Boose takes heat for Senate Bill 5 support

State Rep. Terry Boose (R-Norwalk Township) wouldn't change a thing about Saturday's town hall meeting regarding Senate Bill 5 at Main Street School in Norwalk.
Scott Seitz2
Mar 15, 2011


State Rep. Terry Boose (R-Norwalk Township) wouldn't change a thing about Saturday's town hall meeting regarding Senate Bill 5 at Main Street School in Norwalk.

Boose, who represents the 58th district, knew going in the potential was there for emotions to run high and they did. He also was aware he would received a good deal and grief and that part came true as well.

"I'm definitely leaning to support Senate Bill 5," Boose said. "There are a few things that might be cleaned up, but I expect to vote on it in the House either this week or next. That would be my guess."

(NOTE: To watch additional video coverage of Boose's town hall meeting, click HERE and HERE.)

Look for the full story in Tuesday's Reflector.



Republican Beliefs....

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Answer. The world is dynamic, things change.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony. Answer. Which country allow Russian missiles to be pointed at us?

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq. Answer. Check your facts for half truths.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation. Answer. Who decides about the unborn babies own body? Why is a double murder to kill a pregnant woman yet a man in a lab coat kills the baby for a fee? All corps have some form of regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. Answer. Love the sinner hate the sin.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay. Answer. Dumb self serving statement

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. Answer. Stick with academics in school. You teach your kid and I will teach my kid when and what we feel is appropriate.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. Answer I do see bodies piling up on the streets now.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart. Answer. And the government does?
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.Answer. Again propaganda self serving jibberish.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.Answer. Chairman of the committee of foreign

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's drunk driving record and cocaine arrest are none of our business. Answer We need to know about both.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.Answer. Again both.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt. Answer. ??? Are you talking about Arizona and Obama's admin crushing their self policing their own state?


Issue five will help clean up this mess!


There is something shady going on when 2 Republican Senators who were going to vote no on this issue in the Commerce and Labor Committee are replaced by 2 Republicans who voted yes. This happened just before the committee was to vote. This move alone should tell you something is wrong with SB5.


Exactly what I was thinking, theMob. And amen to that!


I was not there, so I can't speak directly to how this all went down, but I will comment on the bill.
I'm not sure I agree with 100% merit pay for all teachers. I think Merit should be a good portion of a teacher's pay though. Every other job has some sort of quality control, or a performance attached to their being employed.

I don't understand the argument that this bill will ruin education in Ohio. Because teacher's have to pay more for pension and helthcare, that is going to ruin education? I'm not making the connection. If the point is that with merit pay, it will lead to more testing, why shouldn't a teacher be required to prove they actually did some teaching? I would think that most teachers would want to show they are better than the ones who are just showing up to collect a paycheck.

I don't see how under the current system, that a teacher being more educated and having more experience means they are better teachers. There has to be some way of showing that you are makig a difference. And isn't that what all teachers got in the profession to do? Make a difference.

The AFT, NEA, and OEA have had many years to clean up the way they do things. If teachers are saying there are things that need to change "in house", why didn't they make those changes already? Meaning, if you are upset that "bad" teachers remain employed under the current system you have, then you should have made changes. But as Mr. Bob Chanin (top attorney for the NEA) the goal of the union is about power, not about educating children. It was a startling admission, and it shows what is really at the heart of this union.

Now, by no means am I denigrating teachers. I believe they have an important job. I believe most do a good job, and most do care about their students. However, I fail to see how making pay more for health insurance and pensions is going to be bad for education. Teachers go into teaching because they love to teach, not because of their salary, benefits, and summers off.


Man, I would hate to be a teacher if I was related to this guy. He (or she) seems to have little respect for the profession. He seems to think it's ok for teachers to make less money and pay more for benefits. He says he respects what they do, but he (or she) doesn't respect them enough to allow them to make a living wage. Must be a businessman or something close, like probably in sales where his income is based on numbers of products sold. Not on how children perform on tests.

