Cathy Burner: November 18 Schools and Richly Rewarded Donors

Kathie Bracy Writes OEA Boss Bill Leibensperger:

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:34 PM
Subject: Your recent article in Communiqué

Dear Mr. Leibensperger,

In reading your article "Advocating for You at STRS" in the current issue of Communiqué, I am particularly bothered by one of your comments:

"The stark contrast between these OEA members and too many of the usual participants in the public input portion of the [STRS Board] meeting (who have launched personal insults, unreasonable demands, and angry diatribes for the past couple of years) was a vivid one."

You give no indication of who the "participants" are (no doubt CORE members, most if not all of whom are members of OEA/OEA-R) nor do you list even ONE example of so-called "personal insults," "unreasonable demands" or "angry diatribes."

I have attended nearly every STRS Board meeting in the past year. While I have not made any speeches myself, I have heard many by people like myself, who have had legitimate concerns about management and spending practices that have occurred at STRS while the Board was dominated by OEA members who not only allowed these outrageous spending practices to occur, but boldly assisted in the actual spending of those millions of dollars of retiree funds.

I need to see your list of "unreasonable demands," as I have yet to hear any myself. All demands I have heard fall under the umbrella of ORC 3307.15, which mandates that the Board and other fiduciaries "discharge their duties solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries; for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the participants and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system." Can you honestly say those five OEA members of the "old board" were doing this? Can you say that the OEA-dominated "old board" was not derelict in carrying out their duties?

As for the "angry diatribes," you did not mention what they were about or what may have precipitated them. How are readers supposed to know whether they were justified or not? You address your membership like sheep with your bold accusations, none of which you back up. We are not sheep, Mr. Leibensperger. We are OEA/OEA-R members, and have been most of our lives, and do not need to be patronized.

As you are well aware, many of us also belong to CORE, Concerned Ohio Retired Educators, a grass roots organization that evolved because a large segment of the STRS retiree population realized no leadership was being provided by OEA or ORTA after Dennis Leone investigated and exposed the numerous, outrageous practices that were going on at STRS, right under our noses. When OEA and ORTA failed to do the right thing by the retirees, admitting the wrongdoing and attacking it, they chose to overlook it entirely, in order to protect their own interests.

When it dawned on us that neither organization was really representing us, there was no choice but to turn to our own resources and go after the wrongdoers at STRS ourselves. Remember, we're talking about people (CORE members) who have been affiliated with OEA most of their lives, and ORTA in their retirement years; organizations we had placed our very TRUST in. CORE simply wanted to get the STRS mess cleaned up, then disband and go back to our other groups: OEA and ORTA. We would still like to see that happen, but unfortunately the chasm between us and both groups has widened so much in the intervening months/years since May, 2003, due to OEA and ORTA's persistent unwillingness to "come clean" that this is not going to be easy.

When people launch "angry diatribes," Mr. Leibensperger, there must be something behind it. You give no indication of such. If you ever taught in the classroom, you have experienced frustrated children who became angry children if nobody was listening to them and meeting their needs. Do you see a parallel here? CORE repeatedly took their concerns to the Board and were repeatedly blown off. CORE takes ONLY legitimate concerns to the Board; but with repeated rebuffs, how would you expect them to act? You blew us off in your own article by not explaining the "personal insults, unreasonable demands, and angry diatribes!" You are an educated man, Mr. Leibensperger; you should know better. Didn't your college require you to document everything you wrote in your term papers?

I find another part of your article very curious, where you say:

"Please make plans to attend or send representatives to future STRS Board meetings to provide either testimony or presence or both. I will help with the logistics of your participation and development of testimony."

Does this mean you will actually help teachers write their speeches? I find this incredulous! Don't you think teachers have the intelligence to write their own speeches? You are insulting them again! What does "logistics of your participation" mean? Are you going to send a limo to pick up these people and transport them to Columbus? As a matter of information, ALL CORE people have written ALL their speeches themselves, and have managed to get to Columbus on their own, at their own expense, from all over the state. Surely, you wouldn't expect other OEA/OEA-R members to do any less?

