The Latest of 57 Reasons to Reject the Ohio Learn & Earn Initiative (102606)
From Jill at Writes Like She Talks (original entry relating to Jill’s effort is here) –
- Reason 16 — “….. the first sentence of the text, which includes the mandatory instruction to the Board of Regents to award scholarships and tuition grants, fails to accomplish the very purpose that the same sentence indicates to be the raison d’etre of the amendment.”
Go there. She’s right. The detail of her post is difficult to get through (not her fault, but the amendment writers’ fault). But if you’re on the fence about OL&E, the ambiguity that is being inserted into Ohio’s Constitution should be enough to convince you to say “No.”
- Reason 15 — (this is my quick take on Jill’s analysis) “because there is an inherent and unreconciled conflict between the amendment’s language describing the Ohio Board of Regents’ sole power to determine eligibiliy criteria for Lean & Earn scholarships, and other language that identifies specific criteria that are said to represent the ‘only’ options (whether the Regents like it or not).”
Jill’s right. The legalese is downright amateurish (perhaps deliberately so; who knows what mischief might come about outside of public scrutiny and/or attentiveness when conflicts such as the one just described get “resolved”?). If conflicting language of this nature were in draft financial statement disclosures of public companies, the auditors would go nuts and demand a cleanup before issuance.
- Reason 14 — (again, this is my quick take) “Because the amendment writers don’t understand the difference between ‘taking’ a class and ‘completing’ a class; they don’t understand the difference between ‘accredited’ and ‘chartered’; heck, they don’t even understand the difference between ‘and’ and ‘or.’”
Bottom line: The langauge in the amendment is not just laughably sloppy, it’s dangerously sloppy. Just for starters — There are legitimate fears that it excludes home-schooled children, “08 school” attendees (e.g., Amish children), and perhaps even those in charter schools, from OL&E scholarship eligibility. There appears to be, in essence, a vague but mandatory community-service requirement that would dictate that schools who don’t administer such programs set them up.
As Jill says: “…. the directives are so poorly described and detailed as to be impossible to determine what they are, who they apply to, who is to apply them, when they begin, why they might not be awarded, and what to do with unawarded moneys.” Other than that, it’s fine (/sarcasm).
No lawmaker would say yes to such a law if OL&E as written was submitted to the legislature. No voter should allow this sludge to get into Ohio’s constitution.
Great job on this, Jill. I feel your analytical pain.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I work with Ohio Learn and Earn campaign. In your post you say that no lawmaker would say yes to such a law, however Judge Nathaniel Raphael Jones, former General Counsel to the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the first Ohio African- American appointed to the Federal bench, today announced his endorsement of Ballot Issue 3 – The Ohio Learn and Earn proposal. In his endorsement, which is being broadcast statewide in a new television spot beginning today, Judge Jones stated
that, in his legal opinion, the funds generated from Issue 3 are guaranteed and cannot be used for any other purpose. Judge Jones also confirmed that the Learn and Earn fund will provide over $850 million a year in college tuition assistance. Please visit our website at http://www.ohiolearnandearn.com for more information.
Comment by Learn and Earn — October 26, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
#1, thanks for your comment and disclosure.
My first point is a quibble. Jones is a judge, not a lawmaker. I honestly would question a legislator who would consider voting for a bill containing the muddled language OL&E contains.
I believe Jones is well-intentioned and misguided. I would be interested in having him address the objections raised at Writes Like She Talks at a detailed level.
As I and Jill (and many others) see it, even if you buy into what OL&E is trying to do (and of course you know I do not), the legal language in the amendment has so many minefields in it that it is simply stunning that it survived even a cursory review.
I would also add that even a *perfect* OL&E does NOT belong in the constitution, but in legislation. I feel the same way about Issue 2, as do many other Ohio newspapers who would otherwise be inclined to support. On the question of inappropriately cluttering the constitution, I guess Judge Jones and I will have to agree to disagree.
Comment by TBlumer — October 26, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
To the Learn and Earn commenter:
To be clear and honest and transparent: The Cleveland NAACP has urged its membership to vote against Issue 3. I do not believe that Judge Jones is speaking for the NAACP, national or otherwise, when he says that he endorses Issue 3.
You can read about the Cleveland NAACP position here.
http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/isele/1160652658299580.xml&coll=2
Sorry Tom - I don’t know how to get that into a hyperlink.
Btw, Judge Jones, I believe, went into senior status as a judge in 1995 and his office is listed as “closed” as of 20002. He last sat on the US Court of Appeals. God bless him - he is 80 years old!
Comment by Jill — October 26, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
ooo weee - make that 2002 not 20002! Remember the song, in the year 2525?
Comment by Jill — October 26, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
#4, I would fix but my blog is messing up URLs in comments when I try to edit them.
Jones’ office will still be closed in 2525, 7510, 9595, and 20002. :–>
Of course, “2525″ says we’ll only make it 10,000 years, at which point “man has cried a billion tears, for what they never knew, now man’s reign is through….”
Comment by TBlumer — October 26, 2006 @ 11:24 pm