Saturday, October 17, 2009

More myths from levy supporters

This is from SWCS supporters own website and they want you to trust them? Anything Grove City signs is supposed to be open for public review. They should be called "MYTHSPREADERS"

("MYTHBUSTERS…Let’s clear up a few things with some facts. Opponents of Issue 47 want Grove City to reveal what companies have chosen not to locate there because of the school levy challenge. The reason these companies don’t want to reveal themselves is twofold – they have asked the City to sign a confidentiality agreement and because this information can be used by potential competitors and others who may take advantage of this information for their own self interests. Think about it…if you were a business owner considering a new location, would you want your competitors to know?!")

This is direct from the SWCS Levy supporters website! Who is spreading myth?
Have these SWCS supporters ever heard of "Ohio Sunshine Laws? They in no way shape or form are supposed to conduct any "Secret Meetings or Business" out of the public eye. I suggest that the SWCS district and Local politicians might contact the Attorney General for some guidence on what that means. Check it out for yourself.
http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Legal/Sunshine-laws
No more money for corruption!
Vote "NO" on 47

7 comments:

  1. "Opponents of Issue 47 like to cite that the district spent $50,000 on catering in fiscal year 2009. This is true. Keep in mind that this is .00025% of a $200 million budget. And, this expense is legal and allowable by law. This was spent to provide catering as reward for students with outstanding achievements, and to provide food for staff who volunteered their time to attend FREE training sponsored by vendors of products or services used by the district. These staff members came in prior to school or in the evening so that substitute teachers would not need to be hired, which would cost the district additional money." (Citizens for South-Western City Schools Committee 10/18/09)

    These staff members didn't "give" time to the district. They are not hourly employees. It is part of their jobs to keep up on their training. That is why there are "Staff Development Days". I have worked in multiple school districts and when a vendor comes in to sell their product, they do the catering, not the district. I am concerned with this attempt to justify this behavior with the statement, "And, this expense is legal and allowable by law." Does this mean it is "right"? There are many legal loopholes in the laws that are "legal". I am having a difficult time finding the accountability here and instead am just finding rationalizations and justifications for bad behavior and worse, taxpayer funded fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You might want to read into that sunshine law a little more before using it in your arguments. This information that they are withholding would be considered a trade secret, which is included in the law as one of the exceptions to this law. The city would actually be in violation of the law you are referencing if they did release the information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You might want to look into what constitutes a trade secret. A discussion about locating in Grove City isnt exactly a "Trade secret". Thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe a court would find that this is business information or plans that derive potential economic value from not being known and is reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. If you feel strongly about it, you should take it to court, however, you would have a very difficult time winning because it fairly obvious that this fits the definition of the exception.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Any correspondence from a company that was declining to come to Grove City due to the levy not passing. The name of the company could have been blacked out. Common way of reporting in government. That would require that correspondence to exist. Thanks for commenting

    ReplyDelete
  6. The original comment stated the opponents wanted to know what companies. Blacking out the names would not give the information being requested. If proof that there are companies who have done this is what is being requested, then I agree that names and other indentifiable info could be blacked out and made public, but if the request is for what actual companies did this, then blacking out the names would not fill this request.

    ReplyDelete