Well, I really don't expect to receive a reply from you. From my observations, the OEA leadership is slow to respond, if they respond at all, to issues from their membership that they are uncomfortable with. It is much easier for them to pick and choose whom and what topics they will address, and the manner in which they will address the chosen topics. With OEA's money, the leadership can put a spin on any issue they please, get it out to thousands and get away with it -- to a point. CORE is not going to go away any time soon, it appears, and our grass roots approach is getting the word out more and more every day on what is really going on in the 200 block of East Broad Street, Columbus.

Sincerely,

Katherine B. Bracy
Life member of OEA-R, CEA-R, Franklin Co. RTA, ORTA, NEA-R, Central OEA-R, AFM/AFL-CIO
Proud member of CORE

http://kathiebracy.blogspot.com/

************************************************
Subject: 111205 Curtis Resp To Asbury Resp; Re Grandfathering Those Effected

Hello Damon,

Thank you for your response, but honestly, your response is so indicative of your lack of concern for those STRS members who are suffering the most. You are being paid to be our leader, not our executioner.

It is evident you care so little for us when you can only muster a three sentence response to my heartfelt letter. That is truly sad. Rather then being an advocate for those you represent, according to the ORC 3307.15, you simply put us off and fail to really address the issue with any type of expediency.

I guess I should not be surprised about your response, as you have been consistent in following this type of process since I first met you. With all due respect, considering the financial hardship this has had on about 1/3rd of all retirees, why would this need to wait until February?

Nearly every major concern the membership has asked about has been put off until a later date. We have no findings concerning an audit of the STRS after nearly 3 years; we have no results of the impact of SB190 after 6 years; and the child care center was not reduced to a cost zero as promised.

In my opinion, the practices, processes and procedures under which you and the STRS executive staff seem to operate, fail to meet your fiduciary responsibility. I certainly hope I have a chance to testify to such some day. If what you and others are failing to do for those that paid into a system that promised better is appropriate in your minds, I sure hope each of you will answer to a higher authority one of these days. I cannot believe you find this to be justified by simply making a few flippant statements about such. This whole situation is so unbelievable to so many others and me. This is inexcusable! We will be there to your end.

It becomes so obvious, day after day, that much of the leadership of the Ohio legislature; Ohio government; our Ohio legal system; the STRS and the OEA have no respect for the people they are supposed to represent. Many of you simply attempt to pacify us instead of representing us as you are supposedly required to do by law.

Very Disgusted,
Thomas Curtis

----- Original Message -----
From: Asbury, Damon
To: Thomas Curtis

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: 102805 Curtis To Asbury; Grandfathering Those Effected

Tom:
You ask some important questions about grandfathering. The Board has asked that this be made a topic for review and discussion at their February retreat. I will see that your questions are included in that discussion.

Damon

From: Thomas Curtis
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:17 PM
To: Curtis , ThomasCc: Neville, Bill; Asbury, Damon; Baldwin, Joyce; Bierdeman, Terri; Boles, Eileen; Ecklar, Laura; Knoesel, Sandra; Mitchell, Steve; Slater, Robert
Subject: 102805 Curtis To Asbury; Grandfathering Those Effected

10/28/05

Hello Dr. Asbury, Exec. Staff and Board Members,

Would you, the Executive Staff and the Board kindly address an issue with earnest, which has resulted in other retirees and me to become very active in the reform process at the STRS? The issue I speak of, is one of providing a "grandfathering" of health care benefits educators were told we would have for the rest of our lives, but then had revoked. This reform is greatly needed for obvious financial reasons.

