Sunday, October 12, 2008

Olentangy Residents: Corrections requested

A recent reader noted that she was "disgusted with the constant misleading and sometimes outright wrong statements that you and your band of merry men continue to throw at our good district." My put-up-or-shut-up challenge is this: Note the factual errors found on this blog and I will post retractions. Please distinguish between facts and rhetoric (I know, I know, Hooie is not a card-carrying Marxist -- she's only sympathetic to the cause).

Update: For all that disgust, the reader could only find two minor errors on one comment (not a post of mine, but a comment from another reader). Yet, in the true essence of irony, the reader herself posted an error. So, of the three errors on this site (including 909 posts plus many comments), one is hers. Some people.


Anonymous said...

Okay, then check out the comment someone left about the number of days worked and the amount of retirement teachers get on your suing part i post; those are factual errors.
That's the first one.

Jim Fedako said...

That's the only factual error found on this site?!? Someone mistyped 175 instead of 185.

But you lied about the retirement percentage.

From OSBA: Eighty-five percent of STRS members are in a defined benefit plan, specifically determined by age, years of service and the average of the three highest salary years (also known as final average salary). STRS members can earn 66 percent of their final average salary at 30 years, 88 percent at 35 years and 100 percent at 39 years. This is guaranteed by law and not subject to the volatility of the stock market. Survivor and disability protection is also provided.

Will you now admit that you are wrong? Waiting ...

Taxpayer of 3 said...

Red Ipods for all the children!!!!!!!!! Cause it is all for children...isnt' it!!!

Are those the miscellaneous expenses people speak of...hummmmmm!

Anonymous said...

I didn't say it was the only error. I said it was AN error. I really don't have time to go through every post. At any rate, I didn't lie. Funny how someone else has an error and it's "mistyped" and I have an "error" and it is a lie.
Right in your source it says that teachers with 30 years get 66% in a defined benefit plan but not all are in that type of plan. The benefit is not 80% for everyone, as the poster leads people to believe that all or most teachers get 80%. Most teachers retire at 30 years, so most don't get more than 66%. They also contribute a heck of a lot of their own money, so what is wrong with getting it back? Some retire after 35 and get more. I know few teachers who actually teach for 39 years and get 100%.

By they way, you want me to admit I am wrong, but I have never seen you admit you're wrong on anything. I only see you put other people down who may try to have a dialogue about something that they disagree with you on.

The thing is, I respect the fact that you are well read and that you have knowledge about an array of topics, but it is hard to engage in dialogue with someone who never thinks he is wrong ever and who berates others.

Anonymous said...

You continue to post that OFK lied during the levy campaign but you have never backed that claim up.

Please tell us how they lied.

Jim Fedako said...

10:28 --

Please! Reread the posts on closing the schools should the levy fail. And if you don't believe me, see how Hilliard reacted when challenged (

At least the Hilliard superintendent was ethical enough to withdraw that claim after being challenged. The reason? I assume that he realizes his pro-school folks aren't as easily manipulated as the OFK sheeple.

Jim Fedako said...

9:39 --

You made a negative statement about this blog and had the nerve to post false information. Then you say I berated you. Have you reread your original post.

In addition, you stated: My best friend is a teacher and I happen to know several teachers, so I know how the system works.

So, if you know how the system works, why did you attempt to mislead the readers of this blog? Why did you do what you accuse others of doing? Hmmm.

By the way: My heart bleeds ... Do you mean that some teachers retire at 51 and I'm supposed to feel bad about their retirements -- regardless the percentage? Get in the real world.

I am banning your nonsense. You claimed that this blog contained misstatements, one third of which are now yours.

Going forward, I don't want your lies (what you call misstatements) to be called-out by another reader.

Anonymous said...

Oh, that was a fun read. They really get riled up when the truth is made available about how much money they actually pull in. They really squeal. I loved the business about how she said she didn't have time to go through every post.
A diverse group of people
DIALOGUING to consensus
About a social issue
With a facilitator
And a pre-determined outcome.

mother of olentangy kid said...

You know dear Jim, thank you, thank you thank you!! For having the patience and the time that you take to have such a site and dealing with the bloggers, and posting the facts of Olentangy!!

Two questions for the readers, why if you disagree with so much that is posted and believe that Jim lies, why read such a site????

Second, Why doesn't the district admit to their mistakes? I would love to hear them admit that the district really did not need the level so soon. Oh yeah, they want all our money for there frivalous spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Jim, you've made a claim that they cannot close the schools but you are the only one backing that up. The district has a legal opinion that they can and after reading the relevant Ohio code that you posted, I see no reason they cannot.