I love how one comment is being used by Republican lovers to justify this bill. "It's about balancing the budget, not busting the union. Unions are all about power anyways." Why isn't anyone remembering Kasich's comment during his campaign stop when he said (paraphrasing here) "We are going to break the backs of the unions."

Come on people, look at this for what it is. He said he was going to break the unions, and one of the first thing he did (after selecting his lilly-white cabinet) was to go after union workers. I don't buy this as a budget measure, this is revenge, plain and simple.


""" He says he respects what they do, but he (or she) doesn't respect them enough to allow them to make a living wage""""

LOL ! Who left the gate open ?
How about allowing the CITIZENS, PARENTS and TAXPAYERS the RIGHT to keep their money so THEY CAN LIVE!
The average teacher makes at LEAST 2 times the average wage and by your post one would envision the teachers are going to be in bread lines!


The bill states a minimum salary of $20,000. That's low.


The previous law (which you are currently under) stated that you couldn't start out under 17k. So, this actually raises it. But fear tactics work better


Fear works in every sector. Sales down, might lose your job. That's a fear.


I totally agree, but nothing good ever comes of it. As soon as they say "sales down, you might lose your job" people start worrying about it and actually stop doing their job. They start looking for new ones. It's a bad tactic.

Rather than fear, people might find that rewarding someone is a better way to motivate people.


Lol, some of the funniest things I have read so far. Now you want to inject race into this. Come on, thats either to get under someones skin, or desperation.

Yeah, whats great about marriage us that you can have differences of opinions on subjects, but you respect the person and try too see where they are coming from.

As I sit here and try and put myself in a teachers shoes, I see this bill as making me pay more for my healthcare and pension. I guess I would assume it would mean less pay.

From a taxpayer position I see it as the above, plus a way to keep people from getting complacent in their job. (it can and does happen in all jobs)

Right now, tell me 2011 how a teacher distinguishes himself/herself from another teacher? Does having more education and more experience make one a better teacher? As a parent, shouldnt I expect accountability? Will my child learn just as much no matter who the teacher is? If not, shouldnt a better teacher be paid more? If all teachers are the same (thats the point of collective bargaining) when you or another teacher interviews for a job, did you say, "it doesn't matter who you hire because we are all equally good"? Or did you try to differentiate yourself?

For better or worse, our country is set up that those who are better do bettet and usually get paid better. (unless youre in a union, then you are all equal.) if you can not see how the union takes away your individuality, then youre not being honest in your discussions.

Remember, when all is said and done, if this is as bad as it is being made out to be, then your party (democrats) will sweep into power, and change everything back, and we can all live in a true socialist utopia.

Just dont let this ruin relationships.


Unions offer workers a voice. This bill gives all control to the local school board, which could make it a "our way or the highway" negotiation. That's fair. Remember, we can't go to our school board and negotiate on our own.

Also, we already have accountability. It's called No Child Left Behind, a Republican-based bill.

Finally, everyone says it's about "having a seat at the table." Taxpayers, you already have this. Your elected officials are at the table. If you have an opinion, call them. As for ruining relationships, only time will tell.

BTW - no response on Kasich's union-busting comment during the still believe this is a budget thing?


I will answer your question about Kasich's comments. They do sound bad. I give you that. What was the context they were in. All I have seen is that he said he wants to break the backs of the teachers union. How does he mean it? If he means the teachers union fights reform all the time, and the only way to get his reform is the break the back of the teachers union, well, then I have been guilty of saying worse things.

As far as NCLB and accountability, did not the NEA, AFT, and OEA all oppose that, too? Why is accountability a bad thing to the teachers' union? (btw, NCLB was coauthored y DEMOCRATS George Miller and Ted Kennedy) Everyone's hands are dirty on that.

Now answer my questions. Does more education and experience make you a better teacher? Would my child learn the same amount no matter who the teacher is? If not, why wouldn't a teacher want to be paid for the work they do? Why does accountability scare the teachers' union so much?

