Bill Todd and private charter schools

2010 Buckeye has a post in Buckeye State Blog on Columbus Republican mayoral candidate Bill Todd and “pay-to-play” politics. David Brennan is the president of White Hat Management, which owns and runs private charter schools.

Brennan has so far donated $20,000 to Todd’s campaign. As one of his campaign “themes”, Todd has rolled out a ridiculous idea of seizing control of the Columbus City Schools and running them from the Mayor’s office. Of course, one part of Todd’s very thin plan is to allow for privately run charter schools within the district. You know…the kind of privately run charter schools that a guy like David Brennan operates. Todd’s campaign has benefited financially, so a guy like David Brennan might sweeten the deal by throwing Todd some legal work. That way Todd benefits personally as well.

The post also notes that “A couple of weeks ago, we found out that Brennan bought the Bill Todd for Mayor campaign. Now, the Dispatch has inadvertently reported that Brennan may have bought Todd himself.”

I’m not going to wait on BSB’s post discussing the teachers’ unions’ ownership of the Democratic Party. It’s not only not unusual, but it’s the way political fundraising works that you give to politicians whose views on issues match your own. BSB is trying to float the idea that Bill Todd only supports private charter schools because of a $20,000 campaign contribution. Many people on the right- and some on the left- support serious competition in K-12 education, as do I, by the way. So the idea that Todd’s position on this issue was purchased is not believable. Buckeye 2010 is trying to define “pay-to-play” down to the extent that the phrase would have no meaning at all.

There’s also something in the post about Todd working as a lawyer for an Ohio PAC to which Brennan has contributed, and that this represents Brennan’s ownership of Todd. I don’t find that particularly convincing considering Todd’s resume. The idea might hold water if Todd had no prior experience in that area, but he does. And BSB knows this of course- they’ve reported on it before.

Todd’s problem isn’t that he’s a politician running for office who has connections as an elections lawyer, it’s that he’s an elections lawyer running for political office. Not too many people find that compelling.

Trackback | Posted by Brian | Aug 13, 2007 12:41 pm | Permalink | Bookmark
Categories: Columbus, Politics, News

Posted by Paul | Aug 13, 2007 1:10 pm

Thank you for pointing out that the OEA spends a ton of money on its lobbying efforts. To paraphrase the old joke, “we know what the politicians are, we’re just negotiating price.”

Posted by Brian | Aug 13, 2007 1:14 pm

YW, Paul. That subject is definitely worth a lot of ink.

Posted by Jill | Aug 13, 2007 2:10 pm

There is a world of difference between a private citizen seeking to increase his profits and giving our money to politicians to influence legislation so that that can happen, and people who teach our kids and are paid for with our money to do so who decide to take their earnings and give them to an organization that seeks to improve/protect their interests. I don’t agree with OEA on any regular basis, but I see no apt comparison between OEA and White Hat Management. You want it to exist but that doesn’t make it so.

Posted by Brian | Aug 13, 2007 2:40 pm

Jill, I don’t see any difference at all. Both White Hat/Brennan and the teachers’ unions- OEA or any other- give to politicians for one reason only: to further their interests, financial and otherwise.

And please remember, teachers do not equal teachers’ unions. The unions’ job is not to improve education but to further the interests of their teacher members, just as the auto workers’ unions’ job is not to build better cars but to further the interests of auto workers. That’s what unions are for.

Posted by Lisa Renee | Aug 13, 2007 5:00 pm

I think you also have to look at local union contributions, until the law was changed limiting the union’s ability to donate directly to candidates it was a larger issue than it is now. In years past the local teacher’s union was able to donate huge sums of money to candidates that agreed with their agenda, now this year on a local level they are limited to $1,000 to $2,000 from what I understand (not an expert in campaign finance law as it is definitely written so the average person won’t understand it but that’s what some candidates here in Toledo are currently dealing with).

Unions do have a vested interest in donating to candidates as well as lobbying for causes, at times even at odds against some of their membership as to the candidates/causes supported. I guess for me the irony is here in Toledo it’s stated a candidate is “owned by the unions” or “owned by the Blade” and that almost always is thrown at our Democratic candidates, yet in this scenario it’s being used against a Republican which goes to show you the level of donation versus “ownership” is in the eye of the beholder…

Posted by Jill | Aug 13, 2007 6:21 pm

Brian, I do not see Brennan’s financial or other interest as one that should be supported with taxpayer dollars that are intended to in someway enrich students. For Brennan, the money is used to influence politicians so that he is in some way enriched personally.
I still see and find the difference between the unions seeking to improve conditions - pay and other - for their members as permissible and acceptable, versus Brennan seeking to enrich himself.

I also agree with Lisa Renee says in her second paragraph re: candidates being owned. I’ve already had communications with the publisher of one paper about its failure to ID where Husted and Mandel’s money comes from when the articles, news articles, talk up their love for charters and vouchers. The publisher told me I was correct and that the paper had erred.