As you are aware, those educators that initially established and/or supported the group known as C.O.R.E. did so, because they found their cost for their health care benefit increasing at an alarming rate. This increasing of health care costs continued to the point that on January 1st of 2004, the entire cost of health care for a non-teaching spouse, or one with less then 15 years of service, and dependent children, was placed totally upon the shoulders of the retiree. That decision resulted in roughly an 800% increase of cost to each effected retiree. That is simply outrageous! We were promised and deserved better from our fiduciaries. Simply being told that it was only a promise, not a guarantee, is unacceptable. I would most certainly feel that had you been placed in a similar situation, you would be actively involved in attempting to reverse or revise that plan.

To repeat, in 2004 the entire subsidy for all non-teaching spouses, or ones with less then 15 years of service, and all dependent children was removed, but had been provided before January 1st of 2004. There probably would be many more active with CORE, if they were physically able or were not out working to provide health care insurance they could afford for their spouse and dependent children.

Another issue arose due to this decision to eliminate spousal and dependent children subsidies. As many as twenty to thirty thousand or more healthy benefit recipients and their family members left our health care plan to find one for a much more reasonable cost. One they could afford. This resulted in creating a health care group of high incidence of usage, or ones with pre-existing conditions that would not permit them to be accepted by another carrier. I believe they refer to us as a "sick group". Obviously, the cost to provide coverage to such a group would be much higher, because the cost to maintain those left in that group is much higher, once you remove the healthy people.

I am sure these issues and many others were all discussed by our fiduciaries prior to making this change. This is a very sad scenario and in my opinion, one created by the STRS fiduciaries of that time. Many of those fiduciaries are still employed by the STRS. Most all STRS employees and their family members are today receiving health care benefits, which far exceed what any educator has ever received. I personally do not know an educator that received free dental care in the cost of their insurance while employed; yet our employees do.

Yes, health care costs have risen country wide, it is a national problem, but the STRS fiduciaries knew about that far in advance of it actually becoming a reality and did little to offset it. This can be acknowledged by reading past STRS Newsletters. The STRS fiduciaries knew about this in the early 90’s when they had to provide substantial amounts of revenue from the retirement fund into the HCSF to keep it solvent. Articles in the 1992 STRS Newsletters, numbers 78 & 79, indicate concerns were acknowledged and it was stated that a dedicated flow of income was needed to fund health care. In the 1992 STRS August Newsletter, #78, it states, "On the positive side, Grothaus (C. James Grothaus was the STRS Executive Director at that time) anticipates that the Retirement System will continue to find ways to provide meaningful and affordable health care coverage to retirees, even though health care costs continue to escalate at a pace greater than the inflation rate. He also believes STRS assets will grow at a pace similar to that experienced over the past decade." From my understanding, the assets grew far more then was experienced and yet sufficient contributions were never placed in the HCSF. Why not, Bob Slater?

It is now almost 2006 and the very same fiduciaries that were supposedly looking for that dedicated flow if income are still looking for it! What does that say for the very people that we have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to manage our funds? Obviously, it does not show they were following the ORC 3307.15. Otherwise, our HCSF would be much larger and would still provide the benefit we were promised throughout our careers and when we retired.

Damon, you have questioned me before, when I have briefly discussed this issue with you, as to who promised us that benefit, as though that never occurred. That concern can certainly be documented by many of us and by literature printed and distributed by the STRS during our careers. I personally found it very alarming and uncaring on your part, that you even posed that type of question to me, considering the true spirit of the ORC 3307.15.

A "grandfathering" plan would provide us with the health care benefit we were promised throughout our careers and those near, or at retirement, by our STRS counselor. I would feel this would include all of those teachers that were unable to benefit from SB190. Meaning anyone that retired prior to 1999 and possibly as much as five years beyond.

SB190 provided educator‘s who continue working until they obtain 35 years of service a much higher pension benefit then those retiring with 35 or less years of service prior to 1999. Obviously, the increased pension benefit for those retiring after 1999 with more then 30 years of service would help pay for the increased cost of the spousal subsidy, which was totally removed in January of 2004.