My understanding of this bill from listening to the audio, and you can correct me since you were there, is that both sides publish their best offers if an agreement can't be made. (how many times has a contract gone to arbitration? I have no idea) Then, the elected officials of the local government (who can be voted in or out depending on if you like how they voted) makes the decision. I see the big difference with CBA being you now have elected officials making the decision, instead of an arbitrator.

I udnerstand the point of having to pay more for benefits and pension. I can see how that would anger public workers. I don't think I have ever said teachers make a lot of money. In fact, I have ALWAYS stated that a new teachers base salary is barely livable when you have to pay back loans. However, the trade off is always the benefits. Clearly, one would think you could go in and try and negotiate for higher base salary if you are now paying more for your benefits.

I know of some teachers who make a lot of money, but I would say the majority that I know make in the 40-45k ballpark. Which is neither much nor anything to scoff at. However, if for a $12k health policy you only pay $240 annually (Norwalks current health contract) that raises the total compensation to near $55k. It's a trade off. Just like when we went to college to decide what we wanted to do with our lives. You could spend lots of money and time to become a doctor and make big money, or you could get a bachelors degree and take a sales position, or a teaching position.

I wonder if all the conservative (republican) teachers were this upset with the healthcare bill last year? I don't seem to remember that. And I know that affected my job and my paycheck. But I guess this is the only thing that matters?

Everyone has strong feelings about this, but I haven't seen anyone get personal, and so it shouldn't be taken personal.


To all of you who have posted about state/local government workers needing to start feeling the economic downturn - (just in this area) tell the Norwalk City workers who have not had a raise in over 3 years but have paid more for insurance it is their time to feel the economy. Tell the Sandusky Firefighters that were laid off almost 2 years ago that it is now their turn. Tell the several dozen Mansfield city workers that have been laid off it is now their time to feel the pain. I could go on and on. The unions are not upset about losing certain things that are included in SB5. They are mad about losing the power to sit down and negotiate a fair deal for both sides. I have a sister who is a very good teacher that has already said she wishes now she would of choosen a different career if this bill goes through as it now stands. She will now have to worry every contract year if the school board is going to cut her pay significantly. This is not about unions not wanting to be effected it is about losing their voice.


Do you live in a cave? MANY of US have not had raises in that amount of time and some don't even HAVE insurance,

So, what exactly in your post makes the two sectors of Government / Private different? I KNOW for a fact that the PRIVATE sector of employment that PAYS the wages of the Governement is in far worse shape.


Bailey - no, I live in a house above ground. I understand that there have been cuts in the private sector - all I was saying is that public union and public non-union workers have also been effected. It really was not that hard to understand my comment. You also have to remember that public workers pay taxes as well. Like I said before and I'll say it again - public workers have already taken hits and are willing to take more - they just want to still have a voice and SB5 takes that voice away.

future in jeopardy

We need to cut the budget, it comes down to that. Hurting teachers is something no one wants to see, but it must be done. Some form of government service has to take the fall, the government unions can take it and still survive, which is the best we can hope for. If snoozer understood a lick of world politics and the way that government works, he might be able to make an intelligent statement, but evidently not. Snoozer forgets that what looks bad now, was the only logical decision then.

mister wizard

Union dues are the mother's milk of the democrat party. The teat is about to be pulled out of their mouths and they know it. Without employer dues deductions, unions will have to shake down their membership directly. Dues will just become another unpaid bill for struggling families. How would you dems like to donate millions of your hard-earned dollars to Sarah Palin ?


The teat is not owned by the unions. The teat is owned by corporations feeding the republicans with their agenda. This is not about balancing the budget. This is just the beginning. Private sector unions are next. Corporate America is trying to take over everything that is good and fair in this great land of ours. Its true, generally unions support democrats who in turn, I feel, support the working people. Corporations support republicans who in turn, support corporations. To me, Senate Bill 5 is the first step in dismantling all unions. And if you are not a union employee, this will trickle down to you. Many workers rights, union and non union, were brought to you courtesy of the unions. The working class people need to stand together and fight this fight and end the corporate worlds attack on us.


this is a union argument. My dad is in a union and argues the same thing. How does this affect private sector unions? Back up your argument.

