VIDEO: Perkins school board debate

UPDATED: Candidates debate residency, finances
Sandusky Register Staff
Oct 6, 2013


Only one of four people vying for seats on the Perkins school board believes a superintendent should have to live in the district.


   Four Perkins Schools candidates seeking two open seats — Michael Ahner, Terry Chapman, J Franklin and Richard Uher — weighed in on the often hot-button issue during a Register-sponsored debate Thursday evening at Chet and Matt’s Pizza.

See photos from the debate HERE


   About 50 people attended the event in the restaurant’s banquet hall.


   To connect with a community, Franklin said a district’s top leader, including Perkins School superintendent Jim Gunner, who lives near Toledo, must reside in his or her district. Ahner, Chapman and Uher said it shouldn’t be required, although it’s preferred because it sends a strong, positive message to taxpayers.


   “It’s the job you do, not where you live that makes the difference,” Uher said. “If you can’t get the right candidate (in Perkins Township) and they’re not willing to move, you bring the best superintendent in to do the job regardless of where they live.”


   Other inquires from the crowd targeted the district’s fiscal future. Candidates discussed tax levies and a dwindling budget, as all the district’s reserve funds will be spent by the end of the current school year.    While the candidates all agreed a tax levy is inevitable, they disagreed on how much money the district should seek from taxpayers, especially given the board’s 2011 decision to move “inside millage” — funding used for day-to-day operations — into a separate account for building improvements.


   The polarizing decision has effectively segmented the Perkins community, and it was reflected in the four candidates as well.


   Ahner and Franklin proposed returning the 5.2 mills of funds back into the operating budget and then asking taxpayers for a smaller levy, possibly 2 mills, to get by in the short term. A future levy or bond issue would be required to fund building projects.


   “The first thing we need to do is reverse the inside millage move that wasn’t voted on,” Franklin said. “It wasn’t illegal but it was unethical.”


   Uher and Chapman said keeping the funds in their current location is the most feasible, cost-effective longterm option.


   The district is proposing a 10-year, 6.73-mill levy on the November ballot — its third levy attempt this year


   — which both candidates said they support. The new funds would replenish the depleted operating fund while also supporting new building projects without an additional levy or bond issue.


   “Moving the millage back is just a temporary fix,” Chapman said. “The move was not unethical. We as a district and a board have to manage our operational budget and our facilities, and we chose to move the millage to protect our facilities.”


   The four candidates are seeking a four-year term on the Perkins school board. The election is Nov. 5.

Watch the debate in the player provided below



Vote NO and say NO to Bennett!


Bennett dropped out.


Seriously? That's great news! Vote for any new person running!


Except for Uher. Stay away from Uher.


What's wrong with Bennett?


Bennet endorses Uher and Chapman and didn't want to take their votes. They're all Gunnerbots.


Vote NO, NO , NO !!!

Perkins Resident

Says event started but I have a blank screen. I guess I won't be watching.


Ahner & Franklin!


Franklin & Ahner!

Stay away from Uher and Chapman!


Franklin for Superintendent!


Franklin and Anher. Uher seems arrogant and seems to be a Gunnerbot. Franklin and Ahner are the clear choices.


Chapman is a no brainer no vote. Get him off the board ASAP.


Currently 112 are watching in addition to those actually at Chet & Matt's.


Franklin or Ahner are my choices.


Uher would be my last choice. I would even vote for Chapman over that guy.


In my opinion, Chapman seems arrogant, unhappy, unfriendly - not the type of person I want in charge of the schools. 9 yrs is enough, time to go. Franklin - I can't figure out if he's for the levy or not, he can't even figure out which way to pass a microphone. Ahner is too inexperienced and doesn't seem to answer questions intelligently. Uher was the only one, in my opinion, that answered questions well and seems like he has a clue what needs to change. My vote is with him.


In my opinion, Uher is a Gunner disciple. We have enough of them on the board now. Franklin is the clear choice.


As a colleague of Rick Uher at Tower,I can tell you that he is indeed as arrogant in person as he presents himself here...He will have his OWN agenda for the district and that will be all he will fight for. Not once did I hear him mention that it takes the community and the Board of Education as a whole to make the district a success. I did hear that he obtained an Engineering degree,that must make him the best choice in a economic roll to bring a once proud community together to support their elected members of the board. Does this type of mentality remind you of anyone in DC? You can take this post for what is, but I am warning you about this choice... Please do research on all candidates before making a decision


Uher is definitely arrogant and impressed with himself. Chapman isn't much better. The 3 plus million loan from Citizens Bank for architectural fees demonstrates the attitude of "my way or the highway"!



Were we watching the same debate? I heard Mr. Uher speak several times of engaging the community. He spoke of re-arranging the BOE meeting agenda to allow public comment before voting on issues. He spoke of getting connected with parents who did not vote, and parents who are not registered to vote, as examples.

He spoke of his degree I believe in his opening remarks introducing himself, and later in direct response to a public question regarding how each candidates work and life experience would serve them as board members. If you are going to compare Mr. Uher's education and profession, related to a school board seat, to that of our current POTUS and his experience prior to being elected POTUS, then in my opinion, you are beyond comparing apples to oranges.

I thought he came across as confident, not arrogant. There is a difference.


Sounds to me if you like the way the district is being run and you like Gunner, then vote for Uher or Chapman. If you want change then vote for Franklin or Ahner.


I agree. Will be voting for Franklin. Probably Ahner to, although he is a little wet behind the ears still. He's young. Maybe he can run a computer and borrow some money from some other district for us.


clear choice here, Franklin and Ahner have heard the community and want to move the inside millage back whaere it belongs.

Perkins Resident

Can someone please tell me where I can get a Franklin and Ahner sign to put in my yard?


Look in the phonebook and give him a call, its the only Franklin that lives on Campbell St.


Franklin for School Board! Ahner too!


Franklin and Ahner!

Vote Informed

Oh yes, I'll definitely vote for someone who has a vote no sign in their yard. It shows that he has the best intensions for our school district. Doesn't have my vote!!


Sore loser.


Dear MIS-informed, the vote no, is a vote against the direction the board is going and a vote FOR the students and the school. VOTE YES Ahner and Franklin!!!


If you're hoping to see change in the horrible leadership of Perkins schools, then vote for Franklin and Ahner. Uher and Chapman both condone the unethical millage move, which is enough for me to vote for Franklin and Ahner


Mr. Franklin: If you read this, please let us know where to get your signs. Same for you Mr. Ahner.


Name a time and place and I will get you one.

Tell it how it is.

Jay, would you please also paint your house one uniform color? The three shades of green just clash a bit. Or maybe if you signs were green I could relate a little better.


Three shades of green is the color I get when I think of this school district continually being run the way it is. Need to vote Mr. Franklin in!



I am not a supporter of Mr. Franklin for the school board, but cheap shots/personal attacks such as this are not necessary. Let's please keep focused on the issues.

I know a number of those against the levy and for Mr. Franklin and Michael Ahner have gone the route of personal attacks. As a levy supporter, and a supporter of Terry Chapman and Rick Uher, I urge all of us to keep it clean.


As it stands right now, the Pope being on the BOE wouldn't make a difference. In my lifetime, I have never seen it this bad in Perkins Township, bherrle. Public opinion of this administration, district grades and overall confidence only seems to be getting worse in the public eye! It has to tell you something....even beyond the polls.


