Due to an overwhelming response to our website (some from other states) you may be experiencing lags in the time it takes for your computer to load the website or log-in to leave a comment.  There is nothing wrong with your computer or the website.  We are proud and thankfull that so many of you are visiting us!  PLEASE BE PATIENT.  You may try loading or logging-in at a later time.  WE WELCOME YOUR VISITS AND YOUR COMMENTS.  Also, would the guy in the white van please stop stealing our signs.  Witnessed by two people, unfortunately, we were unable to get a license plate number.  Some witnesses suspect that the van is owned by a local institution.  We’ll be watching and we do plan on prosecuting.  (In case you don’t know it, stealing signs is considered a crime.)

For those of you that are visiting us for the first time, you must register in order to log-in.  Click the registration button under the log-in window.  We only ask for your email address so that we may contact you if we find a problem with the post.  We do not need your name!  You may register with any name or “handle” you wish.  The password you enter is yours alone and you should write it down somewhere so you can comment again in the future.   THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION whether or not you leave a comment, but we hope to see your opinion in print soon.

DID YOU KNOW….?

There is no school record of the School Board approving and adopting the International Baccalaureate Program curriculum.

 There is no school record of School Board meeting minutes showing any community meetings that were called to explain I.B.

 There is no school record of parental meetings at Indian Trail or Echo Hills to explain the I.B. program.

 There are very few school records showing the payments made for the training expenses of personnel for I.B.

 There are a few school records showing the payments made for the travel, food and lodging for administrators and trainees for I.B.   Most payments are hidden as credit card payments without any known itemization.

 If you wanted to learn more about I.B. and possibly remove your child from participating in the program you must have investigated it yourself and notified the school by June 1, 2011.

 That even if the money being used to pay for I.B. is coming from ARRA (federal stimulus funds) the costs beyond the funding will be carried by the local taxpayer. 

 There is no school record indicating the School Board’s approval to spend the stimulus or any other funds for I.B.

 Evidently the taxpayer’s of Stow and Munroe Falls are left to surmise that the Superintendent is acting entirely on his own and the School Board does not see the I.B. program as important enough to be bothered with it.  Or, possibly, maybe the Board doesn’t know how to reign in expenses and control their employees, a major part of what they were elected to do in our opinion.

 Is this what a new ten year, 6.5mil levy is going to get us?  Have you even been notified of the levy vote coming up?  A few selected residents of the city received a nice post card from the levy committee to remind them to vote.  The rest of us are being left in the dark in the hope that a light turn-out will pass the levy.

  WE URGE YOU TO VOTE ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2011, AND REMIND YOUR NEIGHBORS TO VOTE TOO.  IT’S IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US.

Click here to read a local parent’s letter to the Stow-Munroe Falls community:

www.truthaboutib.com/aparentsplea.html

While the School District is pressuring the taxpayers of Stow-Munroe Falls for a new 10 year levy at 6.5 mills, the costs for the International Baccalaureate Program mount.

According to the IB application Form A, the school to be under consideration to join the program must pay $75,100.  This fee is just to apply for consideration.  So far Indian Trail Elementary School has paid $9,500 for the “consideration phase” and will soon (if not already) spend another $9,500 for the “candidate phase”.    The “candidate phase” is expected to cost Indian Trail School around $46,000.  If approved, the school will be charged another $32,000 to sustain the program.  These amounts are subject to change because most of the paperwork has not been completed. 

 In addition to all the fees, the training also costs a bundle.  So far the school district has shipped teachers and administrators to such places as Chicago, St. Petersburg, Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, Orlando, Florida, Miami, Florida, Cincinnati and New Orleans.  In addition to travel expenses (paid for by the taxpayer) there is a $765.00 registration fee.  The Chicago trip included the Superintendent and some School Board members.  So far, about 40 school district employees and board members have made the trip to far off places for training.  These figures do not include the current teachers/administrators being trained nor the future trainees.

