How Much OEA Leadership Makes: The Fate of Public Education at the Oxford Tea Party

I’d like to thank the Oxford Tea Party for inviting me out to speak to them at their December 19th, 2012 meeting.  During my hour-long speech I gave them a summary of my experiences fighting the Lakota school levies over the years and my assessment of the state of public education today.  Regretfully I had to end my summation with the declaration that the Tea Party will never be popular and that it was their task to combat the many faces of evil which present themselves through political discourse.  I had hoped to avoid such a summary as left leaning extremists have made such terminology out-of-fashion, but there is no other explanation for groups of people who actively seek to exploit children.  It is clearly the exploitation of children that is going on in great abundance, and it is getting worse with each year that passes.  Politicians use children for political leverage, and greedy teacher unions use children to negotiate extraordinary salaries for themselves.  Under any definition such open exploitation is essentially evil even though such acts of manipulation are presented with smiling faces and doctorial degrees.  As I gave my speech, I was aware that members of the Talawanda school board and administration where present, so I tried to include them in the discussion with a level of understanding—and some sympathy.  But closing our eyes to evil does not make it go away and unfortunately, many people who work in and around education openly participate in the spread of evil from the corrupt hearts and minds of adults onto the innocent minds of our nations next generation.  You can see my complete speech here:

For context to my claims I present the evidence shown below from Media Trackers which provides the salaries of the Ohio Education Association members by their appropriate pecking order. The OEA is the large teacher union that is so active in progressive politics in Ohio.  Patricia Brooks for instance makes more money than Governor Kasich who only earns a bit over $140K per year.  This provokes the question as to–why?  Is the work that Patricia is doing along with her army of assistants that important?  Is it more important than the work of a state governor?  Is the president of the OEA more important than the governor of the state that the OEA functions within?  It would appear so if wages are the measure of worth—which they usually are.  $$

http://ohio.mediatrackers.org/2012/12/19/meet-the-bosses-oea/

  • Patricia Frost-Brooks, President: $267,916
  • Larry Wicks, Executive Director: $222,167
  • William Leibensperger, Vice President: $193,766
  • James Timlin, Secretary-Treasurer: $189,640
  • Bonnie Joseph, Labor Relations Consultant: $181,319
  • James Martin, Assistant Executive Director: $178,009
  • Thomas Jowhar, Labor Relations Consultant: $175,816
  • Kevin Flanagan, Assistant Executive Director – Member Services: $170,881
  • Venita Shoulders, Labor Relations Consultant: $168,976
  • Rachelle Johnson, Assistant Executive Director – Member Services: $166,814
  • Donald Dalton, Labor Relations Consultant: $166,119
  • Susan Babcock, Assistant Executive Director: $164,768
  • William Pearsol, Labor Relations Consultant: $160,463
  • Diane Tieman, Labor Relations Consultant: $157,496
  • Patricia Collins Murdock, Regional Director: $156,091
  • V. Randall Flora, Director Of Education Policy: $155,573
  • George Bozovich, Labor Relations Consultant: $154,794
  • Linda Fiely, General Counsel: $154,592
  • Cristina Munoz-Nedrow, Regional Director: $153,562
  • Jeffrey Kestner, Regional Director: $152,728
  • Parry Norris, Regional Director: $152,636
  • Mary Suchy, Director Of Membership: $152,511
  • Rodney Bird, Labor Relations Consultant: $152,074
  • Talmadge Hutchins, Labor Relations Consultant: $151,968
  • Robert Matkowski, Labor Relations Consultant: $150,023

The only purpose of these employees is to strengthen the cause of a labor union that is committed to progressive politics.  These agents of the OEA are in my opinion sinister because they support progressive social platforms such as the destruction of the America family, the destruction of private property fulfilling global communist hopes, an erosion of self-reliance in children, revisionist history, ineffective education making the American population unequipped to properly think, and they do it at the expense of immature panic driven parents and their vulnerable children.  The names above are committed to maintaining an education monopoly over children and their parents that only succeeds in driving up labor costs purposely by destroying competition and guaranteeing that higher quality education can never emerge.  As I said in my speech, comparing the differences between Costco and Wal-Mart, there are no such competitive alternatives in public education.  Parents have no choice but the one controlled by a progressive labor union.  They have no choice but to give their money to progressive educators who will then pay their union dues to the people mentioned above, who will then funnel money to politicians who will further advance progressive—collectivist politics that directly attack the American Constitution.

I also stated in my speech how such evil can be conducted by good people who wish to believe that they are doing the right thing.  Many of the individual players in public education truly do have their hearts in the right place.  They sincerely want to help children, and want to make the world a better one.  But their fundamental thinking is flawed, making them carriers for evil—evil being anything that imposes itself on the individual sovereignty of other human beings.  Such an imposition is the forced participation in progressive activity.  For instance, property owners have no choice but to pay their taxes even if they think the schools are teaching children the wrong values, or are supporting politicians that are destructive to traditional American viewpoints.  Property owners are forced by government force to participate in this corrupt education system whether they agree with it or not under coercion and the rules were written by the kind of people who are on the above list.  Those members of the OEA are paid more than the governor of Ohio because the money is a bounty to keep their consciousness clean, and their loyalty secure to a cause that is not on the side of justice.  They are paid well to be blind to their actions, and live their lives as instruments of tyranny, coercion, ignorance, and of gradual national erosion of self-reliant identity.

As I said at the end of my speech to the noticeable huffing and puffing of the Talawanda administrators that public education as it stands today is finished.  It must be replaced with a more competitive national model such as School Choice, or other private instruction that will drive down educations costs, and increase the productivity making education better for the kids who need it.  The barrier to any proposed improvements in education are the names listed above, and the total of what all those names make from union dues paid by teachers from taxes collected from the property owners is $4,250,702.00.  Every Ohio property owner must contribute to those names whether or not they want to, or agree with the progressive viewpoints that those people represent.  That coercion is evil and the way those names use children to advocate their massive salaries are legalized theft—theft created through lobby power of weak-willed politicians.  Public education is built by a society of thieves who would otherwise rival the pirates who once plundered the Caribbean.  They are not good people who want to do well for America, Ohio, or the families who pay the taxes.  They want only to plunder the loot collected through taxation to provide extraordinary wages for themselves at the expense of the productive.

My feelings about public education deteriorated when I saw that my home district of Lakota had no desire to balance their budget the correct way, but instead after three elections chose to ignore the results with more intensified radical behavior.  When the levy supporters came after me personally for pointing out their faults, I saw the work of the names listed above, and I decided I wanted no part in their actions.  READ MY OPINION HERE.  That was my line in the sand and my abandoned of recognizing public education run by the government as a future consideration for teaching Americas youth.  Yet those who demand my participation in a government program I do not support, are conducting upon me an evil that is backed by coercion and force destined to be resolved in violent conflict.  And that action is not initiated by me, but by those who wish to impose their will upon others in order to supply the kind of wages for do-nothing occupational positions such as those of the OEA.

As usual, it is always wonderful to speak with people of similar belief, even if the words they use to describe those beliefs are less harsh.  I am no longer interested in negotiating with people from the other side, so my concern for their feelings is no longer a consideration.  But my visit to the Oxford Tea Party was wonderful.  They were a very nice group that are full of piss and vinegar and a hope that the future will be brighter than the vile darkness cast from the shadows by the typical progressive of present company.

Rich Hoffman www.tailofthedragonbook.com   

One thought on “How Much OEA Leadership Makes: The Fate of Public Education at the Oxford Tea Party

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.