We need to change the direction that this BOE is going in and VOTE NO AGAIN! once we get some REAL BOE members with REAL COMMON SENSE, then and only then will the Perkins Taxpayers listen to additional millage! We have operated for the last 12 years with "no new money" according to the Gunnerbots, so as Ahner stated move the inside millage back and let's slowly ask for small increases as actually needed (no water fountains or bell towers). NOT ALL IN ONE YEAR! As REALLY needed!


If you like the way the BOE has been running Perkins schools (I don't), then vote for Gunner's puppets, Terry "Mr. Ego" Chapman and Mr. Uher, if not, vote for Mr. Franklin and Mr. Ahner! Simple as that really.


Haven't seen any Chapman or Uher signs yet. Sure have seen a lot of VOTE NO signs though!


The question begs to be asked...How can you be running for school board and yet not support the levy? If you truly feel that you can do a better job managing the finances of the district, wouldn't you want more money to work with? The actions seem to contradict one another. If there was more money, couldn't you do a better job?


Ahner and Franklin do support a reasonable levy, just not the bloated building levy of Gunner and his robots.


There will be more money once the inside millage is moved back and THEN the voters will approve a 2 mill levy. Vote Franklin! Vote Ahner!


Being a good steward of the people's money doesn't mean to ask for more when you can do it for less.


Hopefully the new board sends Gunner packing too.

Stop It

Are those kids still being taught with raw sewage running under the classrooms from broken pipelines?? Don't they know that that could cause typhoid?


Did all these "issues" with the buildings suddenly pop up AFTER the stadium was built? I don't think so, which only confirms my opinion that the BOE and Gunner are inept. Either they are so dumb that they didn't notice these problems, or they just ignored fixing them until, according to Gunner, nothing less than abandoning the whole building, and starting over will do. Either way, somebody FAILED at doing their job! And, PLEASE, don't try to come back with the "why don't you run for school board if you have the solution". When I'm traveling, I may not know the right way to get to my destination, but I sure know when I'm going in the WRONG direction! The fact is this.................the people of Perkins township have ZERO faith in this BOE or superintendent. At least the ones' with an ounce of intelligence, anyway. We don't trust them, we don't appreciate the way they are trying to manipulate us, and if you'd open your eyes for a split second, you'd realize the entire "new school" levy (because that IS what it is) has been an epic FAIL. Instead of continuing to WASTE tax payer dollars pushing a doomed levy, why doesn't the BOE use those efforts to find a solution to FIXING THE CURRENT BUILDINGS! You know, continuing to push for building an entire new school when the public doesn't want it, can't afford it, and is against it, is just arrogance. The longer this goes on, the angrier the people are becoming. A wise man knows when he's lost. Gunner and the BOE need to wise up. This battle has already been won by the voters. Why doesn't someone inform the BOE and Gunner they LOST, because they just don't seem to understand that. Put the operating funds BACK where they belong, use them to start fixing some of those problems that are "putting our students in danger daily" (like we believe that), send Gunner packing, and then the voters might just start listening to a new levy proposal. Exactly what Ahner and Franklin are suggesting! I'm voting for them.


What are Mr. Franklin's qualifications? During the introductions, all he said was that he was in the Coast Guard and lived in Perkins for, I believe, 8 years. He spent the rest of his time voicing his disagreement with the current administration. Does he have any children that attend/attended Perkins schools?


I actually have one of his flyers, from the the homecoming parade. He has 3 children, one graduated from Perkins and he has a high school student and a middle school student.


Well, one IMPORTANT qualification I noticed he had was COMMON SENSE! Pretty good qualification, IMHO.


I intended to watch the debate with an open mind but when Uher started off with the "Big Lie", that the schools have operated for a generation with "No new money" I was done with him. I am so tired of this lie. They act like the school system operates with the same amount of money as twenty years ago while the overall budget has increased some 2 or 3 percent per year, countless grants have been obtained and then a huge chunk of money has come in by fleshing out each and every class with people from the other side of Perkins Ave who can not afford to live in Perkins and do not deserve to send their kids here. The Pro-Levy crowd seems to think that it is all about spending. Look at how much more Sandusky spends per pupil than why would we still be better?


Uher is spewing the same garbage Gunner is telling him. Uher is a BAD choice. Arrogant!


Nice article in today's paper about Sandusky's superintendent buying a house in Sandusky and moving there. What a novel idea.


Yeah, I saw that. It must be nice to have a superintendent that actually wants to live in his district!


Vote Franklin & Ahner!

Benjamin Franklin

I am a longtime resident of Perkins, I have never commented on here before, and up to this point, I have been consistently against the levy attempts in Perkins during these past 3 years. A significant portion of my opinion has been formed by information passed to me word of mouth, mostly by others against the levy, and also by reading the articles and blogs on the Register.

During these past few days, I have watched a number of you quickly endorse Jay Franklin and Michael Ahner. I have not decided who I will vote for yet, but have to admit I was somewhat turned off by both Franklin and Ahner as far as the debate was concerned. Jay Franklin's personal attacks and negativity did not endear me to him. Michael Ahner's youth, inexperience, and inability to answer several questions were concerning. I was surprised that a number of you jumped right on their bandwagon within 24 hours of the debate.

So, I decided to do a little research on my own. What I found really makes me question the judgement of those I have been listening to over the past several years. I am starting to learn more about the facility issues. What I am learning concerns me . I am learning more about how the district manages it's finances, and what I am finding does not match up with what I have been being told and have seen from others against the levies.

Most shocking, is what I found out about one of the candidates being supported by many of you on this blog. I searched various things on the internet, including social media accounts. I did not find anything concerning about Jay Franklin, Rick Uher, or Terry Chapman. Michael Ahner is another story.

Michael's Twitter account included several concerning and insulting comments. His account has since been blocked from public view. Among them were:

MICHAEL AHNER @michaelahner 28 Mar
Just walked by some old people taking about a workout video px90..... more like dementia x90

MICHAEL AHNER @michaelahner 20 Feb
so pissed that dork obama is speaking at our commencement ceremony. Like couldn't we get a different black muslim kenyan president to speak?

MICHAEL AHNER @michaelahner20 Feb
At least we didn't get michelle though. That would have been unacceptable.

It is very concerning that a number of you would jump to support someone who makes public statements like this. It has me revisiting everything I think I know about the current issues, because it really makes me question your judgement, and your motives, for voting no, and your selection of board candidates.


...or we could continue to support the current administration that condones the blatant disregard for the condition (dementia) of our American war heroes at the OVH for a mere seventeen votes. Oh, and I have facebook screen shots to go with your twitter posts, of students complaining that they were told to do it against their wishes for the votes, they said it didn't feel right, the vets thought it was a presidential election, they thought the kids were there to sing, etc... Like I said before, it doesn't matter who gets in right now because Gunner would still have the majority vote, 3-2. One at a time if that is what it takes!


Gunner needs to be fired.


That is totally unacceptable, too immature. Grow up Ahner! Until then a big NO vote for him...Or really, he might just fit in with the rest of them....


elect Franklin to the board, Vote No on the levy.


Franklin and Ahner! No on the levy!


Chapman spoke of the Strategic Plan from NINE YEARS ago as if it was the bible. That is one of essential problem with this current BOE. Despite the economic changes that have happened in the last 9 years and despite the feedback from the community in the form of 3 levy failures, they are still following the same playbook.


