(gentle music) - Calls for action to protect students in the wake of the Texas school shooting, including tighter gun control, are faint echoes in Ohio, where the legislature is moving to loosen gun regulations.

Should FirstEnergy be dropped as the name of Browns Stadium because of its role in a massive bribery scandal?

And Cleveland launches a summer of programming to bring more workers back to the office.

Ideas is next.

(dramatic newsroom music) Hello, and welcome to Ideas.

I'm Mike McIntyre.

Thanks for joining us.

The school shooting in Texas that killed 19 children and two teachers has reignited calls for government action to improve gun safety.

And from opponents of gun control, talks of school security and mental health issues.

We've heard this debate play on for years, and it continues now.

That debate will be front and center in the Ohio governor's race fueled by the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Orange County, California, and Buffalo in the last two weeks.

Ohio is moving to loosen gun restrictions.

A Cleveland city councilman has introduced legislation urging FirstEnergy to give up its naming rights of Browns Stadium.

And Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance launched a summer of events to bring workers back to the city and help the regional economy.

We'll talk about those stories and more on the reporter's round table.

Joining me this week from Ideas Stream Public Media, supervising producer for Newscasts, Glenn Forbes.

From the Buckeye Flame, editor Ken Schneck.

And in Columbus, Statehouse News Bureau Chief Karen Kasler.

Let's get ready to round table.

The murders of 19 children and two teachers in a shooting in an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas has reinvigorated calls for lawmakers to do something, and the ensuing debate asking, do what, exactly?

This as Ohio prepares to loosen its gun laws.

Karen, let's talk about this.

In Columbus, the Texas school shooting has lawmakers' attention.

The focus, though, is on increasing school safety, not necessarily restricting weapons.

And as I mentioned, in Ohio, restrictions on weapons are easing.

- Yeah, and when both Speaker Bob Cupp and Senate President Matt Huffman, both Republicans who lead the Senate and the House were asked specifically about what Ohio should be doing in the wake of this and other shootings that continue to happen, that have happened since Dayton in 2019.

What should happen?

Now, that's of course not a school shooting, but a mass shooting, should Ohio be looking at its gun laws?

And in particular, Senate President Matt Huffman was asked about the expansion of the permitless concealed carry.

That takes effect on June 13th.

He said that he didn't think that one thing has to do with the other, that this was a situation in Texas where a gunman was walking around with a gun that anyone could see.

It wasn't concealed.

And so, he doesn't think one has to do with the other, but both of them specifically talked about, essentially, hardening schools as targets, and doing more in school safety.

Well, I have a child in high school and I can say that the high school is pretty safe.

I wouldn't say it's military style safety, but is that what people want?

I mean, you can't just walk into a school in many cases in Ohio, but is it secure enough for some people?

And there's talk about, there was a bill to pass the House that Huffman says likely will be passed in the Senate next week, that will allow teachers to be armed with a minimum of eight hours of training down from hundreds of hours of training as required in state law.

So that looks like the direction they're going, and not any direction in terms of dealing with the 15 bills proposed by Democrats that would put some sort of gun restrictions out there, including mandatory background checks, raising the age to purchase a gun, repealing Stand Your Ground and this permitless concealed carry and other measures.

- We'll get into some of those in just a moment, but you mentioned hardening schools, and you mentioned arming teachers.

And Ken is a journalist, but also an educator at Baldwin Wallace University and teaches teachers.

Ken, tell me about the concept of making schools more difficult targets.

One of the things that we did find, that we're finding as the coverage goes on is that there wasn't particularly good security at this school.

The student had walked in.

Apparently the door was unlocked.

There was all that kind of information.

And that's what the conversation then becomes, not about the broader topics, but what about that argument that we just need to make schools safer by making them harder?

- I teach a course called Public Policy in Higher Education.

I've been teaching it for 10 years and I give students a list of 15 different topics they can choose from to present at the end of the semester, different pieces of legislation.

And this is the first time in 10 years of teaching this course that a student has gone off book and chose their own topic and chose guns in schools.

I've never had a student do that before.

She was the last to present in the last class at the end of the semester.

And it was devastating.

It was an absolutely devastating, and unfortunately necessary presentation.

This idea that we're going to harden schools as targets.

I mean, I have some logistical questions about fire drills, but it really changes the way that we think about education.