The decision to revoke the subsidized benefit for those other then benefit recipients by the STRS executive staff and I believe supported by the Board, has placed our financial future in jeopardy. This is a consequence we were never made aware of by our STRS counselor, at or near the time of retirement. Further, it was something the STRS executive staff certainly was well aware of at that time and made no attempt to have their counselor’s advise us to consider such before retiring. We each reviewed the information provided by that counselor and then made a decision to retire based upon that information. Most of us definitely did plan for our financial future, it was the STRS fiduciaries that promised such, but failed to provide for it during all those years of extremely high yield returns on investments in the 90’s.

Please find this request to be of utmost importance for those retirees effected. I would ask that a study be completed to establish those that have been effected by that change in subsidy. I can understand and accept the need for the increase in cost to each benefit recipient, but let us place all of those involved on an equal playing field. I feel as many others I have spoken with, that we have been treated unfairly. Please remember that in June of 2003, which was the first time I spoke to the STRS board, I stated that I have the rest of my life to deal with this issue. I still feel that way and have shown that commitment for the past three years. I will continue to do so, as long as I feel I have an ability to see that change of spousal subsidy replaced for those educators who believed that would be the case.

If the STRS non-investment employees are successful in their suit in receiving their bonuses for doing little more then the job they were hired to do, which I believe was nothing more then a promise, then don’t you think those of us that were promised affordable health care could also be successful in obtaining such? Please let us all get our heads together and solve this issue very soon, before we too file a class action suit.

Sincerely,
Thomas Curtis

******************************************************
White Hat Management out of Akron Runs Life Skills Centers8: Federation Goes After Charter Schools

Nov 3, 2005, 04:19 PM EST
Reported by Eric James

Just how profitable are Ohio charter schools? That's what the Ohio Federation of Teachers is trying to find out and they're going after a large group of charter schools.
State audit reports have been released for Life Skills Center of Columbus, but the Ohio Federation of Teachers says the reports don't go deep enough.

The centers were created for drop-out or at-risk students. They're run by White Hat management, which runs 31 Ohio charter schools. That makes it, technically, the state's ninth largest school system.

The company received $109 million of public money to run Life Skills Centers across the state, but the Federation of Teachers says only three percent of that is accounted for in the state audit report.

They want to know exactly how the company used the rest of your tax dollars, claiming company profits are higher than the test scores of the students attending the centers.

Tom Mooney with the Ohio Federation of Teachers says, "We don't know how it's being spent. We do know from last week that these kids aren't being tested so we don't know if the kids are even showing up."

White Hat Management Consultant Thomas Needles says, "He is misstating the facts. Our books are open and it's up to the auditor of the state, and it's up to them to take a closer look and they can review whatever they want."

White Hat has made a profit, but it is not required to say how much.

It is important to note that the federation is suing the state over the constitutionality of charter schools.

ORC 3307.15 - not just a wish, IT'S THE LAW!
***************************************************************
This is taken from Toledo Blade:

Schools and fund-raisingIn the business world, CEOs look for every edge.

A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.

The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.

When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.

A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.

Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.

In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.

A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.

The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.

Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.

Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.

"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.

Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.

Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.

Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.

White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision.

Now, the rest of the article, some of you educators might be politically offended, but it was written by the same authors! John, a Proud CORE member

www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/NEWS24/510300346

Article published October 30, 2005

Ohio Bush donors richly rewarded'Pioneers and Rangers' handed access to contracts, policymakers

By JAMES DREW and STEVE EDER
BLADE STAFF WRITERS

COLUMBUS - The Ohio business leaders and lobbyists who steered at least $4.1 million to President Bush's re-election campaign last year collected more than $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for their companies and clients, a Blade investigation shows.

The fund-raisers who helped deliver the battleground state - and ultimately the 2004 presidential election - also received choice appointments from state and federal officials. The posts included an ambassadorship to Germany and a seat on the Ohio State University board of trustees.

Others made millions from unbid contracts varying from supplying ball bearings to the military or office furniture for federal agencies.

As they raised millions to help re-elect George W. Bush in 2004, the 30 Bush "Pioneers" and "Rangers" from Ohio - who raised at least $100,000 and $200,000 respectively - also had access to policymakers from the Ohio Statehouse to the White House.