I found it interesting that Chapman said he works at Citizens Bank. Isn't that where we got this bogus loan for new school design plans?


Yes it is!!!


New construction loans are surprisingly hard to come by in this area. That being said, I do think that it was an unwise decision because it presents the appearance of impropriety.


Got this email today...Just another good use of public workers and public funds

Just a reminder that Monday at 4 pm is the deadline for voter registration. Halley Leffler and Jay Wierzba have been leading the committee tasked with this important effort. Approximately 300 parents and 300 graduates were identified as not being registered. These lists have been placed in each of the schools for staff and others to review, and a team of volunteers have been working to contact as many possible to encourage registration before the deadline.

If you know of anyone else in the community that has been outspoken in support of the levy, whether they are family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, church members, etc., please reach out THIS WEEKEND in order to have them complete the simple registration form by the deadline.

Forms are available online to fill our electronically and then print ( or you can pick up forms at the ASC and turn in completed forms there as well. Please try to get all completed forms to the ASC by noon Monday, so they can be delivered to the Board of Elections.

If you have any other questions or want to help with last minute activities this weekend, please email Halley ( or Jay (

Also, if you are planning to vote absentee yourself, please be aware that Jason Bennett is on the printed ballot but is no longer running for the Perkins School Board. As active and outspoken supporters of the levy, both Terry Chapman and I would hope we have your vote. If you missed the online debate at Chet and Matt's last night conducted by the Sandusky Register, here is a link to the video: We encourage everyone to see for themselves the clear distinction between us and the other two candidates who do not support the levy.

Thanks for all your help and support,

Rick Uher

Perkins Levy Committee




What the district fails to realize, once again, is that the public is calling for a change in leadership. Uher has the same arrogance, attitude and feeling of entitlement as the current board. Unless the district moves in an entire different direction, I don't see the district and community being able to progress forward.


A levy will never pass with the current board or a board with Uher. Need new blood. Move inside millage back and put a 2 mill levy on the ballot. That will pass. That's Franklin's message. Then send Gunner packing and unite the community!


Does this mean that the tax mans money is being used to support the Uher and Chapman campaign?


"If you have any other questions or want to help with last minute activities this weekend, please email Halley ( or Jay (" is a school email address


VOTING NO AGAIN until the Gunnerbots are gone, the inside millage is moved back, the KoolAid is evaporated, and common sense is restored!


Why doesn't Perkins rethink this whole thing and develop a foundation to raise funds for buildings. Something Different! Firelands Hospital has a foundation. Bellevue Hospital has foundation. Then all the fundraising that is done through PTO could be funneled through it, grants could be written, they could even hit up the alumni to make donations. I'm not suggesting that operating funds be generated there, but capital improvements. Time to think out of the box.


Vote no in november


Vote no in November. Vote yes for Franklin & Ahner.


To all Perkins School tax payers:

Take a look at the April 2013 PerkinsPirate School Report. It is a type of news letter that the Perkins Local SD sends out to the residents in the school district. It had questions and answers before the May 2013 election.

Look at the first question and answer under the heading "Superintendent Residency Questions" on the front page.

What do you see?


Enlighten us


I don't have it anymore, what does it say or where can I get a copy??


I will post the question and answer in a few days.


Was it legal for Champmans place of employment to make a loan to Perkins Schools while he is on the Board? How much money is Citizens Bank making on this loan? Where is the Ohio Ethics Committee? On top of that, a loan for a project the voters turned down!



The Ohio ethics committee would get involved if there there was an indication of wrongdoing. It is not illegal on its face. There are rules that have to be followed.

The loan was for the archtectual fees related to the stadium, the rest of the districts part of the stadium project, as well as a possible new 7-12 building, as well as studies done looking at building new, and renovation.


Officers of The Citizens Banking Company

Terry L. Chapman, Commercial Lending


Thank you for the link Centauri. It shows, by my count, that there are 15 VP's of Commercial Lending at Citizens Bank, not just the one you listed above. Provides very ample opportunity to keep the transaction "at arms length", one of the requirements.


How many in Sandusky?


Don't know, and I don't think that matters. In this day and age, do you really think someone has to be physically in Sandusky to negotiate and consumate a business loan?

If you have proof Terry did anything wrong, let's hear it/see it.


One man is not larger than an entire entity. I would simply have avoided making the loan with a VP on the board, but it's not my bank/money. Again, a non issue at this point unless the shareholders say otherwise!!!



You're amazing! Amazingly gullible, that is. You must have some "sea captain" in you, because you definitely believe in "going down with the ship!"

You seem to be the ONLY one who hasn't figured out that the voters of Perkins do not TRUST Gunner or the BOE, that the current BOE (Terry Chapman can't go too soon) is going to be OUT in about 4 weeks, and this fiasco of a levy is going down like the Hindenburg. New BOE members, a total rejection of this administration, and a totally new direction are coming, and coming SOON. Wake up, Bherrle.



I think everyone, including myself, know that roughly 2,500 Perkins Voters do not trust Dr. Gunner or the board. I know it, but I don't understand it. I will not abandon what I feel is right simply because it is not at the moment "popular." Neither will other supporters.

When Dr. Gunner arrived in 2008 to the district, the first thing the then BOE wanted to do was to put an operating levy on the ballot. He asked them not too, he asked them to give him a year to make changes to reduce or eliminate the need for a levy at that time. His changes worked. He kept us off the ballot for 5 years on operating money, which would have been at least another year longer had the stadium not reached the critical point it had. Keep in mind that strategic planning for the district and it's facilities had already begun, before Gunner was here. These notions that new buildings are "Gunner's dream" and that the district has not managed it funds properly, are really not true.

This "new direction" you speak of may very well come, but what you call a "new direction" I and others see as a "lack of direction." Reversing inside millage and approving a smaller levy (which first off there is no guarentee the public will even do that) completely abandons the facility issues. What is Mr. Franklin's, or yours, or VoteNo's, or 15th Green's, or any objector's specific plans about how to deal with the facilities and fund operations at the same time?? A specific, detailed plan, that ensures this community won't spend more in the long term because we get forced into repairs as things actually start failing? I've never seen one. It seems to be that the plan is we'll just keep waiting, keep kicking that can down the road. I utterly fear where your "direction" will take the district.

It is not a Board members job to be a puppet to the community. It is his/her job to always be thinking ahead, and making the best long-term decisions for the district. I understand that they have to be accountable to the community, but that doesn't mean that the community is always right. I find it ironic that a certain very popular Ex-Super from the 80's saw the need for new facilities as far back as the late 1980's. Yet, some 20-25 years later, here we are.

"Perkins Schools is taking out a $3.6 million loan from Citizens Bank to move ahead with plans for a new school for grades 7-12."

"The interest rate on the five-year loan is 2.79 percent, with no penalty for early repayment, said Lisa Crescimano, Perkins Schools treasurer."


Sounds like I need to make a phone call to the ethics committee.

Truth or Dare

WOW, that's like $100K plus to Citizen's bank in interest, right? I bite at math but do my best. Perkins Voters/Taxpayers oughta love that one!


Probably depends on the life of the loan....which could be a long, long life! The five years will need to be extended. All for a dream.


Chapman should me ashamed of himself. In my opinion, this is worse than what Huron is dealing with!


Ashamed of himself for what Voteno?