 Indian Trail School began the process in September, 2009, and has been implementing the candidate phase since June, 2010.  The final phase includes a school visit by an IB inspection team, no doubt at taxpayer’s expense.  If the inspection is favorable, the school becomes authorized to offer the program and attains the status of “IB World School”.  The school will then be re-inspected in three years and then every five years thereafter (at taxpayers’ expense, of course).  There are no refunds offered if the school fails any of the inspections.

 The contract, signed by the Principal of Indian Trail School, reminds the administrators that any dispute with the contract must be finally settled by three arbitrators in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Geneva, Switzerland.  The arbitration is supposed to be confidential, contrary to our “sunshine laws”.  At least the arbitration process is conducted in English.  This whole process, of course, will be charged to the taxpayers.

 Below is a chart showing the current and proposed budget just to implement the IB program at Indian Trail School:

In light of the following document, we are forced to ask:

Do we want a foreign entity controlling the way our children are educated with a “universal curriculum framework for peace education”?

Do we want an organization that at one time appointed Sadam Hussein to the post of Human Rights Advocate to influence how our children will be educated under the guise of an “international education system”?

Do we want our children taught to conform to the values, beliefs and behaviors of a “world government system”?

Do we want our school system forced to travel to Geneva, Switzerland to challenge a dispute before an arbitrator appointed by a chamber of commerce?  If we need a chamber’s involvement, Stow already has one.

What does a chamber of commerce have to do with this level of education anyhow?

Our Constitution and other foundational documents are directly opposed to the tenets of the IB curriculum and , indeed, are not even taught in the program.

Do we want our children to be influenced to  “not follow a particular political system” or to pay no heed to “any particular nation”?

Do we want a program that advocates circumventing our elected officials?

Do we really need to send more money to foreign countries?

ARE WE WILLING TO PAY THE HIGHLY EXPENSIVE  FEES, MANY TO BE INCURRED ANNUALLY, TO RISK TEACHING OUR CHILDREN SOMETHING THAT MAY ONLY BE A VERY EXPENSIVE PASSING EDUCATIONAL FAD (there have been many in the past)?

AMERICAN LEGION RESOLUTION

NUMBER 31

(In Its Entirety)

 

RESOLUTION NO:   31

SUBJECT:   International Baccalaureate Organization of Geneva, Switzerland

 

WHEREAS,  The international Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) sponsors the International Baccalaureate Program (IB ) in relationship with the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO);  and

 WHEREAS,  this “relationship” has formed what it called a universal  “curriculum framework for peace education”;  and

 WHEREAS,  IB is a program of UNESCO developed for the purpose of creating what UNESCO calls an “international education system”;  and

 WHEREAS,  According to UNESCO, the  worldview taught by IB includes the promotion of the Earth Charter (a religious/pantheistic document).  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which views human right the same way Communist countries view human rights) and multiculturalism (which is based on the ideology of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci);  and

 WHEREAS,  IB is structured to change the attitudes, values, beliefs and behavior of its students to conform to the “world government system”; and

 WHEREAS,  IB is a transformational system of education which exists to promote internationalism,  and

 WHEREAS,  Dr. Ian Hill, Deputy Director of IBO, said that the primary goal of IBO is the promotion of “world citizenship”.  (In his article, “Curriculum Development and Ethics in International Education”, given at the UN Disarmament Forum, 2001);  and

 WHEREAS,  Any arbitration of disputes between American public schools and the IBO:  “shall be finally settled by one arbitrator in accordance with the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration of the Swiss Chamber of Commerce.  The seat of the arbitration shall be Geneva, Switzerland”;  and

 WHEREAS,   America’s foundational principles of national sovereignty, natural law and inalienable rights are at odds with the IB curriculum and are not taught;  and

 WHEREAS,  IBO explicitly states that its curriculum does not follow the political system of any particular nation, including the United States of America;  and