So yeah, we have not discussed that one in class yet because it was inconceivable until Ted Cruz just brought it up.

- What about the idea about arming teachers?

So we've talked about this before.

We had a discussion here about how there was all kinds of training that was necessary if you're going to arm a teacher.

Now, it's basically very minimal training.

You have a gun, perhaps the old argument that you hear is a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.

What about that?

- Yeah, I can safely say that there is not one teacher in the history of American higher education who went into this field because they were excited to carry a gun into class.

So I think it fundamentally changes why people would be going into this field.

My biggest question is, so what do you do with, I'll speak from the I on this one, what do you do with a teacher like me, who will say, absolutely not.

I'm not doing that.

And so, what does it mean if half the teachers, any percent of the teachers say, I'm not comfortable with the training?

I don't wanna have a gun in class.

That's not why I'm in this field.

That's not what I'm here to do.

So are we going down the path where that's going to become mandatory, but as you said, the training piece would be huge.

- What about the expense?

The last part of this, and I'll get to you just a second, Karen, but I just wanted to run by this too.

The expense of hardening a school.

So we've heard a lot of people say, listen, what you need are two guards at the door.

You need doors that only open from the inside.

You need to have one entry point.

All of these ideals that would make a place safer, that would cost a lot of money.

So what about that?

- You can't get money for crayons, right?

Teachers are paying for stuff out of their pocket, but we're gonna end up spending, what?

Hundreds of millions of dollars to harden up these schools to have only one entrance into the school?

Yeah, priorities.

- Karen, you wanted to jump in.

- Yeah, one thing that Matt Huffman did say when it came to that bill that would allow teachers to be armed in schools with a minimum of eight hours of training.

He said that that training wasn't enough.

And so, that that apparently is something that's being negotiated between the House and Senate on how much training teachers would have to have to be armed under this bill.

But I do have a question about kind of the Republican talking point about this, that really arming teachers and making schools more difficult to get into, the specific idea of arming teachers, it's interesting because a lot of the people who are making that argument are also the people who are pushing bills that would ban certain topics and things from being discussed in classrooms and limit what teachers can teach.

And so, it's just interesting to think about teachers should be trusted to be armed, but not trusted to talk about certain topics.

It's kind of a disconnect there, I think, at least to some people.

- It's funny, by the way, you said that eight hours is not enough, that Matt Huffman is saying that.

It currently is 700 plus hours.

So I don't know how much you'd come up from eight, but I don't think it's gonna get real close to what it used to be.

Ken.

- Yeah, even at eight hours, that's eight hours more than teachers would be allowed to attend professional development on teaching about diversity in schools under bills that are being proposed by Republicans in Ohio.

- Glenn Forbes.

- It reminds me a little bit, talking about teachers not getting into the profession to carry guns, I think you're absolutely right about that, but it does remind me a little bit about police officers not necessarily getting into the profession to be mental health counselors and dealing with these situations.

I feel like in society, we have so many of these kind of wraparound issues now, where no matter what profession you're in, there's gonna be some sort of like, you're gonna be creeping into these other areas, no matter what you're doing, I did wanna point out real quick, this was last week.

This was an announcement by Governor DeWine's office last week.

So obviously, well before the shooting in Texas.

There was $5 million, which is not a lot, but $5 million to nearly 100 Ohio schools to help them improve overall safety and security to their buildings.

These came from American Rescue Plan dollars.

We're talking physical security enhancements, security cameras, public address systems, automatic door locks, and visitor badging systems.

There was one elementary school in East Cleveland that received $100,000.

So this discussion has been ongoing.

When we talk about money, boy, Ken, you're absolutely right when you mention priorities.

It seems like the only thing that Congress can agree on right now is sending 60, 70, $80 billion to Ukraine.

And I wonder, not to debate the merits of that, but why is that the only thing that Congress can agree on?

Why is that the only thing that we can agree to fund at a national level?

It seems like very little else is getting done, and people are tired of it.

I've heard a lot of stories from teachers about them buying their own supplies, buying.

It's out there.

It's been a problem for a long time.

Mike, you and I talked yesterday about local elections obviously have an influence on this too, trying to pass levies and things like that.

So the money is there.

We just have to make a decision on what to do with it.

And I guess I would say real quick on the doors issue.