First, this isn't new news, it has been public information for a year now about the loan, and even longer than that the Terry works for Citizens. This isn't some "revelation."

Second, are you already assuming guilt? Based on what evidence?


Non issue, guys. Too many channels to go through in the loan process. If anything, I would question the banks decision to make such a loan but if the loan criteria was met, why not. Easy money.


Michael Ahner cannot be trusted. Prior to the debate he had frequently advocated merging with Sandusky Schools as a solution. Unfortunately, this really highlights his inexperience as that would result in either Perkins paying $5732 to Sandusky per student, or Perkins residents paying Sandusky's tax rate that is 13.6 mill higher... either way it would cost the good folks of Perkins Township much much more to consider his solution rather than simply pass this levy. I will give props on figuring out that wouldn't be a crowd pleasing answer after only 90 seconds of dead mic, deer-in-the-headlights time before completely making a complete and unprecedented 180 over what he has stated time and time again.

What people fail to realize is there was no mis-management of funds... the policy of the federal government (which borders on communism) is that federal funds are taken from healthy, financially balanced districts to fund poor, financially unstable districts. So far the federal government has stolen 2 million dollars from Perkins to fund some poorly run district elsewhere. Perkins gets roughly 25% of what it should were it not for this 'redistribution of wealth'.

Were it not for the government robbing our coffers, Perkins would never have had to get rid of any teachers, or add participation fees, or ask voters to fund the levy. The state/feds feel that sinc perkins is 3 mil lower than the rest of the state there is no reason we should get the federal funds we are entitled to. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the government... it's not our problem if some backwater BOE in some other part of Ohio ran their district into ruin, and personally I don't care if they can bus their students or's their problem.

QUIT STEALING FROM US! Prior to big brother's theft, Perkins had no need for any levy funds and balanced the budget perfectly for over 13 years while providing the best education and extra-curricular in all of northern Ohio.


Prior to the "government robbing our funds", we were donating $1,700,000 million dollars to a stadium project that could have been paid for by raising the entire dollar amount due through community donation proceeds. Instead, we simply pull it from our savings account assuming the public will pay it back later. That is management! Just one quick example.

Best education in all of northern Ohio is questionable, at best. Just check the Ohio DOE grade card for the last eight plus years.

I agree on the merger talk. It needs to stop!



I've asked you this before and you have not given it. Please provide proof that the stadium could have been dealt with all donated funds.

I happen to know this to be not true, but I'll await your "facts."


Easy, Bherrle. The athletic boosters, band boosters, local businesses, students and community all did a fantastic job of generating half of the 3.4 million dollar cost of the entire project. Why do you doubt their ability to raise the entire amount without district contribution?


Like it or not, more students get athletic scholarships than academic scholarships that's just the way it is. You can be a purest and say schools are for education and extracurriculars are unnecessary, but that doesn't make you a realist. The reality is colleges make money from their sports program so handing out sports scholarships like candy is a financially sound decision on their part. With that in mind, it is the school's responsibility to make sure our students have every athletic advantage including a stadium where scouts will want to come watch and not immediately think of the participants as 'small time' because of the dilapidated facilities.

It's pretty simple, think in terms of your own life. If you are driving around in a '98 Windstar that is all paid off but costs you $500 per year and someone comes along and offers to pay half of a 2013 Escape, you are quite frankly an idiot if you don't go out and get a loan for the other half and replace a vehicle living on borrowed time.

That is the same story as the stadium.


Why not drive the $500 '98 Windstar for one more year and let someone else pay for the entire 2013 Escape? Then you wouldn't have to take out a loan or rob from the taxpayers savings.

Athletics is vital to the educational experience, but new stadiums being built at the expense of teachers jobs and academic programs should of and could have been avoided. The funds could have been raised solely by the community and saved the district 1.7 million.

In addition, many, many more academic scholarship opportunities are coming out of Perkins than athletic. You can count major athletic scholarships on one hand.


Ok so then it comes down to: do you take the gamble if you aren't sure the businesses will be in a position to donate anything in another year. If I turn down half of the Escape and then the donation disappears, I'm stuck in a vehicle that costs more than it's worth every year till it dies and I have to pay for the whole thing myself.

I'm not saying it was the best decision, but it's not black and white. How many teachers could they have put back on the payroll for a 20 year period for that 1.7 mil? I say a 20 year period because that's most likely how long it will be before the new stadium needs any major financial input. 1.7 mil divided by 20 is 85k per year... what's that, a teacher and a half if they are both first year teachers? So the question becomes save potentially two teaching positions or get a brand new stadium that adds value to the school and should last 20 years with out additional financial input.

The funny thing is, and you can probably imagine, there could be as much backlash (and in some districts certainly would have been) if it had gone the other way and the district had turned down 50% of a new stadium to save 2 teaching positions.

It's much like the loan to get plans and estimates for a new building. People would be crying criminal incompetence if the district had blindly decided to repair all the buildings without even looking if it made more sense to rebuild them.

Seriously, around here, were that the case and Gunner hadn't ordered the estimates and plans and had just repaired the buildings out of the operating funds (if money weren't an issue) there would be people on here riling up the general uninformed public about how criminally negligent he was for dumping money into repairs when we should have built new buildings...believe that ;)


That is a myth perpetuated by parents and the cottage industry associated with travel sports leagues (including personal trainers, athletic directors, personal batting instructors, etc.)

From this:

According to Mark Kantrowitz and, approximately 1% to 2% of undergraduate students in Bachelor’s degree programs receive athletic scholarships, equaling a total of about $1 billion a year. While that monetary amount is growing at a rate of 4.5% year over year, the percentage of those that actual receive athletic scholarships has not risen higher than 1.8% since 1995-1996

About 13% of kids receive academic scholarships:




I agree with you that they did do a fantastic job. I have spoken with a number of them, including those "very" involved in that campaign. The sentiment I got was that they got just about all they could get.

I, like you, would have loved to seen it all paid for by donations, but from everything I've learned about the project, that wasn't going to happen.


Reading the comments here really makes me wonder... do you people want Perkins to end up as worthless as Sandusky proper? I can buy 3 story palace in Sandusky for 60k because no one in their right mind would send their child to SHS unless they had no other choice. On the contrary though, Perkins is filled with 80k plus hovels... Columbus Park, Fairview Lanes, and 80% of the rest of the township are properties over-valued by 20,000 + (Fairview Lanes average home value is currently 104k and there isn't a house in there worth over 80k physically) all because Perkins history as the premium district in northern Ohio.

The current levy is going to cost your average Perkins resident 56 cents per day, that's roughly 1/10th of what I spend on coffee from Bigby every day. Doesn't seem too expensive to me to insure Perkins students, who have a history of continuing their education and returning to the community as valuable assets, have a quality education and safe and secure facilities. It's a nice contrast to some of the other schools where students have a history of graduating ...sometimes.

The other upside is I don't lose 20k+ valuation on my home. Not that I am planning on selling, but if all the homes in Perkins reflect what they are actually worth, no one is going to be able to get so much as a home improvement loan if they ever decide to remodel their kitchens.


You say Subtle, "Perkins is filled with 80k plus hovels... Columbus Park, Fairview Lanes, and 80% of the rest of the township are properties over-valued by 20,000 + (Fairview Lanes average home value is currently 104k and there isn't a house in there worth over 80k physically) all because Perkins history as the premium district in northern Ohio."