 WHEREAS,  IB programs have currently infiltrated, with the Department of Education’s approval, 1,367 schools across the nation; 717 high school programs; 405 middle school programs; and 245 primary grade programs as of November 3, 2010; and

 WHEREAS,  The international education system developed by UNESCO and the worldview taught through the IB curriculum are in direct conflict with the American Legion National Americanism Commission obligations:   “To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, to foster and perpetuate a 100 percent Americanism;  To inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state and nation;  To combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses;  To safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy,

 NOW, therefore, be it

RESOLVED,  By the American Legion, in regular meeting assembled, that the American Legion based on the Americanism Pillar,  which we are founded on, encourage our Legislators to oppose the implementation of the International Baccalaureate Program in our public institutions of education;

 AND, be it further

 RESOLVED, That the American Legion encourage our Legislators to oppose the Department of Education’s  role in this infiltration, under the ruse that IB offers a rigorous academic program that our institutions of education are unable to develop;

 AND, be finally

 RESOLVED,  That the American Legion encourage our Legislators to ensure that our public institutions of education remain under control of local government and  that this government’s authority never be abdicated to a Non-Government Organization such as IB under the influence of UNESCO or any other International Activity!

 As signed, dated and authorized by the governing body of the American Legion

To: M. McKenna, Editor, Stow Sentry

I attended the Stow-Munroe Falls School Board meeting on June 27, 2011. I asked questions about children attending Indian Trail School with the International Baccalaureate (IB) and Echo Hills School which will be starting the IB program this fall school term.

My main question concerned parentsd who did not wish their children to be involved with the IB program; could they transfer to other schools within the district. I also inquired as to the availablility of bussing for the transferred children. The Superintendent assured me that, yes, children could be transferred and they will be bussed.

What he failed to mention was that no parents were informed that the deadline to apply for a transfer was June 1, 2011. REALLY!!! How above-board is this on the part of the administration and School Board to infoorm the general public?

I implore those of you with children in elementary schools in Stow to do some research on the International Baccalaureate curriculuum. For more information go to www.truthaboutib.com.

Geraldine Bettio, Stow

To: Stow-Munroe Falls School Board

Everyone:

Yesterday eevening was my first BOE meeting-ever! I came to listen…and to learn. Our time together raised some more questions, but no answers. With all due respect, I am writing for a RESPONSE from one of You, please.

I am assuming that you are all genuine in your assertion of “transparency”, That said…Have you ,the Board, formally voted the IB Programme into effect at each proposed school? At what meeting/on what date or dates? Is this vote in your minutes? Have you formatted a course of action for implementation and perpetuation in accordance with the NEOLA articles you were governing under at the time? Where is that plan and when was it constructed and ratified? Can I obtain a copy of that plan

Do you assert that you have made your IB intentions public knowledge? If so, when, and in what forum? Is that announcement also in your minutes? Can you explain how operating this program at one or two elementary schools can be considered fair and equitable to the remaining seven in our district? What will you do if mandates to comply with IB place demands on the budget that you cannot afford for all schools?

I have expressed my concern regarding the philosophy espoused by IB. What proof can you provide that my concerns are ill-founded? Besides IBO.org! Have you seen data that academic test scores improve after IB—where can I view that? Who is the original pitch man/woman for IB in SMF? Did the BOE approach IB or vice versa? How long has this been in discussion? How many parent meetings have you held? Did you conduct a community survey? Do you have mayoral or city council support? How did you identify the need for new curriculum at Echo and Indian? Do you perceive this need elsewhere…and how will you address it without IB? Ethically, do you not feel a parent/community meeting is necessary BEFORE you run the Programme in August? Are you scheduling one?

Is the mission statement next year genuinely the “global” reference I have seen? If so, why are PARENTS no longer referenced in that purpose and view? Should Title 1 and ARRA money run short, how will the Programme be funded? What do you estimate overall cost to launch and run the IB in 2011-2012 at Indian Trail to be, including teacher training,application fees, textbooks….EVERYTHING/

I am seeing that the IB recommends teaching only a global view until age twelve. Only THEN, should national history be introduced. How will you resolve this dissonance with State mandates…without compromising either side?