Yeah, that single door to come in and out, that's never gonna pass, I would think, any fire code.

I think the idea is doors that are locked from the outside that you can exit from the inside.

So if there is a fire issue or whatever, a safety issue, you can get out.

But I think the school security debate is worth having, but to Ken's point, boy, arming teachers who don't wanna be armed, that seems like kind of a non-starter.

- Let's talk about one of the other measurements or what of the other measures that the Democrats have introduced.

We talked about all these, Karen alluded to, all this legislation on guns that's hanging around there.

The ones proposed by Democrats will go nowhere.

The ones proposed by Republicans, some of them have a chance of moving forward.

One of the things proposed by Democrats was raising the age to own a weapon from 18 to 21, the idea of allowing more brain development, maturation.

And when you're 18, perhaps even when you're 21, you might not have it all together.

It's getting a lot of tension, 'cause Texas recently lowered its gun ownership age to 18 and the shooter was 18.

What do you think of that whole argument?

- Yeah, fun comparison in legislation you have.

Of those 15 Democratic bills, only one of them has had a hearing.

And as you said, they're really not going anywhere.

So you have the one that you just mentioned that has not even had a hearing that would take into account brain development before being able to purchase a firearms.

And then over on the Republican side, if I can pick one that's my favorite, it's the Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination Act, which has already had hearings which would prohibit local governments from contracting with companies that have discriminatory practices or policies regarding the Second Amendment.

That's the Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination Act.

And just as a reminder, I live in a state where there is no LGBTQ non-discrimination act, but we're gonna pass a Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination Act.

- Karen, often when we talk about these measures, like concealed carry or age or those types of things, people will point to a shooting and say, "Well, "it wouldn't have helped.

"This person wasn't concealing their weapon, "so let's not get into that legislation, "'cause it wouldn't fix this particular thing."

Is there any effort or any attempt, I mentioned earlier, David Hogg at a national level said, "The people I'm talking to from both sides of the aisle "sound like they actually might wanna do something "this time and I've got some hope.

"We'll see how long that lasts," was his point.

But is there any thought in Ohio of of saying, okay, let's sit down and look at all of those Democratic bills and Republican bills and come up with some sort of compromise?

- I don't think so for one reason.

And I'll point to some reporting from Ohio Capital Journal on this, that when the permitless concealed carry bill passed, it was actually, the language was actually written by the director of Ohio Gun Owners, which is a group that is further beyond in terms of gun rights than even the NRA or Buckeye Firearms.

And this lobbyist wrote the language for the permitless concealed carry bill that eventually passed.

So it seems unlikely that there's any sort of possibility of bipartisan compromise on any of these bills.

And again, these Democratic bills would require universal background checks, raise the minimum purchase age to 21, bring back the idea of red flag laws that allow courts to seize weapons from potentially dangerous people.

And also, repealing that permitless concealed carry in the Stand Your Ground bill.

Both of those laws were signed earlier this year, by the way.

And so, it seems very, very unlikely that there's any sort of movement here.

And in talking to Cupp and Huffman, they both pivoted to school safety as opposed to talking about any sort of gun restrictions.

And I'd like to add one other thing here, the Parkland shooting, that was a turning point, I think, for former Governor John Kasich.

He had signed, as a Republican governor, had signed every piece of gun legislation, gun expansion legislation that had come before him as governor.

After that, of course, he was also working on a presidential run, but he really pivoted.

And he started to bring in some of the people who had lost family members in Parkland.

He started talking more about what he called common sense gun regulations and really moving in that direction.

And I think that that was a pivotal point for him, at least.

And I'm not sure that it was for some other Republicans though.

- The Dayton shooting in Ohio seemed to be a pivotal point for Governor Mike DeWine, who stood with Nan Whaley, the mayor of Dayton at that time in unity.

And the idea was perhaps something would get done.

Well, what got done is less regulation.

And now we have the two of them squaring off for governor of the state of Ohio.

Clearly, guns are going to be an issue, Glenn, in that race.

- Absolutely.

And they were going to be anyway, right?

And now, it's certainly going to be more prevalent.

I did wanna make a comment on the age issue.

It always seems funny to me because here's this proposal from Democrats.

They wanna raise the age to own a gun to 21.

They wanna lower the voting age, some of them to 16.

At 18, you can vote, you can die for your country.