The fund-raisers included Tom Noe, a former Toledo-area rare-coin dealer who is facing multiple investigations into the state's failed $50 million investment in rare-coin funds. He was indicted Thursday on three felony charges that he laundered money into the President's re-election campaign.

Both Bush-Cheney and the campaign of Democrat John Kerry tapped "bundlers" who would find dozens of others - often business associates and other contacts - who would each contribute $2,000, the maximum allowed by federal law to a candidate in an election.

But in Ohio, where the election swung on fewer than 120,000 votes, Mr. Bush's 30 premier fund-raisers exceeded the Kerry campaign's take from the state by themselves.

"This fund-raising is just a pyramid scheme, except that it works," said Alex Knott, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington. "The Pioneers and Rangers are the networks of people - the friends of the friends of the friends - who put money into these coffers. They are given a tracking number so their donations can be given credit and there is only one reason for that - if that is going to be used as value later."

The three Ohio Pioneers and Rangers who agreed to speak with The Blade said ideology and a fondness for the President drove their giving. They also sketched a picture of behind-the-scenes campaign access few Bush supporters experienced.

One Ranger, insurance executive Doug Corn of Cincinnati, told The Blade he met with President Bush 16 times during the last two years. A Pioneer, Ron Beshear, described a late-night White House tour that included a stop at the Oval Office.

The newspaper's investigation also found:

The state of Ohio paid about $800 million to the companies and lobbying clients of Ohio's 30 Pioneers and Rangers during the last six years, an analysis of a state expenditure database shows. The money flowed from the state to the fund-raisers for a number of purposes, including charter school payments, development grants, and tax refunds.

Records showed that the federal government paid more than $447 million to the firms of the President's Ohio fund-raisers and their lobbying clients since Mr. Bush took office in 2001.
The revenues of some of the firms headed by Ohio Bush Pioneers and Rangers are determined partly by the amount of subsidies they get from Columbus and Washington and by the regulatory decisions made by government officials.

John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Friday that The Blade's findings are "part of a continuing pattern" of the Bush administration's giving of special access to fund-raisers.

The former U.S. senator from North Carolina said the culprits are the nation's flawed campaign finance system and the government officials who act in the interest of their "cronies."

Mr. Edwards said President Bush's Pioneers and Rangers system had a "significant effect" on Ohio and the outcome of last year's presidential race.

"George Bush and Dick Cheney had significant amounts of money raised by these Pioneers and Rangers in Ohio," Mr. Edwards said, adding, "huge amounts of money raised by them and others around the country were infused into Ohio."

"A significant amount of that money was raised by people who had particular interests. And it is obvious that some of them were awarded for what they did. Unfortunately, it's the voter and the taxpayer who suffers for that," he said.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Aaron McLear, said there is no connection between campaign contributions and government payments to firms of big GOP fund-raisers.
"Our supporters ensure that we have the tools and resources necessary to get our message out and mobilize voters," he said. "They donate time and money because they believe in our values and support our candidates."

Mr. Corn, the insurance salesman for Northwestern Mutual Life who raised at least $200,000 for the President last year, had never made a campaign donation before last year's election, but said he was inspired by Mr. Bush's "out-front Christian values" on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

"I didn't want, nor did I expect, anything at all in return," Mr. Corn said. "My reward was that he was re-elected, and my reward was [newly appointed Chief Justice] John Roberts."

But assessing other Ohio presidential campaign fund-raisers, Mr. Corn added: "Positively, I think people got involved and they wanted something."

'Bundling' the cashBy the end of the 2004 race for political money, President Bush out-raised his opponent, Democrat John Kerry, $293 million to $252 million.

Some of the first Pioneers and Rangers helped Mr. Bush become governor of Texas in 1995.
By 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign had "perfected" its money-bundling machine, said Mr. Knott, the spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity.

The Bush-Cheney campaign recruited 548 Pioneers and Rangers nationwide, with 30 coming from Ohio and 18 from Michigan.