I am learning much about International Baccalaureate. The more I ponder, the more questions arise. I guess, however, that such is the nature of IB. I have many more questiions, but the list is already very long. I suppose I should apologize. Yet, I genuinely wish for one of you to answer each,individual question posed. Please, do not take offense. As the leading representatives of the community, I am certain that you understand the need for clarification. If there is something you cannot answer, simply tell me why the answer eludes you and point me to whomever might assist.

I recognize that you are in the midst of negotiations; I wish you well. I also know, though, that my questions should be easy for you to answer. After all, you seem convinced in your cause and confident in your course. Please don’t fail me in responding in a timely fashion. Ignorance is really NOT bliss.

Thanks as ever. Tami Carlisle

The International Baccalaureate program, operated out of Switzerland, is causing great concern among SMFSD parents and citizens in general.  Our investigation of the program pointed out exactly what others already discovered in other cities.  Many school parents were never notified that such a program was being implemented.  Many School Boards were never notified that the program was being implemented in their school district.  Many Superintendents of school districts outright lied to their district’s citizens and school board about the start-up costs and implementation of the program.  For now, we will let you judge for yourself.  Is such an expensive program justified in today’s economy?  Is such a program necessary for education in the United States today?  Why all the secrecy?  To start your journey to understanding what may be one of the most expensive educational fads to come down the pike since DeNealian handwriting, we offer the following web site:

http://truthaboutib.com/usschooldisputes/stowmunroefallsohio.html

In July of 2009, Dr. Russell Jones, Superintendent of Stow-Monroe Falls City School District filed an affidavit of complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). The complaint was sworn and notarized on behalf of the Stow-Monroe Falls Levy Committee.  A reprimand was issued to SCRG.   Herein is a paraphrased list of the complaints and the results.   Anyone who desires to see the documents used as proof exhibits in the OEC hearing may contact Don Bettio, 330-688-8297.  Please call during reasonable hours.

 

Complaint:      (Dismissed)

The respondent (Stow Citizens for Responsible Government) (SCRG), is a political action committee that opposed and campaigned against proposed school levies submitted to voters on August 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The levies were defeated at both elections.

Our response:    It was pointed out to the OEC that our committee and our website never mentions or suggests how a resident of the school district should vote. We endorse no issues or candidates. We merely inform voters of actions of the city and school board they otherwise would probably never gain knowledge of. The levies failed on their own merit.

 

Complaint:       (Dismissed)

(1)The respondent (SCRG) maintained during its campaign against both the August and November levies a website on the internet. (2)The SCRG remains an active committee and continues to maintain its website.

Our response:    (1)We reminded the OEC that we do not “campaign” for or against levies, issues or candidates. (2)We have a right to remain active as a committee and a right to publish our findings and our opinions on our website, whether the Superintendent and his lawyers like it or not. We will continue to do so in the future.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

The website contained numerous false statements in violation of Ohio Revised Code section 3517.22(B)(2). The website claimed that “the statements made on this site are verified by the School District’s own records”.

Our response: The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that “a high school principal with no experience was given the job of Human Resources Director at a salary higher than the former H.R. Director who had experience”.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, “the Assistant Treasurer’s salary went from $41,000 to $51,000. When two Board Members were candidates they criticized the raise. In fact the Board members were critical of the fact that the Board was under compensating the position and should have acted earlier to increase the compensation level.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaints:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, (1)“the Booster Club offered to raise funds to carpet the football stadium with artificial turf. (2)The Superintendent vetoed the idea because he did not want the club raising private funds while the school district was conducting a levy”. “The truth is that I did not veto the idea and I support the Booster Club raising private funds”.

