Reply #8: He's my asshole State Senator & here is the email reply he sent

[mod mom]

me have commenting that his endorsement of SB5 just cost him the 1st ever retraction from a FOP endorsement:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Senate Bill 5. I apologize for the delayed response as my office has received nearly 23,000 emails thus far. We have read every email that came through my office.

First, I must emphasize that I have been and always will continue to be an ardent supporter of our teachers, fire fighters and state employees. There has been a lot of misinformation which has spurred fear and anxiety over this bill. As such, I hope that I can provide badly needed clarification.

Second, Senate Bill 5 does not eliminate anyone’s right to collectively bargain. The bill keeps collective bargaining for wages, hours, terms and conditions. It exempts management rights and requires all public employees to pay at least 15% of their health benefits. The bill also implements a merit-based pay system that will be negotiated and executed at the local level as part of the collective bargaining process. In addition, the bill will reform the appeals process when an impasse occurs in lieu of strikes or binding arbitration. The intent is to avoid giving too much power to arbitrators, especially those who are not local and do not understand the unique issues of the local taxpayers. No two municipalities, villages, townships or school districts are created alike and no two bargaining units are the same. As such, this bill gives local entities the flexibility to create the best system for their employees and for their locality.

Third, interested parties were consulted during this process and given the opportunity to provide feedback. Vice-Chairman Faber and I actively elicited suggestions from witnesses to provide us with ideas on how to improve SB 5. Furthermore, I met with union representatives, teachers, first responders and state employees. It should further be noted that the Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee heard over 22 hours of testimony and met for a total of 23.5 hours on this bill. We heard from 32 proponents and 43 opponents and 36 people submitted written testimony. There were over 340 questions asked by both Democrats and Republicans during the committee process. As such, I believe the issues have been given thoughtful consideration.

Fourth, some constituents have inquired about the replacement of a member of the Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee. Committee replacements are not within my authority as chairman. Such authority lies with the Senate President. My job as chairman is simply to manage the committee as presented to me on any given day and to facilitate the dialogue on bills presented to the committee.

Fifth, it should also be mentioned that Senate Bill 5 has received writer and or editorial board support from many newspapers including The Columbus Dispatch and The Wall Street Journal. Most notably, The Dayton Daily News, which has been an ardent protector of education, and the lower and middle class, supports SB5. Writer Ellen Belcher not only describes the need for SB 5 but also suggests that the bill does not go far enough. (The Dayton Daily News, Ellen Belcher, 2/20/2011).

Sixth, the legislative process surrounding this bill remains fluid. SB 5 is currently in the Commerce and Labor Committee in the Ohio House of Representatives. I will continue to work with interested parties and members of the House on the wording of the bill.

Finally, as previously stated, I have always been and will continue to be an ardent supporter of our first responders, teachers and state employees. I would never support legislation that would be harmful to them. A lot of fear has been generated by the distribution of misleading or false information.

Thank you, again, for your inquiry. Please don’t hesitate to contact my office in the future on this SB5 or any other items of importance to you.


Sincerely,

Kevin Bacon
State Senator
3rd Senate District

here is a reply to the exact form email that a friend sent him:

Please reread your third paragraph. Do you think we don't understand how power is collectively shared between unions and management. SB 5 changes the equation to make unions powerless. Your comments are insulting to me. As one of your constituents I am gravely disappointed. I expected, at the very least, a truthful reply.
Regarding your 4th paragraph, thank you for our thoughtful consideration. However, locking people out of the State house does not indicate an openness to dissenting opinions.
Regarding paragraph 6, you only refer to media outlets which support your stance; do you not read anything which disagrees with your position? This reference does nothing to advance your position since it is so readily refuted by other sources. I did not elect those editors; I elected you to represent me.