There also was a "Super Ranger" class, with eight Ohioans raising $300,000 for the Republican National Committee. The money helped fund campaigns across the country.

Health-care interestsIn the realm of health care, there are two Ohio firms with Bush fund-raisers as executives - HCR Manor Care Inc., a Toledo company that provides nursing home care, and Invacare, an Elyria health products manufacturer.

According to federal lobbying records, Invacare has spent more than $1.5 million since 1999 lobbying Washington officials on health-care issues. The company's CEO, Malachi Mixon, who was a Bush Ranger, and his employees and associates have contributed at least $1 million to political campaigns since 1989.

Mr. Mixon declined a request for an interview with The Blade, but it's clear from the company's statements that Invacare relies heavily on the support of the federal government.

In its Aug. 8, 2005, financial statement, Invacare wrote: "The Company is directly affected by government regulation and reimbursement policies in virtually every county in which it operates."

In its most recent quarterly filing, the company noted that "reimbursement uncertainties" have affected the performance of the company and there wouldn't be stability until Medicare and Medicaid implement plans for new codes and fees in 2006.

Invacare and its subsidiaries have received at least $3.1 million in contracts from the federal government since President Bush took office in 2001. Invacare largely provided hospital products for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

In Ohio, Invacare has received payments of at least $691,000 from the state of Ohio since 1999. Most of the money Invacare received from the state came by way of development grants between July, 2004, and July, 2005.

The Ohio Department of Development awarded Invacare with about $446,000 in grants during that period.

Like Invacare, Manor Care Inc. has a strong interest in government health policy.

The company's chief operating officer, M. Keith Weikel, is a Bush Ranger. He, his employees, and associates have contributed more than $1.6 million to political campaigns since 1989.

Mr. Weikel declined to be interviewed for this article.

His company, which relies on Medicare and other government payments for 67 percent of its $3.36 billion in revenue last fiscal year, has legislative needs.Manor Care has lobbied heavily in favor of reducing jury awards in lawsuits, known on Capitol Hill as tort reform. A group Mr. Weikel helped form campaigned against Nancy Argenziano, a Republican lawmaker in Florida, in 2002 because she didn't support a proposed cap on punitive damages in jury awards against nursing homes in Florida. The law passed, and Ms. Argenziano won a state senate seat.

In a 2003 quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company cited "strong tort reform" measures enacted in Texas and other states as reasons for increased profits, adding: "There is still significant work to be done on this serious, industry-wide issue, especially in the state of Florida."

Manor Care spokesman Rick Rump said Manor Care is interested in tort reform and increasing Medicare payments, particularly in rolling back a planned cut on Jan. 1 that he said would equal a $17-a-day loss per patient at some of its facilities. But employees are not forced or encouraged to contribute to any politician, he said.

More than simple entitlement payments from Medicare, the company and another that Mr. Weikel helps oversee as a board member, Laboratory Corporation of America, enjoy various federal contracts, including with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies that total at least $65 million from January, 2001, to July, 2005.

The companies have been paid at least $1.6 million by state of Ohio agencies.

Timken's tie-insOn April 24, 2003, the President announced his economic agenda at the Timken Co.'s research facility in Canton, Ohio.

"The greatest strength of the American economy is found right here, right in this room, found in the pride and skill of the American work force," the President said. "Here at Timken, last year, productivity rose 10 percent, which means that America can compete with any nation in the world because we got the finest workers in the world."

W.R. "Tim" Timken, Jr., who inherited the manufacturer's chairmanship in 1975, hosted Ohio fund-raisers for the President.

A Ranger in 2004, he became the U.S. Ambassador to Germany last month.

Even though Mr. Bush praised Timken Co. as an example of a thriving American business, the company had relied on government handouts worth $259 million since 2001.

In a 2003 claim to the federal government, Timken requested subsidies because France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, and even Romania "dumped" ball bearings on the American market. Timken reported damage in excess of $63 billion.