Our response:     (1)The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”. (2) The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that (1)“the Board and administration have ignored their two greatest security measures: (2)Time clocks and security cameras. Both have been installed but none are in use.” In actual fact, the security cameras were and always have been in use since being installed. Time clocks are not security measures. The website stated that “it cost the school district about $2000 a pay period (2 weeks) in unaccounted for overtime”. The actual facts, based on the period of time when the time clocks were in use, the amount of over-time was greater than when the time clocks were not in use. (3)The website further states that the Treasurer has never written a policy governing use of the time clocks. The truth is that the time clocks are not in use because they did not operate properly.

Our response: We contend that the security cameras were not in use at the time the information was posted on the website. (1)And yes, time clocks are a security measure. Ask any business owner. (2)We are unaware of a policy in force at the time this statement was posted on the website. If one is available, we have not received it even though we requested it through the Ohio Open Records Act. We have received documentation from the district Treasurer’s office that the policy was never voted on by the Board and, as she has told us before, “if the Board has not voted on it, it does not exist”. (3)The taxpayers of the district paid an enormous amount of money for the security system to not function properly. We are aware of union grievances regarding the time clocks. It is time to straighten it all out.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, “from August 1, 2007 to June 2008 (the school year) 15,570 days were missed by school system employees. 11,521 substitutes were called in to replace the employees missing work”. The actual fact is that the number of days missed was 10,139. The number of substitutes called in was far less than the number stated.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

(1)The website contained the photograph of (we do not care to name the person here), a teacher employed by the school district. (2)The website falsely stated under the photograph, “Here is an example of a teacher’s compensation. This teacher has eleven years with the school district and a bachelor’s degree”. In actual fact, the teacher had twenty years of employment with the district.

Our response:    (1)The photo of this teacher (by the way, which one of the three persons in the photo is the teacher in question?) was taken from a public website (the teacher’s union site) and was being displayed publicly. It is a picture taken from the public domain of the internet. Obviously, the teachers in the photograph were participating in an “informational picket” about the unfair practices of the school board. We were unaware of the teacher’s name until we received the complaint. (2)The website clearly indicated that this was an example of a teachers compensation. The photo was removed when we rebuilt our website in the fall of 2009. The photo no longer served any purpose since the compensation scales all changed. Next time, we will try to be more accurate and actually link the photo with the pay scale. We did not wish to embarrass anyone but the Superintendent’s complaint forced us into it.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

(1) There were two complaints concerning SCRG’s financial records reported to the Summit County Board of Elections (SCBOE). (2) These complaints were dropped after verification of records showing that the SCRG was not in violation of report deadlines. These reports are public record.

Our response:    (1)Since we have never acquired over $1000 in our treasury, and we do not campaign for or against any candidate or issue, (2)we were exempt from the reports required by many other Political Action Committees.

 

Complaint:     (Part of Reprimand)

The respondent (SCRG) filed as a Political Action Committee with the Summit County Board of Elections on May 6, 2008. The first finance report (periodic finance reports are required by law) was filed by SCRG in July, 2008. The SCRG did not file pre-election or post-election reports for the August 2008 special election.

Our response: The OEC was reminded that SCRG was exempted from filing the required reports because its treasury has never contained $1000.00, the limit at which financial reports must be reported to the Summit County Board of Elections. After being misinformed by the SCBOE, we missed one required report. Our treasurer was not aware that the report was required even if the treasury limit was under $1,000. That error has been corrected.

 

Complaint:    (Part of Reprimand)

The website falsely stated that “the tax would be permanent”

Our response: The SCRG is aware that we used the word “permanent” in error. The SCRG recognizes that any levy legally expires unless it is marked as “permanent” or “continual” (such as the current library levy). From a grass-roots level however, we have never seen a levy expire. They are always renewed. History confirms this. We contend, for instance, that the February 2008 “emergency” levy submitted to the voters was going to be used to offer employee raises and fund an all-day kindergarten. Our contention is that by refusing to allow the state to mandate unfunded liabilities on us, we are notifying them that it is time that the state begin to seriously look into school funding in general. This is unlikely to happen (even with a court order) in the near future if we do not apply pressure through our school districts.

