greater challenges which would lead to greater accomplishments.
5) Present system adjusted. Money received from the state should be sufficient to allow school districts to meet the mandates of the legislature. To accomplish this, business property taxes should be levied by the state and distributed on a regional or statewide basis.
6) Status quo. The present system is not to be changed. Choice -- the choice of a family to move from one district to another and the choice of a district as to its level of funding -- was a key consideration for this position.
Although issues were not so prominent in the discussions as the explanations of the plans themselves, a number of basic issues arose, such as:
What is a conservative? A liberal? A socialist? A libertarian? What are the various issues on which individuals may disagree? These are the questions addressed by a group discussing political positions. The group has recessed after four meetings, but will resume. For information, call 226-6105.
To be put on the mailing list for this newsletter, call 216-226-6106.