Posted by Brian | Aug 13, 2007 7:13 pm

Jill, what is the difference between unions seeking to improve their members’ compensation and a company owner seeking to improve his profits? Your comments here only make sense if you’re pre-disposed to believe that K-12 education is rightly the business of government and government employees. Government-employed teachers are personally enriched whenever their union wins one for them during negotiations. That’s what the union is for. And I can’t imagine that you think that because the funds come from taxpayers that they should only be spent on govt employees- we don’t build public roads that way. We insist on competition among private companies. Do you think the state of our roads would be better or worse if a public agency had exclusive rights to taxpayer dollars to build roads?

And about papers disclosing contributions when a politician speaks on a topic, fine. News organizations should report that context. If they also disclose how much teacher union money a candidate or his or her party receives when they speak against vouchers, that would be fair. I don’t expect to see it however.

Posted by Paul | Aug 13, 2007 10:29 pm

Brian:

Exactly.

I’ve suggested that education should be managed like food:

Everyone requires food.
Everyone requires education.

Not everyone can afford food.
Not everyone can afford education.

People who can’t afford food get food stamps.
People who can’t afford education should get vouchers.

People with cash or food stamps can buy food anywhere they want.
People with cash or vouchers should be able to attend any school they want.

Food is produced by competitive (and subsidized) private industry.
Education should be provided by (and subsidized) private industry.

What would it be like if we made food production and distribution like the way we manage schools?

Food would be produced by government chartered monopolies.
The varieties of food offered would be determined by the government.
You could only get food at the commissary in your neighborhood.
The price of food would be determined by the government.

Posted by Jill | Aug 13, 2007 10:40 pm

Humans are not products subject to quality control that shall be discarded or stamped defective if they don’t pass muster. We work them no matter what it takes - that is the goal and that is why I do not believe in, support or accept the analogies Paul makes.

I do not nor have I ever supported making profit from education. That is my perogative. I believe all the money should go back into the system of education.

Teachers are employees of schools. They’ve chosen to unionize to do the best they can for themselves. I do not see that analogous to David Brennan or White Hat. The profits they make to do not go back into the resources that contribute to education. They go into his lifestyle. He is enriched without enriching.

Hate teachers all you want. Hate unions all you want.

The issue is education and our kids versus David Brennan living high on the hog and lying on the radio to people about how much money he makes as a profit off of education.

I find that vulgar. Sue me.

Posted by Brian | Aug 14, 2007 1:10 am

Jill, c’mon. No one is hating teachers or unions. No one is going to sue you. Just because some people disagree with you on this issue doesn’t mean we’re evil. Please don’t try to insinuate that.

And you’re right. People should not be subject to quality control or be discarded or stamped defective. But education as a service should be. Competition and private enterprise have made this country the wealthiest in the world and is the best way of creating a better product at a cheaper price. Why anyone would think that education should be exempt from this I just don’t understand. And please don’t mention education’s importance- that just makes subjecting it to those forces all the more necessary.

And I’ll also note that our post-secondary educational system, a mix of private and government institutions in competition with each other, and to which government grants and loans can be applied, is among the best in the world. Why should anyone insist that K-12 be run differently, as a govt monopoly?

Posted by Jill | Aug 14, 2007 8:36 am

Brian, I appreciate your calm down approach, I am smiling, seriously.

But I wrote what I did because, if we were face to face, that’s the level of exasperation with this topic I would be demonstrating. And, just to let you know how serious I find this issue about better products at cheaper prices (AT WHAT OTHER COSTS, I have to add), I actually had already, last night, thought about what I wanted to blog about on this very topic. But I leave it here in the comments and then incorporate it as a post later today, I hope.

Here is where I come from on this. I do not say it to try and persuade others but it is a belief I’ve held as long as I can remember and when people go all family values on us, and THEN also go White Hat, fahgeddaboutit - such people show themselves not to be sincere. Here is why I say this:

Raising children, raising humans, raising responsible people who then populate a world we want to live in costs money. A lot of money. An undeterminable about of money due to the variety of humans to whom we give birth. And it should cost, we should pay, whatever it takes. Period. And why should the people who provide the means to help humans develop get short shrift so that people can make money off of them, and then those helpers have what kind of work conditions and quality of life? I cannot accept skimping on that.

Yet what do people, even the wealthiest, try to get away with?

Crappy pay to undocumented people to help them in their homes.
Crappy pay to teenagers sometimes too young to be caring for kids.
Crappy pay to teachers in private schools or parochial schools and as little pay as possible to public school teachers.
And a whole panoply of problems I’ll get into in my post.

That is how you treat the people who are helping us raise our kids, our next generation, the people upon whom I will depend for my care as I head to AARPland?

Brian - this isn’t personal or political - about you or Republicans or Democrats.

As a general rule, I have always, always, always paid more than anyone I know for my babysitters. They are caring for my KIDS. And remember, I worked in a children and family mental health agency for eight years. And you know what they did? They tried to take advantage of ME by trying to pay me as little as possible, of course, and yet what was I doing? I was helping place kids who’d blown out of foster care 11 times in a row and were holding up people in barns with pitchforks on a Friday afternoon when I needed to get home to my own family but no other facility would take those kids and I stayed at work, on my Shabbat, and negotiated with county services until the kid with the pitchfork had a place to go (this is a dramatic example of the work I did, but my point is that people who work for kids, on behalf of kids, will be pushed to the limit of what they’ll do for as little pay as the employer can get away with - you call it best products cheapest prices - I call it near extortion under some circumstances - because we are talking about humans not products).

