Oklahoma State Questions

[Oklahomabassin]

For the record, I will vote NO on 744.

One of the biggest arguments I hear to vote otherwise is teacher pay. In the first link ( teacher pay chart) you will see what minimum teacher salaries are in the state. For example: A 5th year teacher with 4 years education will have a minimum salary of $33,500/year. In the next link ( Oklahoma School Code) it says number of hours/or days required for schools to be in session. It says minimum days for instructions are 180 days or if chosen by the hour, no less than 1080 hours. A 40 hour work week for 52 weeks a year equals 2080 hours. (40hr/wk X 52wk=2080)
So a teacher's required hours of work is 1080/40hr= 27 weeks of work. A 5th year teacher, with 4 years education, minimum salary is $33,500 for just over half a years work.

 

[Barnney Fife]

Couldn't reply earlier, but there are three that are in my target zone.
#1 is the State Question 744.
Ain't gonna happen from what I see. The part that bothers me is there is no accountability that it will actually help our kids education.


State Question 746
Voter ID
Gonna Get my vote.
Too much Acorn BS in the past, with the last presidential election.


State Question 751
Make English the official state language.

No brainer for me. Vote yes.

State Question 755 - In Short: If passed, SQ 755 would prohibit Oklahoma courts from utilizing international law or Sharia law when making rulings.

another big no brainer for me. Vote Yes.


Here is another of my voting issues.
When they say, will you vote to retain some judge....I always vote no.
I want some new blood in there.

All the above is just my opinion.

right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lstdonsldr]

Man, i agree with ya on some of them but a few I guess we just dont agree on.

State Question 746, after what we got ourselves into in '08 with all the crap that went down with ACORN, and honestly it's always bothered me that I can walk in and just give my name. Thats CRAZY! I'm voting to elect people to run our country. I'm totally fine with showing ID.

State Question 755 - To prohibit Oklahoma courts from utilizing international law or Sharia law when making rulings.
Man, YES, YES, YES.

just my humble but correct opinion, (kidding about the "correct" part, sorta...)

 

[vvvvvvv]

On SQ755, Sharia Law is not exactly international law, but rather a cultural defense.

What exactly does SQ755 do for cultural defenses in cases such as People v. Moua, No. 315972-0 (Cal. Super. Ct. Fresno County Feb. 7, 1985), People v. Kimura, No. A-091133 (Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. County Nov. 21, 1985), or People v. Chen, No. 87-7774 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 21, 1989)?

For those who don't want to or don't have the time to look:

• Moua: Because the Laotian defendant was engaging in the traditional Hmong ritual of bride capture, charges of kidnapping and rape were dropped to a charge of false imprisonment.
• Kimura: Because the Japanese defendant was engaging the the ancient Japanese ritual of oya-ko shinju (parent-child suicide), her murder charges were dropped to manslaughter and she walked out of the courtroom a free woman.
• Chen: Because adultery is condemned in Chinese culture, the Chinese defendant who beat his wife to death with a claw hammer had his second degree murder charge dropped to second degree manslaughter and received probation because his actions were considered to be acceptable in Chinese culture, but reckless.

Additionally, if Oklahoma courts cannot reference international law, how are international contract disputes supposed to be resolved or judgments against Oklahoma companies enforced?

Why not wait until the next ballot for a more responsibly written measure?

 

[stewartglock]

For the record, I will vote NO on 744.

One of the biggest arguments I hear to vote otherwise is teacher pay. In the first link ( teacher pay chart) you will see what minimum teacher salaries are in the state. For example: A 5th year teacher with 4 years education will have a minimum salary of $33,500/year. In the next link ( Oklahoma School Code) it says number of hours/or days required for schools to be in session. It says minimum days for instructions are 180 days or if chosen by the hour, no less than 1080 hours. A 40 hour work week for 52 weeks a year equals 2080 hours. (40hr/wk X 52wk=2080)
So a teacher's required hours of work is 1080/40hr= 27 weeks of work. A 5th year teacher, with 4 years education, minimum salary is $33,500 for just over half a years work.

You have obviously never worked as a teacher or been close to someone who was a teacher. Those 180 days are days that the children are at school. Teachers are still required to go in on "professional days", they typically pull a 14-15 hour day during parent teacher conferences and most teachers are putting in more time than just the 6-7 hours that the students are at school.

I used to have your opinion until I married a teacher and saw just how much time our teachers put into their jobs. Plus, I know I could not put up with ignorant administration who will throw you under the bus before you know it, parents that think you should be raising their children for them because they want to be their child's friend and not their parent, and kids who have no respect for anyone, for that kind of money.

Regardless, I will still be voting NO for SQ744 because we are leaving WAY too much to be determined by our legislature, like where the money is coming from and who exactly it is going to, which does not give me warm fuzzies. If the question outlined how they would get the money and show that it would actually go to teachers' salaries, I would be thinking about it.

 

[flatwins]

You have obviously never worked as a teacher or been close to someone who was a teacher. Those 180 days are days that the children are at school. Teachers are still required to go in on "professional days", they typically pull a 14-15 hour day during parent teacher conferences and most teachers are putting in more time than just the 6-7 hours that the students are at school.

I used to have your opinion until I married a teacher and saw just how much time our teachers put into their jobs. Plus, I know I could not put up with ignorant administration who will throw you under the bus before you know it, parents that think you should be raising their children for them because they want to be their child's friend and not their parent, and kids who have no respect for anyone, for that kind of money.

Regardless, I will still be voting NO for SQ744 because we are leaving WAY too much to be determined by our legislature, like where the money is coming from and who exactly it is going to, which does not give me warm fuzzies. If the question outlined how they would get the money and show that it would actually go to teachers' salaries, I would be thinking about it.

I will also vote no on 744. But I am curious, what does your wife think about 744 since she is a teacher?

I like your signature line, btw!

 

[stewartglock]

I will also vote no on 744. But I am curious, what does your wife think about 744 since she is a teacher?

I like your signature line, btw!

Well she was a teacher until this year when she resigned to stay at home with our daughter, but she is on the fence on 744. She knows that schools are under-funded and teachers in Oklahoma are not paid as well as the surrounding states, but she is also concerned about where the money is going to come from.

Although I will tell you, a lot of other teachers we know will be voting YES on 744 because in their opinion, more money to the schools is a good thing, and they are not as concerned with where the money comes from.

 

[vvvvvvv]

...and they are not as concerned with where the money comes from.

Sadly, I had a guy tell me (not a teacher) that he is voting YES on SQ744 for one reason: "It'll really give those douches at the Capitol a wild one to figure out."

 

[bettingpython]

SQ744 is another unfunded mandate, we had one of those about 4 years ago when the state decided to increase teacher pay, yet provided no source of funding, they funded a poertion of it but when it came time to finish funding it like they promised the districts the dollars never appeared. I don't remember the numbers but the district I work for was a couple million short fortunately our cfo had the foresight to maintain a cash reserve, this was the the year catoosa schools ran out of money to operate in february and several other districts went broke before the year was out.

 

[dennishoddy]

Others may have more background in this field, but from what I can tell on SQ 744, it only generates a slush fund. The wording I read was so vague on how the money would be spent, that it brought up concerns.