I say, "Precisely why this levy will never pass."


The key is these homes are all filled with moderate income families ranging 40-80k per year combined income. I know, I'm one of them. The problem there is most of us don't have huge savings accounts, we can't afford to go out of our monthly budget to remodel the kitchen, or repave the driveway, or add a back porch, or build a new shed that gets blown down in the winter. To do these things, most of us will need a loan and we aren't going to get one when we find our houses, previously appraised at 90k are actually worth 60k. Trust me I know from experience, the last home to sell in this neighborhood sat on the market for almost 2 years at 89k, valued at 94k and then finally sold for 60k... there are 3 other houses with for for sale signs in front all for 90k and none will ever sell.

Pass the levy, the school goes back to excellent ratings, my home value stays at 90k and I can get a loan if I ever need one... not to mention it keeps the rif-raff from being able to flood into my formerly decent neighborhood since basically anyone can afford a 40-60k home and I personally want to be surrounded by people with steady jobs and families.


Right, but I know many communities with $500,000 plus homes and much larger incomes struggling to pass these same levies and their schools are rated Excellent with Distinction. I get what you're saying but to me, it starts with good paying jobs and industry being enticed back to our area/state.

Not so sure about the schools getting higher ratings with the passage of the levy. That problem has existed for years and is getting worse. It starts at the top on this one.
Welcome to the forum, Subtle.


Thanks, I don't post that often, but there are some misconceptions and I personally feel that the levy supporters aren't explaining that the desperately needed levy has less to do with mismanagement and more to do with the gov't robbing from the rich to pay for the poor.

I am voting for the levy because I want Perkins to remain the place where businesses go to prosper rather than on the north side of Perkins Ave where they go to die or meagerly scrape by. I want Perkins to remain an area with an acceptable crime rate that doesn't have daily shootings and where I don't need a high tech security system to insure my TV stays in my entertainment center when I go to work. I want Perkins to remain a district where a higher percentage of students go on to college than actually graduate from Sandusky schools.

I don't want to become Sandusky South. I don't hate Sandusky proper, and I'd like to see things pick up north of Perkins Ave, but that isn't the immediate problem facing me and my family, this levy is.


Sandusky Schools have made great progress. I wish it was like the days of past when the area was thriving and you're right, our government is to blame.


How does passing a levy MIRACULOUSLY improve state rating???


"Trust me I know from experience, the last home to sell in this neighborhood sat on the market for almost 2 years at 89k, valued at 94k and then finally sold for 60k... there are 3 other houses with for for sale signs in front all for 90k and none will ever sell."

QUESTION: What is the address of this "last home to sell in this neighborhood sat on the market for almost 2 years at 89k, valued at 94k and then finally sold for 60k..." so that I can look it up to verify what you stated is true?

QUESTION: What are the addresses of these "3 other houses with for sale signs in front all for 90k and none will ever sell" so that I can look them up and verify what you mentioned is true? I get a lot of information from people who say this and that. I need to see for myself what is and what isn't.


You sound like an idiot with a superiority complex...I would like to see your 3 story palace that you can buy for 60k. Sandusky is a great school. I sure would not want my children to go to school with yours if you raise them to follow your thoughtLESS ideology. DISGUSTING.


"On the contrary though, Perkins is filled with 80k plus hovels... Columbus Park, Fairview Lanes, and 80% of the rest of the township are properties over-valued by 20,000 + (Fairview Lanes average home value is currently 104k and there isn't a house in there worth over 80k physically) all because Perkins history as the premium district in northern Ohio."

"The other upside is I don't lose 20k+ valuation on my home. Not that I am planning on selling, but if all the homes in Perkins reflect what they are actually worth, no one is going to be able to get so much as a home improvement loan if they ever decide to remodel their kitchens."

I see many parcels in the Perkins Local SD that are over valued for tax purposes. The owners of these parcels pay more than their fair share of taxes to the school.

If your home is under-valued for school taxes, be thankful that you pay less than your fair share of taxes.


@ Rosa, numbers don't lie, and neither does common sense. Which district has a larger percentage of graduating seniors? Which district has a higher percentage of students enrolling in college? Which district has a higher average grade point average?

Ok so lets take a restaurant, or pet store, or dry-cleaning business or any business for that matter... where do you think it will be more profitable? Perkins or Sandusky? Pretty sure that is what killed The Weenee Hut and The Krunchie Pickle, they were both fine and profitable while in Perkins, moved to Sandusky for lower rent and went out of business even though the rent was less than a third of what they were paying... it's not a superiority complex, people in Perkins support their local businesses, people in Sandusky proper do not. The only consistently profitable businesses in Sandusky proper are bars. Would I change that if I could? You bet! I'd love to trade in my tiny 90k basement-less house here for the 3 story finished basement home I could get in Sandusky for the same price, but currently there is just too much risk to my children on all fronts to make that move even if I'd like the extra square footage of living space.


I'm a Perkins community member/parent and even I disagree with your assessment of the Sandusky Schools. They, like the rest, have their issues but in my opinion, it starts at home and with how much each child applies themselves. Great leaders, scholars and athletes have graduated from there as well as all the schools in our area.


I don't have a problem with the school itself, they offer more program than Perkins by a country mile, they have more clubs and extra-curricular activities, they even have better student / teacher ratio.

That being said it doesn't change the fact that PHS has a 94.1% graduation rate and SHS has a 84.0%. PHS has 28.8% graduating with honors and SHS has 13.6%. 76.9% of PHS students take the ACT, 59.5% of SHS's students do.

The numbers don't lie, nor does knowing them make me someone with a superiority complex, just a parent who can read the current statistics. Did I say SHS hasn't produced many quality graduates? Certainly not; however as a parent, knowing those numbers, which district would you entrust your child's future to?

Perkins Schools and the community as a whole do not settle for mediocrity. Our students are pushed at school and at home. The attitude is to strive for greatness. Call it what you want, 'entitled', 'over-privileged', "superiority complex", but when you encourage greatness, many become great, and the numbers reflect that.


Well, Subtle, if you feel that way, you had better make sure that once your kids graduate from PHS, they do not go out into the REAL world and make sure they stay cloistered in their LITTLE perkins community. It is good for kids to accept and be integrated into real diversity, and make their choices with the guidance of parents no matter which school they attend. All this starts in the home and if you raise your children to become citizens with empathy and understanding, you are raising a great human being, not one that is a little bit better in their mind, than their fellow student who maybe does not have a two parent home, maybe not enough to eat, or even parents with drug problems. This is as important as education and will help prepare them for their futures.


So wait, Sandusky proper is now the REAL world? Last I checked it wasn't a vast metropolis in fact, to put it into perspective, Perkins is to Sandusky as Avon (or Westlake, or Avon Lake etc.) is to Cleveland. People who don't have to live in Cleveland, don't... and the same is true for Sandusky proper. If you have the financial resources to live elsewhere you live in Perkins or Huron or Milan or Vermilion.

That's the nice thing about a college education. If you get a college degree, you generally work in a field that provides you with the financial resources to live among others of a similar economic demographic. Your co-workers tend to be equally educated people and that dramatically cuts down on the "real diversity" as you are trying to call it.

Here is where someone will inevitably try and throw race into the equation, but the bottom line is; that's a fallacy. There were people of all races who graduated college the same year I did. My office is filled with people of all ethnic heritages. My neighborhood is comprised of families of all races, yet the one thing we all have in common is we are educated, and financially stable... not financially privileged, but stable and as a result, there is very little of what you are trying to veil as "real diversity".