Maybe this issue I have with making sure people who take care of people are well-paid comes from my life-long interest in why - why do people end up the way they do. And I’ve always traced it back to child development. And if we are not willing to invest in child development, then what the hell good is being the “wealthiest in the world”? It’s bullshit, Brian, bullshit, if we’re not taking care of people they way each of us would want to be taken care of.

So, especially when we’re talking about education, teachers, I cannot accept the profit motive as having a place. Not until every single child and every single teacher and every single person involved in the care and keeping of the school kids has and gets what they deserve - not what the market says they should get.

You know why no one likes the school funding amendment? Because no one wants to learn just how much we SHOULD be spending on education.

I love this country and I’m cool with capitalism. But not across the board. And not when it comes to education and raising children.

Posted by Paul | Aug 14, 2007 12:20 pm

Jill:

It is naive to think that profiteering is not a part of the public school environment.

Our school district is the largest economic engine in the community, sucking up $150 million in tax revenue each year and spraying it back into the community. 89% of it pays teacher salaries and benefits. Teachers in our district average $60,000 in salary, have among the best benefits in the community, and are just about the only folks who have a pension waiting for them - 2/3rds pay after 30 years service by the way. And they work only 183 days per year. I’m not saying teachers are overpaid, but they’re not underpaid either.

But the real economic role of the suburban school district is as a determiner of real estate values (Professor Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School has written powerfully on this point, from the reverse perspective by saying that the price of the home is the cost of getting your kids in good schools). The better the school system, the more existing houses are worth, and the more undeveloped land is worth. Our district is 60 square miles, and half of it is undeveloped farmland. A surprising portion of it is owned by speculators and developers, not the farmers who rent it to grow crops. A 100 acre field near my home has been owned by a developer, Homewood Homes, for nearly 20 years. They’ve just been waiting, holding it in inventory, until the utility systems worked its way there.

Now Homewood, with the assistance of our local mayor, has maneuvered the school district into purchasing an adjacent piece of property, a mile farther away from the terminus of utilities. The school would need water, and therefore would have to construct a one mile long water line. So the school board signed an easement deal with Homewood to run a 14″ water line across the Homewood property, but Homewood insisted that they be able to tap the line for free - to serve the houses they were going to build. So the school district is spending nearly $1 million of taxpayer money to build a water line when the main beneficiary is going to be Homewood Homes.

The #1 problem in our school district is explosive growth, and yet our mayor and school board are aiding a developer. Something fishy is going on, don’t you think?

So which is worse, a businessman who generates a profit running schools that people attend voluntarily, or an elected official who is getting paid off by a corporation which benefits from this kind of misappropriation of taxpayer money?

Posted by Jill | Aug 14, 2007 12:33 pm

Paul, I don’t mind sounding naive, because I’m not naive. I don’t have a problem saying that neither of your options are acceptable or one more preferable than the other, because they aren’t - to me.

To the extent that schools were created with an economic role in mind, it is not the reason parents use them now. I do not send my child to school with the number reason being that I pray for him or her to play an economic role in our society. To do so would bankrupt me and them.

Call me nutty, fruity, naive, whatever.

I read what you’re saying. I understand what you’re saying. But preparing my kids for an economic role is not the prize on which I focus my eyes when it comes to education. I will not support efforts that make them pawns, efforts that say making money is the #1 goal, because they are for-profit.

Posted by Columbuser.com » On the Dispatch podcast | Aug 14, 2007 4:57 pm

[…] second podcast is up, this time on David Brennan, PACs, and charter schools, which I wrote about here. Bookmark | Trackback URI Posted by Brian | Aug 14, 2007 1:01 pm | Categories: Media, […]

Posted by Columbuser.com » Schools and the profit motive, II | Aug 15, 2007 12:40 pm

[…] companies- of course she doesn’t put it that way. It’s an adaptation of her comments on this post. Brian at Plunderbund likes it and excerpts: For me, it is about the motive. And people who are in […]

Posted by Why David Brennan and White Hat Management should cease for-profit operations of education | Writes Like She Talks | Apr 4, 2008 9:29 pm

[…] Brian at Columbuser wasn’t the first to write about the Bill Todd - David Brennan - White Hat Management - pay to play lawsuit going on related to PACs, and Virginia and Ohio. Others include Plunderbund, the BSB link in the previous sentence and Progress Ohio. Pho wrote about similar problems for Brennan in Colorado. […]

Posted by Lilly Bell | Jun 30, 2010 6:06 am

K12 education is the best. Everyone should look out for it..:”

Posted by Matthew Clark | Jul 25, 2010 9:21 am

K12 education is always the best’`;

18 comments on “Bill Todd and private charter schools”

Leave a comment

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Ohio

Akron

Bexley

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Grandview Heights

Hilliard

Marietta

Toledo

The Feed