 

Complaint:     (Part of Reprimand)

The website falsely stated that, (1)“snow days in the winter cost approximately $200,000 per day off. (2)Some school employees are paid for the snow day and then paid again if the day is made up later in the year”. School employees are paid for 184 days, which includes up to five calamity days. Therefore, employees receive the same annual pay even if a snow day must be made up later in the year.

Our response: (1)We stated that it costs the school district $200,000 a day to operate. This was shown by the district’s records. (2)Our statement indicating that employees would be paid to make up the calamity days was in error. Teachers and some support staff get a day off with pay while giving the taxpayer nothing for their money.

 

Complaint:    (Part of Reprimand)

The respondent made false statements in calling itself a “charity” and soliciting monetary contributions. These statements mislead the public and may cause donors to violate tax laws. Such statements are in furtherance of respondent’s efforts to raise funds for communications to influence the results of elections were made knowingly and with reckless disregard of the truth.

Our response:     We had determined that we were incorrect in the statement “tax deductible” when we consulted with an I.R.S. Agent in late March of 2008. The statement was immediately removed from the website. This complaint was filed based on a website date of March 14, 2008. The statement was removed long before the July date of the complaint’s filing. We never referred to our committee as a charity. We did, however, unintentionally draw a parallel to charities seeking contributions. The entire statement was removed from the website.

In July 2009 Dr. Jones, in a sworn statement, filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) on behalf of the Stow-Munroe Falls School District Levy Committee.  Of the 19 complaints filed, 12 were dismissed because of the evidence supporting the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG). 

After the deposition and disclosure process, the district dropped more complaints in response to significant documentation presented by the SCRG.

Of all the complaints filed, only two concerned the school district.  SCRG previously admitted that it had made some filing and procedural mistakes not affecting the school district.

On February 8, the school board passed a resolution to join action the superintendent took on behalf of the levy committee against SCRG.  During a public records request, I came across invoices from school attorneys paid by the schools to the attorneys who were representing the levy committee at the OEC.  Knowing that districts, by law, are not permitted to donate public money to Political Action Committees (PAC), I threatened to file a taxpayer’s lawsuit to recuperate the over $20,000 in legal fees for the citizens.  This action forced the school board to pass a resolution legitimizing the district’s payment of attorney fees under the guise of “educating the public.”

Amazingly,  a superintendent who supposedly taught Ohio school law and our experienced treasurer didn’t know this was wrong or that it took them eight months to correct the error.  If SCRG had not challenged the legality of these payments, do you suppose the superintendent or school board would see the need to “educate” the community?

What will be the final tally the district has accumulated for attorney fees to pursue these issues?  We are currently awaiting the amounts paid in 2010 (over and above the initial $20,496).  I’m not sure this education was worth it.

PRESS RELEASE:

Complaints made against Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG) were settled by the Ohio Elections Commission in Columbus on March 18, 2010.  The complaints were filed in a sworn affidavit by Stow-Munroe Falls Superintendent Russ Jones on behalf of the district’s levy committee (complete documentation of these complaints will be posted to this website shortly).

Of the 20 complaints filed, 16 were dismissed by the commission.  The four remaining dealt with the cost of snow days, reference to a levy as permanent and two procedural accounting errors.  These inaccuracies have been corrected and a minor public reprimand was addressed.  No fines were imposed and no further discipinary actions were taken against SCRG.

According to figures supplied by District Tresurer, Catherine Bulgrin (Stow Sentry, February 14, 2010), the district paid $20,496 in legal fees to pursue this issue in 2009.  That amount does not include fees for depositons, fees for compiling and executing a formal resolution in which the Board of Education became a participant in the actions, and any additional fees incurred in 2010 as a result of this filing.

Further details on the above release and the documentation that will be posted on the SCRG website may be obtained by contacting:

Don Bettio, Stow Citizens for Responsible Government, 330-688-8297