As for raising children correctly at home, let's take a look at the difference, I went to a Perkins graduation ceremony and people were instructed to hold their applause until all students had been recognized. Every parent in attendance followed those directions. There were two instances where the student body cheered for fellow students, and one or two scattered cat calls.

I attended a graduation at Sandusky High School they were given the same instructions, yet there were parents hooting and hollering for every other student that graduated. The difference is respect. The Perkins parents respect the authority of the school administration and followed the directions they were given. They respected the students and their fellow parents, they respected the importance and reverence of the ceremony itself. That respect, intentionally or not is passed down to their children as they emulate their parents behavior throughout life.

The Sandusky parents clearly couldn't care less if their fellow parents could hear their child's name being called, didn't care about the reverence that should coincide with the ceremony, and couldn't care less what directions they were given, because frankly, they don't feel the rules apply to them. That is the attitude and behavior set they are passing down to their children, either intentionally or unintentionally.

No, that doesn't mean all parents of students at SHS have that mind set, but there were at least as many that demonstrated that behavior as those that behaved properly. So yes, you are right, it starts at home and in the community at large; and I'll stand by my initial statement that the last thing I want in this world is for Perkins to become Sandusky South.


Well said subtle. It is good to see someone with vision about the consequences for our inaction. I am sickened by the lack of a sense of community. The schools are the backbone of any community and the responsibility of all to insure its success. Vote yes.


I agree, well said, but how would you fix Sandusky Schools and their community since we're headed in the same direction and suffering the same "consequences"? Why is their system "failing" and their millage is higher? Also keep in mind, Perkins is a close second to last in the area per the Ohio BOE report card. Sandusky being last. Why are both becoming so close in many aspects, both community and schools. Roughly 400? open enrollment kids are from Sandusky, as well. Not arguing, just throwing it out there for discussion.

I really do think they're making strides, though and I know many successful Sandusky grads. I also know of many Perkins grads that finished in the top ten of their respective classes and turned out to be non productive citizens.


Never trust anyone who evades questions.
(In reference to Subtle)
(Published January 19, 2008)
The Grand Forks School Board has narrowed the list of school superintendent finalists to four. The short list includes Grand Forks Central Principal Jeff Schatz; Moorhead (Minn.), Superintendent Larry Nybladh; Dickinson Superintendent Paul Stremick, and James Gunner, the superintendent of the Bryan City School District in Bryan, Ohio.


And as long as were on the subject of Subtle and facts; this is a repost but it is important enough to repeat.

Subtle said that it is a known fact that athletes get more scholarships than other students which he suggested is a good reason for building the stadium with taxpayer funds instead of just donated funds.


That is a myth perpetuated by some parents and the now ever-growing cottage industry associated with travel sports leagues (including personal trainers, athletic directors, personal batting instructors, etc.)

From this:

According to Mark Kantrowitz and, approximately 1% to 2% of undergraduate students in Bachelor’s degree programs receive athletic scholarships, equaling a total of about $1 billion a year. While that monetary amount is growing at a rate of 4.5% year over year, the percentage of those that actual receive athletic scholarships has not risen higher than 1.8% since 1995-1996

About 13% of kids receive academic scholarships:



@underthebridge I have been to 3 awards ceremonies in the past 5 years at 2 different schools, and at each, there were more athletic scholarships announced than academic scholarships. That's just from my personal experience. What that article fails to mention is that most sports scholarships are full or large portion scholarships that offer children who may not have the financial resources to pay for college a chance to go to college. Academic scholarships are usually $1000, $2000, or maybe $5000. I have rarely heard of an academic 'full ride' (not saying they don't exist)... basically, academic scholarships typically cover books.

Many people here are eluding that many Sandusky students are financially disadvantaged. Which do you think is more beneficial to them, a full ride sports scholarship, or a $3000 academic one (leaving them to cover a minimum of $27,000)?


Mike Kantrowitz, who is referenced in both articles, is considered an EXPERT is college financing nationally. 3 awards ceremonies in 5 years amount to stories perpetuating the myth that athletics lead to more scholarship opportunities that academics.


You kind of avoided the question as to which scholarship benefits the economically disadvantaged student more but let me elaborate using the 2013-14 financial numbers from Colorado State University, which is the most transparent university (with regards to their scholarships) that I could find:

(Excerpt from

This year, students at CSU will receive approximately $26.2 million in academic scholarships.

The largest award CSU offers non-residents is the Triple Crown –– a total of 244 scholarships ranging from $20,000 to $36,000 spread out over four years.

One of the more coveted scholarships for in-state students is the Green and Gold Scholarship, which is $2,000 per year over four years

While academic scholarships are handled by the Student Financial Services office, athletic scholarships are distributed in-house by the athletic department.

The money for athletic scholarships at CSU comes from a combination of private support, revenue generating and university support, such as the $208 athletics fee every full time student pays each year.

A complex mathematical formula the NCAA uses determines how many full ride scholarships a university may distribute each year. At CSU, that number is 208 full ride scholarships totaling $7.3 million.


So we see that in the first statement, CSU gives out 244 scholarships ranging from $20,000 to $36,000 worth of their only substantial academic scholarship. For the sake of this reply let's take the median number of $28,000 and multiply that by 244, resulting in a total of $6.8 million in substantial academic scholarships.

That leaves 19.2 million in trivial academic scholarships such as the 'coveted Green and Gold Scholarship' of $2000 per year.

The estimated cost to attend CSU after grants is $33,962 for a total of $135,848 over a four year period. Subtracting the largest academic scholarship available ($36,000 over 4 years), this leaves the 244 lucky students only owing $99,848 for their college education. Keep in mind that many of those 244 will not get the $36k maximum leaving them owing up to $16,000 more.

The remainder of those academic scholarships average less than $2000 per year, basically covering 1/5th of their cost of room and board or all of their books and $700 worth of misc. expenses.

Conversely, the Athletic Department gives out 208 full ride scholarships covering all expenses, leaving those 208 students owing nothing. CSU lists no trivial athletic scholarships, but from my limited experiences at the 3 awards ceremonies, I do know that at least some colleges do offer low dollar (less than $5000) athletic scholarships. Regrettably, I was unable to find any information as to whether CSU does or does not offer such low dollar athletic scholarships.

So from this current, specific college example, we see that CSU offers a grand total of 36 more substantial academic scholarships than athletic full ride scholarships. The difference is, those 208 full ride scholarship recipients will owe nothing upon their completion of college while the 244 academic scholarship recipients will owe at least $99k.

Basically, yes, you are correct that 'more academic scholarships are offered than athletic' but as we can see from CSU's 244/208 substantial scholarships, the actual numbers are much closer than the statistics make them appear. I understand the logic there, as we don't want our children gambling all their hopes and dreams on athletic scholarships that are given to only the very best athletes; however, both Perkins and Sandusky have had numerous athletes of that caliber walking their halls.

My argument was that having quality sports programs and facilities was as important as any other program, and the expenditure of funds to provide, maintain, and improve those programs / facilities is a necessary expense that can't be overlooked or trivialized.