Even if the schools remain open, they would raise the fees required to use the school facilities beyond the point that OYAA or most of the other organizations could afford, thus effectively cutting off access to the school facilities.

Therefore, OFK and the board did not lie but stated a reality.

Jim Fedako said...

8:31 --

One: A rule of blogging is that you read all comments so that you do not ask the same nonsense repeatedly (hint: read above).

Two: You then assume my statement is true to make your next point.

Question: Do you have any idea how much a church pays to use a school on a Sunday morning? Do you have any idea of the incremental cost associated with opening that school to the church? Do you have any idea how much money the district makes from churches that use a school? I'll answer for you: no.

I've been at both sides; a board member and a member of a church that used a school every Sunday. Please research before posting nonsense.

Finally, OYAA should pay their fair share. That is what state law requires. The schools do not exist as a freeby for certain privileged organizations. Schools are to be made available to any organization for a reasonable fee. Is zero a reasonable fee? I don't think so.

Remember, my issue was threatening churches. I always believed OYAA should pay to play. Why should your neighbor pay so that you and OYAA can play?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why there is a fee for student that drive to school to park their cars.
Why is there a fee for students to take core classes that they need to graduate.
We as taxpayers paid for that parking lot at the schools. The teachers don't have to pay to park.
Some kids that I have spoke with have to pay there parents back for fees that the school is charging them. One student that I spoke with his fees were $1500.00, he worked all summer long and his parents took it out of his saving account. I have spoke with people in our neighborhood and they have little kids and I told them about the school fees,I even e-mailed the fees to them; they said they had know idea about the fees, they said better start saving now.
We need to do something about these school fees. When is enough a enough!!

C.C. said...

10:28 Anon

"You continue to post that OFK lied during the levy campaign but you have never backed that claim up.

Please tell us how they lied."

Please read this relesase for the district.

From the Threatening website of Olentangy Schools, "The list includes $10.372 million in cuts with some taking effect as early as March 31, 2008 such as reducing transportation to state minimums for all students. The district is currently in deficit spending in excess of $10 million this year and nearly $15 million next year so $10 million in cuts are needed now, according to Davis. He noted that the only way to mitigate this is to enact cuts or to pass the March 4 operating issue."

Funny, the approved budget for this year is $10mil or so less than anticipated by the above cited geniuses with no additional revenue from the levy.

FROM THE OFK WEBSITE under the School Funding Tab, "If voters do not approve a levy increase, then a school district still must balance its budget. This often requires the elimination of programs and services."

Unfortunately....this statement was not truthful....only the threat and "deceptive" accounting was truthful.

Anonymous said...

c.c., what was said is truthful. The problem is that people confuse budgets with actuals with cash flow with income and with spending. That is what Jim has so wonderfully done here, play slight of hand with numbers and then accuse the board of lying.

The board is required to show a reasonable no-deficit budget which is what they did. They are required to show how they would balance their budget without the levy, which they did. Their actual expenditures and revenue are very close to what was budgeted. You need to look at the rate of spending if the levy had not passed when it did and compare that with models of spending and income of having the levy pass later in time.

The board and OFK did not lie to the voters. What they said was truthful and what they presented as plan was necessary to fulfill their legal obligations as a board.

Jim Fedako said...


We can safely assume that 5:42 is a board member, administrator, or OFK hack. Regardless, their nonsense is tiring.

The term "reasonableness" is not found in state code relative to school budgets, forecasts, etc. Reasonable is a subjective term. But its use by 5:42 shows that he/she has no clue whatsoever.

In typical fashion, 5:42 conflates two separate issues.

1. The need to cut $10.5 million from the budget was a pure lie. In an earlier post, I called out OFK on this matter and they quickly changed their website. The $10.5 million was the stick that Davis used to threaten parents, etc.

2. In February, right before the levy, the treasurer adjusted her budget assumptions to the degree that the FY2009 deficit disappeared. Now, follow this ...

The treasurer noted a large reduction in planned expenditures for ... staffing. This is in February, but the staff is hired through August. In September of 2007, the district knew for certain who they hired, as well as the total cost for those hires. Yet they kept that info quiet until February, right before the levy, only to be noted in passing. It was never reported to the papers.

Then, at the end of the year, actuals came in even lower. There was never a need for the levy.

None of this is a sleight of hand on my part. In fact, read previous posts on this blog and you will find links to all the data I used.

I can't make this stuff up. It really is that bizarre.