Guess what? I'm middle class and am for this. Why? Because I pay taxes and if this isn't done the budget will be balanced on the backs of middle class taxpayers.

Why don't you tell us what should be done to balance the budget. Union people are quick to say this shouldnt be done, but don't ever offer any other options. Why didn't strickland do this, you ask? Because he got a 1 time stimulus shot.

Remember, if you raise taxes, those who are rich will leave (look at nyc). Which leaves the rest of us to pay higher taxes.

mister wizard

Without big corporations, there are no jobs. Without jobs, there are no taxes. Without taxes, there are no police, teachers, bureacrats, unions. Without bureaucrats and unions.....hmmmmmmm.

6079 Smith W

For anyone to seriously think that there was somehow a Golden Age in U.S. politics where everyone was civil and polite to each other is grossly mistaken. U.S. politics has always been contentious, sometimes leading to armed conflict. ----------------This entire issue is about a minority (public unions and their allies) dictating rules and regulations to the majority (all other dissenting citizens and taxpayers). I’m tired of being a slave to the political ruling class – how about you?

Kottage Kat

Ok let's get ready to beat up on Kat, simple question what about the folks who work hard, have to obtain their raises on merit, pay the insurance premiums, and and do not earn their money off the back of the tax payer. Jobs that are equally as valuable as a teacher or anyone who serves the public, many who are making a difference in the lives of others, without benefit of a union. Hypotheticaly (sp.) if Fisher-Titus were union, which would never happen as they are a good employer, were to go on strike, think of the chaos that would create. And yes I am speaking from a nursing viewpoint, the only one I know, the arguments are endless, and will go on and on. I have left positions when a union was discussed, not being a union person. Hearing teachers and others on the public dole bemoaning their fate after many years of riding the "gravy train" does tend to get to me, and I am sure the those folks who have worked many years without the benefits of a union. I perhaps am not seeing the wholoe picture, just know I never had to hop a bus for Columbus to cry to the government to save what I knew I had to earn, and was not "entitled" to by virtued of belonging to a union. Apparently these employees have "special" tatooed on their foreheads and I am not seeing it.


If we truly believe in basic individual liberty then we believe in consensual agreements between people and should oppose collective bargaining. When liberty is respected, employees have the right to seek work they desire and employers have the right to hire employees they want. If the conditions of the work are agreeable for both the employer and the employee then the employee will be hired and then retained for as long as the conditions remain agreeable for both the employer and the employee.

Collective bargaining destroys this consensual arrangement and forces the employer to offer conditions far different than either the free market dictates or the employer finds agreeable, in addition to binding the hands of the employer from making basic business decisions. The employer must give in to demands or potentially face a significant disruption of their company by many or all of his employees. The agreement between employee and employer is no longer consensual, but has now become adversarial.

In the case of a public sector union the problem is much greater because the union is not bargaining against an individual or company, but rather they are bargaining against the entire society. This fact has many unpleasant effects.

One effect is that the adversarial nature of collective bargaining has led to an adversarial relationship between the employee (teachers) and the employer (the entire society). Teachers around the country feel like they have been under attack, unappreciated and the focus of blame for many years now. They may be right, but that is entirely the result of giving their employment over to unions. The teachers have chosen easier working conditions and greater benefits through union bargaining over mutual respect and appreciation from the community. Historically, teachers are widely loved and deeply appreciated by virtually every member of society in a way that is very similar to firemen, but they have forced society to become an adversary by joining unions and collectively bargaining. If the teacher union didn’t exist nearly all animosity against teachers would evaporate because people instinctively love teachers.