Let's not forget that where general admission to college is concerned, given a limited admission situation where two students of equal academic standing are applying, 90% of the time the admission will be given to the student with more varsity letters. Those post-secondary schools recognize that those organized extracurricular activities develop teamwork, dedication, character, the fortitude to push one's own abilities beyond preconceived limitations, the drive to always do your best, and a work ethic that provides those involved with a skill set that can help them succeed in all aspects of life.


double post


I didn't mean to avoid the question. I think that while the scenario you describe might help a disadvantaged student more than an academic one, but I just don't think schools can nor should they cater to that small of a student group that is not specifically academically related.

Sports have morphed from being that which rounds out students into being both an over-focus for the organization and a financial drain on districts budgets More and more taxpayers are rightly saying, "foul." It can't be sustained. It isn't that I am saying as a citizen/taxpayer that I don't want these students to have what I had. I actually do - what I had not what it has evolved into. But sports, and it is only a few sports, have ballooned into programs that are financially unsustainable. The costs are ridiculous: coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, athletic directors, athletic director secretaries, etc.


The problem is, with open enrollment, you can send your child to any neighboring school. Any parent that wants their child to succeed is going to send their student to the school with the best opportunity. If Perkins facilities are run down, we are going to lose students to Huron. I'm not saying that sports should be supported and academics neglected, but that new stadium was an investment that cost a relatively trivial amount of money and that will probably serve PHS well for the next 30+ years baring any natural disasters.


So let me get this straight. Open Enrollment is enacted to "save the district financially" by getting the tax dollars from other districts in our district. But the only way we can "save the district financially" is by spending more money. Do you see how unsustainable this way of thinking is?


Open enrollment has generated a lot of money for Perkins schools, it also had nothing to do with the need to replace the old dilapidated stadium that has been in disrepair for over a decade.

My point is that if Perkins does not offer quality facilities, programs, and safe buildings, I am going to open enroll my child at Huron, because I want my child to have the most opportunity possible. I doubt I am a minority in that sentiment.

I'm not talking about spending money on the stadium because of the students open enrolling to us, I'm saying unless Perkins remains one of the top districts in the area in all measures, sports, programs, education, and security, Perkins parents who care about their children will open enroll them to Huron and the district will lose money.

Let me put it this way: when you are on vacation, you don't stay in that single floor hotel with the half-full swimming pool if you care about your family, no matter how inexpensive it is. You pick the nicest one you can afford.

Schools are no different. If Perkins falls into ruin, I will open enroll my child to Huron or move up to Avon / Avon Lake. Fortunately, I believe there are still enough good people in Perkins to make sure that never happens. The new stadium was a step in the right direction. The campus that got voted down several elections ago was also a step in the right direction. The bottom line is our students deserve the best and it is the community and district's obligation to ensure that they have it.


I mean this: improve the EDUCATION the students are earning and I think a levy will pass. Work toward moving the state report card to EXCELLENT not EFFECTIVE. Work toward moving the state report card from C's and Fs to all As and the money will follow. People will financially support quality education because they don't want to jeopardize it.

The rest is gravy.


You do realize it had been "CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT" from 2004 - 2007(one step below its current rating),before Dr. Gunner was hired on? Since he has been heading the district, it basically went from a (C)"CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT" to a (B) "EFFECTIVE" with the 2009-2010 year being (A)"EXCELLENT", for only the second time in the school's history!

The High School has been consistently "Excellent" meaning that by the time students get to the only grade levels that actually effect their futures, they are scoring above the majority of students in the state. To me that means that teachers in elementary and middle schools spent time teaching concepts instead of just drilling practice tests and going over only material they know will be on the test.

It could also mean that Perkins isn't 'gaming the system' the way some districts do by 'helping' their special needs and lower 20% pass their tests.

Whatever the case, only Huron and Perkins have over 70% of their students pursuing post-secondary educations and having very high average scores on the ACT... guess they are doing something right.

You simply can't build your curriculum, and tailor your schools instruction to fit the lowest common denominator without hurting the students who are above average or who truly excel.


@Centauri, that's pretty funny, but I had to work; that's one of those values I believe in passing down to my children. As such, I didn't have time to come on here and post an immediate reply.

@fifteenthgreen Fundamentally, the Sandusky School System is fine. It has a decent amount of teachers holding Masters degrees, offers diverse programs and follows a solid curriculum.

Unfortunately, as I and many others have said, it begins at home. That lack of respect for authority and other people is rampant in Sandusky. Heck, there is a new columnist on SR who as of today, only posted articles bashing the SPD, prosecutors office and court system in general. His articles are meant to foster racial intolerance, and from reading the comments associated with each piece, there are a large number of people here who agree with that agenda.

The children of Sandusky should be taught that you are only in trouble with the law when you break the law; and if you hang out with criminals, you are going to be perceived as a criminal.

Parents in Sandusky should show an interest in their children's education and encourage them to succeed. They should know where their children are at 1am, which in all cases, while in high school should be "bed". Nothing appropriate for school age children happens after midnight, be it a weekend, school night or summer.

Parents in Sandusky should stress the fact that if you don't get into college, particularly in this economic climate, you are going to struggle your entire life. Parents in Sandusky should instill the belief that a person is entitled to nothing that they do not earn. If you work hard and apply yourself and constantly look to better your situation, you become a success. If you complain about your situation and blame other people, the neighborhood you grew up in, or your family dynamic, you eventually become part of the problem and the circle continues.

To improve the economic situation, Sandusky residents need to support their local businesses rather than choose to buy products and services from the most inexpensive national chain stores and restaurants. We need to encourage new businesses to set up shop in Sandusky, but unfortunately they won't if they feel that they won't get support from the community (service / restaurant oriented businesses) or they cannot get favorable terms from the City (manufacturing related businesses).

One of the recent opinion pieces on here chastised Sandusky for too many juvenile criminal cases, yet that is actually a positive initiative. Currently, people are scared to move into Sandusky because of the violence and crime. They are afraid for their families well being and their property. Teaching the children that all actions have consequences at a young age is important and may decrease the crime rate in the future.

If that columnist had really wanted to make an article that encouraged political discourse and led to change, he should have looked at the sentencing applied to those cases. You don't get arrested and convicted of a crime if you weren't breaking the law; so it could be said that every child in those cases he listed were breaking the law and absolutely need to recognize those actions have consequences.

It's not the arrests that should be a topic, it's the sentencing. If the offense is non violent and non drug related, the punishment should be community service for first time offenders. That way they learn the value of hard work, help clean up the city, and maybe learn the work that goes into maintaining property and keeping things looking nice.

If the typical sentence was the detention home, then yes, this initiative is failing many of the children. Children need to learn that their mistakes have consequences, but you don't want to put them in a situation where they are surrounded by violent repeat offenders because they got caught breaking curfew, skipping school, or stealing a candy bar.

If a child steals (1st time offender) say a starter hat, they should be forced to perform community service at minimum wage equivalent. At this point, everyone reading this is saying to themselves 'three hours of community service seems like a slap on the wrist' but that is because you are looking at just the cost of the hat. Many people see crimes like that as just the cost of the hat, and certainly the child does.

Unfortunately it isn't just the hat that is part of the expense. The stores have to hire security, or a manager has to neglect other duties to handle the situation, detain the suspect, fill out police reports, fill out product loss statements for the company, etc. The company in turn has to develop additional security devices for their products that actually drive the prices of the product up in the first place.

