I think it’s time I caught you guys up on what’s going on in my life. I’ve been afraid to say too much out loud because I didn’t want to jinx anything.

DEAR EDITOR,
This past June, the Ohio General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution 1 to ask Ohio voters whether the mandatory age of retirement for judges should be raised from 70 to 75. I voted for this resolution when it was in the House because I believe that no individual, through the muscle of the law, should be forced to retire simply because they have reached a certain age.
Should farmers be forced to stop harvesting their crops, or small business owners forced to shut their doors on their 70th birthdays?
Similarly, citizens should not be prevented from electing or reelecting a judge who just so happens to have reached the age limit of the law. Why should the government have the right to push a judge from the bench or block voters from deciding who should preside over their court cases?
Although HJR 1 does not eliminate the mandatory retirement age entirely, it does increase the age by five years and takes into account the fact that people are living and working longer into the twilight years of their lives. It will help to ensure that we have the best individuals presiding over our courtrooms and interpreting the law.
One of the criticisms that the Ohio General Assembly heard during the committee process was that there is no proof that an individual who reaches the age of 75 has the same mental capacity of a 70-year-old. However, there was no proof or evidence offered during the legislative debate that offered any counter argument that they are not the same mentally, physically or intellectually. I believe that whether someone is still capable of performing their judicial duties should be decided on a case-by-case basis, not a one-size-fits-all policy for everyone.
HJR 1 passed from the General Assembly and therefore was added to the November ballot for the voters to decide. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to lend my support to this resolution in the House and help maintain our most experienced and capable public servants’ right to continue working for the people of Ohio.
Sincerely,
State Representative Lynn Wachtmann

I have noticed that people can get all hung up on their age.

DEAR EDITOR:
It has been made clear that information provisions of the Senate Bill 5 (Issue 2) stating public employees (firefighters, police officers, school teachers and other organized public employees) have bargaining rights concerning wages and some other issues of employment is in fact false.
The supporters of Issue 2 would have you believe there are certain bargaining rights public employees retain under Senate Bill 5. Not true.
The right to strike is prohibited under Senate Bill 5. Firefighters and police officers are currently prohibited from striking and this is how it should be due to public safety concerns.
However, in lieu of strike, when agreements on wages, benefits and/or other conditions of employment cannot be reached, these issues can be submitted to binding arbitration for resolution. The right to arbitration is removed under Senate Bill 5.
Collective bargaining now becomes a conversation between the employees and the employer with the employer having the absolute final say on all issues and leaving no recourse ope to the employees. This is not collective bargaining.
The right to collective bargaining by all workers is an inherent freedom currently guaranteed by the laws of the land. Let them take that right away and what is next for the all the workers in Ohio, union and non-union.
Do not be misled by misinformation. Vote no in Issue 2.

Charles Sampson Jr.
Retired UAW International,
staff representative and former
chairman of the local Allied
Labor Council