Another unpleasant effect results from the fact that the representative of the society (the employer) is an elected official who is not bargaining over his own economic interests, but rather that of the taxpayers. Therefore, the elected official has no tangible reason to refuse the union demands. He will only stand up to the union demands if he has both an appropriate understanding of economics and also a very strong sense of responsibility to his community. If the elected official stands up to union demands he will face angry calls and letters from some of his neighbors who benefit from the union. He may be publicly protested and be criticized by the media. The union he stood up to and its members may use their dues and higher-than-market salaries in campaigns to end his political career. Conversely, if the elected official gives in to the union demands he will likely receive support from the union and its members in both votes and campaign contributions. The elected official will suffer no personal financial difficulty from this easy decision and will likely be long out of office by the time the cumulative effects of the benefits begin to cause financial and societal havoc.

Basic economics is all about incentives, and the end result of public sector collective bargaining is a powerful incentive by all parties to increase the size and cost of government, create more union jobs, increase taxes to pay public sector employees, resist any large scale reforms, do away with free market principles as they relate to that profession, and keep re-electing the enabling politicians. For the reasons above, all people who understand economics and love liberty must resist the temptation to support collective bargaining for any public sector employee, no matter how much those professionals are loved or how important their work is to the community.



People, YOUR children are in danger from these socialst Union workers called TEACHERS who belong to the NEA.
If your a teacher and you don't like the NEA or whats going on, don't sit back, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

The above link is why I think everyone should homeschool or send their kids to a school like St Paul or another private school. IT'S OUR MONEY, who gave them the authority to tell us what they WILL teach our children? THE PARENTS AND ONLY THE PARENTS! You want my tax money to pay good wages then get out of the NEA, PERIOD.
The Public schools ARE the problem of drugs, rape, teen pregnancy's, murderers, gangs etc. The schools have taken the role from that the parents should have and the parents have lost accountabilty. AND THIS IS BECAUSE THE PARENTS WERE UNDER THE DICTATES OF THE SCHOOL and this is what they learned; thinking the GOVERNEMENT will do everything, including raising and educating the children!


maxinim 6 weeks paid vacation for those with less than 20 years employment.


SIX WEEKS? How many citizens working in the private sector even comes close to that?

There is virtually 2000 hours of work per year.
Six weeks is 240 hours
Then Paid Holidays (Easter/ Christmas WEEKS off) another 192
THEN SUMMER TIME, 2 months! 320

For teachers its about 1632 hours a year worked! (Ok, lets hear it from those who work until 8 at night coaching NOTE: They're being paid EXTRA for that!!!)

So, a teacher making 68,000 is actually making $42 an hour PLUS $31 an hour in benefits

NEA union has done their job, you know, the one where their lawyer said its NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN BUT ABOUT POWER AND MONEY, this is why the NEA exists! I'm begining to believe its also why teachers exist, I know very few that actually care about THE KIDS!


Bailey, there are definitely some of us that actually care about THE KIDS.
I never went into this profession thinking that I was gonna make big bucks..If I wanted to make big bucks, I definitely would have been an anesthesiologist.
I went into this profession because I work in a job I actually like.
Have you ever thought about all the extra time that teachers don't get paid? Doing things that require working OUTSIDE of the typical work day. Granted, there are people out there that are doing this simply for a job, not because they love the's a paycheck for them. But please don't categorize all I said, I never went into education thinking I would make a lot of money.


When you get right down to it, public union employees are no more special than private union workers, or private sector employees.
I've heard the arguments...police/fire---dangerous, teachers---challenging work. I agree. But there's other dangerous and difficult jobs in the private sector too.
There's no reason public union employees should be treated differently, when it comes to economic adjustments.
As a taxpayer, don't you think that's appropriate?
Across the board, many workers have endured cuts in wages, and/or insurance benefits.
Many workers have lost jobs, period.

One more note.
A number of union members seem to think if SB 5 passes, they'll get it on the ballot, and have it overturned.
Wrong. It might be an eye-opener, once you see how badly it would go down to defeat.

future in jeopardy

One of the most intelligent comments I have read. I completely agree with you.