The police have to come pick up (or sometimes spend hours looking for) the suspect, process them, contact the parents, then send the paperwork off to the prosecutors who have to set up the court date, possibly pre-trial hearings, and finally the suspect has to appear before the judge.

If we say for the purpose of this example that the average hourly rate for the store security / manager, parents, judge, police officer(s), clerks, and prosecutors is $30 per hour, that's an additional $300ish in intangible costs for the crime of stealing a $20 hat. That equates to 40 hours of community service; and in addition to just sentencing, the juvenile should have all of that explained to them, how their actions cost everyone involved, make the product inherently more expensive, take valuable resources (police) away from potentially more serious crimes, and back log the city itself with work.

That is what an article about juvenile prosecution should address... the way the cases are resolved; because frankly they didn't get arrested for sitting on their front porch doing their homework. You can't make excuses for bad behavior, or blame the police for enforcing the law, but you can make sure that when warranted, the punishment provides a learning situation and possibility for growth of character.

OK, so this has drug on long enough, 15th asked a question that has so many facets it would take a small book to address in it's entirety, and frankly I don't have the time. One thing is certain, whether you like the message or not, whether you think I have a superiority complex or not, everyone reading this recognizes that the majority of what I have said is true... even if they don't want to hear it.


Subtle- if you are going to post information as fact- please make sure it's accurate.

Did you just make up the term "substantial academic scholarship"?

It's just laughable to say more athletic scholarships are award than academic. I won't even waste time discussing that because actual facts (not anecdotal evidence of being at a whopping 3 awards ceremonies in 5 years) prove otherwise.

However, you seem to just cast aside CSU's "green and gold scholarship" of $2,000 per year, presumably, because it's only $2,000 per year. Did you happen to take the time to see what CSU's tutition even is? I'm sure you would be surprised to learn CSU's full-time tuition AND fees (for 15 credit hours) is $4,656 per semester for $9,312 per year. A $2,000 annual scholarship is 21% of the tuition. Pretty substantial portion, I'd say.

But carry on regarding your rants of Sandusky v. Perkins.


Wow, citizen, I posted the source link for the listing of all (and I am going to capitalize this because you clearly didn't use the reference link or read their scholarship page before replying) COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY's scholarships. I'll post it again for good measure (wouldn't want you to have to scroll up or have to read the original post):

I capitalized COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY because by stating their tuition is $9,312 I think you have clearly shown us you simply saw CSU and maybe assumed it was Cleveland State University and didn't read the original post thoroughly before whipping out a reply.

Now let's address your statements point by point:

1) "Did you just make up the term "substantial academic scholarship"?

Yes, as a matter of fact I did. I made up that term to refer to any scholarship that does not provide any substantial financial windfall in the cost of tuition. Your numbers are wrong, and I will provide a link to prove that as well when I address more of your misleading statements.

2) "It's just laughable to say more athletic scholarships are award than academic."

If you actually read that post I conceded that technically CSU does give more academic scholarships, both in terms of total dollar expenditures (18.9 million more to be exact) and in total scholarships granted. In fact, I even stated that there were exactly 36 more substantial academic scholarships given than athletic.

3) "I won't even waste time discussing that because actual facts (not anecdotal evidence of being at a whopping 3 awards ceremonies in 5 years) prove otherwise."

I did not use any anecdotal evidence in the calculations. I explicitly stated that since the reference source that listed all CSU scholarships ONLY listed "full-ride" athletic scholarships, those 208 full-ride scholarships were the only ones used in my calculations.

I also stated "CSU lists no trivial athletic scholarships, but from my limited experiences at the 3 awards ceremonies, I do know that at least some colleges do offer low dollar (less than $5000) athletic scholarships." On a personal note here, I'd certainly question the assumptions of anyone who believes Colorado State ONLY offers full-ride athletic scholarships; however, since that information was not available on the reference page, it was not included in my real-world example. I only posted facts that I could prove and provide reference links for.

I will also say that anyone reading this who has attended an awards ceremony for ANY local high school has also witnessed the handing out of 'low-dollar' and 'partial' athletic scholarships; so we can safely assume they do exist; regardless of whether I used them in my calculations.

4) "However, you seem to just cast aside CSU's "green and gold scholarship" of $2,000 per year, presumably, because it's only $2,000 per year. Did you happen to take the time to see what CSU's tutition [sic] even is?"

I sure did. I even used their tuition calculator that factors in some grants. The link to that calculator is:

5) "I'm sure you would be surprised to learn CSU's full-time tuition AND fees (for 15 credit hours) is [sic] $4,656 per semester for $9,312 per year."

You are right; I would be surprised, because that information is simply not true. Using their calculator, I found that the tuition (for an 18 yr old, out of state, unmarried, student who is not the primary source of financial support for any children, who is from a 4 person family with a single child applying for college and a combined income of $50- $60 thousand dollars per year, and who has applied for financial aid, is actually:

*Estimated tuition and fees ........................... $23,740

*Estimated room and board charges ..................... $9,528
(Includes rooming accommodations and meals)

*Estimated cost of books and supplies ................. $1,126

*Estimated other expenses ............................. $2,368
(Personal expenses, transportation, etc.)

*Estimated total cost of attendance: .................. $36,762

*Estimated total grant aid: ........................... $2,800
(Includes both merit and need based grant and
scholarship aid from Federal, State, or Local
Governments, or the Institution)

Estimated Net Price After Grants and Scholarships: .... $33,962

That is for a single year based off the previous year's attendance costs of all students meeting the demographic criteria above. Of course you could manipulate that into a lower number if you were to say that your child is married and the primary source of payment for a child; but we'll leave the debate about how responsible those situations would be for another day.

6) "A $2,000 annual scholarship is 21% of the tuition. Pretty substantial portion, I'd say."

The $2000 scholarship you feel is so substantial is more accurately roughly 21% of the student's ESTIMATED ROOM AND BOARD expenses for a single year. Unfortunately, it only amounts to 5.9% of the student's total expenses for a single year (based off expense estimates as determined by expense averages from the 2011-2012 school year and assuming no inflation of cost). Fairly INSUBSTANTIAL I'd say.

So now having corrected all of your fallacies, I have a question for you:

When you put this misinformation up did you...

A) Blindly post without reading any of the reference links or looking up any facts yourself in hopes that everyone reading would follow your lead and blindly take your information as fact?

B) Intentionally provide misinformation, miscalculations and falsehoods in attempts to mislead anyone too busy to fact check your reply?

C) Actually assumed the college in question was Cleveland State University ignoring "let me elaborate using the 2013-14 financial numbers from Colorado State University" found in the very first sentence of my reply and the link to Colorado State's website?

citizen- "if you are going to post information as fact- please make sure it's accurate."


Those of you that honestly think that Chapman and Ahner are saying NO to the levy are being fooled. They want votes from the NO people and they think this is a way to win them. At least the other two are honest and I respect that whether I am a levy supporter or not.


Curious? When did Chapman ever say he was a NO to levy voter?


Oh boy, Subtble. Why in the world you started talking about Cleveland State, I have no clue.

I, too, was referencing Colorado State. As my post stated, for the 2013-14 school year, tuition and fees for a full-time undergrad is $4,656 per semester or $9,312 per year.

That is the link. Not sure where you are getting your information, but it is unforunately incorrect. By the way, why in the world are you talking about Colorado St to try to make a point regarding Sandusky and Perkins high school students?