The U.S. government paid Timken $109 million in 2003, almost three times the company's profits.

Timken was the primary recipient of a 2000 federal anti-dumping and subsidy law, according to a September report by the Government Accountability Office.

The law was proposed by U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula (R., Navarre) in 1999. Timken is headquartered in his district.

Two weeks later, Ohio's Mike DeWine presented the legislation to the U.S. Senate. Mr. Regula and Mr. DeWine have received $30,700 and $46,750 respectively in contributions since 1989 from Timken employees and members of the Timken family.

Timken spokesman Jeff Dafler said he would not comment on the company's individual sources of revenue.

"The company's focus is and always has been on the markets themselves," he said.
Mr. Timken would not agree to an interview with The Blade.

Schools and fund-raisingIn the business world, CEOs look for every edge.

A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.

The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.

When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.

A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.

Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.

In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.

A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.

The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.

Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.

Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.

"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.

Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.

Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.

Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.

White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision.
Voting company's stakeWally O'Dell, the CEO of voting machine-maker Diebold Inc., has looked to the secretary of state's office in Columbus to set elections policy that would mean millions of dollars for his Canton, Ohio-based business.

In 2003, as the Bush-Cheney efforts accelerated, Mr. O'Dell, a Bush Pioneer, issued a fund-raising letter to Ohio Republicans declaring that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."

The note sparked concern among Democrats, who charged it was an inappropriate action for a company vying to sell electronic voting machines to county governments.

Mr. O'Dell's letter was mailed one day before Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was expected to name Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell voting machines to Ohio counties. Diebold eventually received permission to sell its voting machines to Ohio counties.

Earlier this year, Matt Damschroder, the executive director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, acknowledged that last year he had accepted a $10,000 check for the county GOP from a Diebold consultant who was seeking county business. The transaction took place in Mr. Damschroder's county office and he was fined a month's pay for accepting the payment.

Diebold officials denied they had any knowledge of the contribution. Aside from the dozens of county contracts Diebold won to supply elections machines last year, the firm has collected more than $2.7 million from the state of Ohio since 1999.

In 2001 alone, the Ohio Department of Mental Health gave Diebold more than $1.3 million for technological equipment.
The company also has won more than $24.7 million in federal contracts since President Bush took office in 2001.
Mr. O'Dell also declined a request for an interview.
Rare-coin scandalIn April, shortly after The Blade wrote the first stories on Mr. Noe's rare-coin funds, Gov. Bob Taft was asked if his longtime contributor gained special access because of his support.

"I don't know," Mr. Taft said during an April 7 interview at The Blade's editorial department. "You tell me."

During a courthouse news conference after the governor's conviction on ethics charges in August, Mr. Taft told reporters that there is "no connection" between contributions and state contracts.

"Contracts are awarded based on merit, based on qualifications, based on experience and performance under our administration," Mr. Taft said. The governor's spokesman reiterated the governor's assertion last week.

Bob Bennett, the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, called any link between state contracts and campaign contributions "a stretch."

"Why is it wrong?" he said, of the campaign contributions. "What makes it wrong? You assume that these people are buying something, and they're not. They're buying good government. They're buying a philosophy of government."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean believes there's a problem with corruption that extends from Columbus to Washington.

"Americans don't like the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Columbus and Washington D.C.," Mr. Dean said last week, reacting to The Blade's findings. "The American people are looking for an alternative to the Republicans' pay-to-play approach to government."

Despite attempts at campaign-finance reform on the federal and state levels, evidence shows that those who give money to politicians tend to get access to public money and policymakers, said Taylor Lincoln, senior researcher for Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

"Were the Pioneers and Rangers doing all of this work because they thought George W. Bush was the guy, or did they want a foot in the door if he was re-elected?'' Mr. Lincoln asked.

The answer matters to the state of democracy in the United States, said Mr. Knott of the Center for Public Integrity, "This is the American people's government. It is not the government of these individuals who coordinate campaign contributions," he said.

ORC 3307.15 - not just a wish, IT'S THE LAW!