The three of us in this studio had to sign up for selective service when we were 18.

You can drive a car when you're 16.

It's kind of an interesting debate when we get into how old is old enough for all of these things that are important and that are kind of rights of passage for adulthood?

Yeah, on the political side, listen, Governor Mike DeWine got less than 50% of the Republican vote in the recent primary.

And I think he is going to try to do everything he possibly can to get back in the good graces of the Republican base.

And he lost a lot of them, I would say, during the pandemic and during lockdowns and things, but where he can gain them back are issues like abortion and gun control.

And some of these other kind of hot button, I wouldn't call him all social issues, but Mike DeWine has shown he's more fiscally liberal and socially conservative, which is, I'm not sure what a lot of Republicans are looking for in some ways, but he is going to move to the right when he can, because he is not the most popular incumbent among his own party right now.

(dramatic newsroom music) - For a fifth time, the Ohio Supreme Court has struck down proposed state legislative district maps.

A federal court now is likely to implement an earlier set of maps the court also threw out.

Karen, the federal court will likely impose what's become known as map three.

When will that happen?

And what's wrong with the map according to the Supreme Court?

- Well, we expect it to happen tomorrow, because that's what the three judge panel, two of the three judges ruled a couple weeks ago that they were going to implement map three by May 26th, or May 28th, rather, which is tomorrow, if there weren't valid maps in place passed by the Ohio Redistricting Commission and approved by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Those are the same maps that were ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court in March.

They're also the same maps that were just resubmitted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission that the Ohio Supreme Court this week said are still unconstitutional.

So arguably, it looks like we're going to be running a primary on August 2nd under maps, well, this isn't arguably, this is fact, we're gonna be running a primary on August 2nd with maps that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.

And the reason they said they were unconstitutional is because while the 54/46% split, 54% Republicans, 46% Democrats is there, there are so many toss up seats in democratic districts that it really isn't a competitive map.

And so, that's what we are being set up for in terms of the federal court stepping in and doing this.

So this deadline of June 3rd for the Redistricting Commission to pass new maps, I'm just not sure whether that's gonna be, whether that's gonna go anywhere, whether that's gonna be met.

- I'm sure.

I'm sure.

I mean, history, past is prologue, I guess.

History would show us that-- - Well, and I don't know at this point, and this whole process, again, we keep saying this is a brand new process passed with an amendment in 2015.

I don't know if whether these maps that have already been ruled unconstitutional now twice have to go back to the Redistricting Commission to be passed, to be put into effect or whatever.

I mean, this whole thing has been a nine plus month saga of just back and forth, back and forth.

I think my Statehouse News Bureau colleague, Andy Chow, who's been following this all this time has called it, I think, like legislative ping pong or redistricting ping pong or something.

That's kind of the way it's been going.

And it's been really frustrating and confusing, I think, not only for people who are following this, but also for voters who are trying to figure out, okay, when do I vote again?

Why is there another primary coming up?

And where, and what district am I in?

Yeah.

- Interesting.

Vote for somebody.

I guess that's the campaign slogan right now.

(dramatic newsroom music) An Ohio House committee this week heard from supporters of House Bill 454, which would ban gender transition procedures for those under 18.

I know, Ken, yesterday, you sat through many hours of this testimony.

Give us a sense of what's going on.

- It was the third proponent hearing for 454.

And so, yesterday was about five hours.

Yesterday's hearing was largely mothers of trans children who made it their express purpose to misgender their children hundreds of times.

I stopped counting after a hundred.

Last week, the proponent testimony was from just a mixed bag of individuals who say that the legislature should be stepping in, in between parents and their healthcare providers.

One of the pieces about 454 that doesn't get talked about enough is that it would also force all school staff, teachers and staff, K through 12 staff, to out trans kids to their parents.

And so, that is not negotiable.

There's so much irony.

I have a little bit of obsession now with Pastor Gary Click, who is the architect of this bill, a Republican from Vickery.

I assume I'm saying that correct.

You all usually correct me when I say it wrong.

So I'm hearing silence, so that's good.

But Pastor Click, his arguments are just, they contradict constantly of, we don't want the government coming in between parents and their children.

And yet this is a bill that has the government coming in between parents and their children.

Next week, it will be the first hearing of opponent testimony.

And I am hearing that largely the docket will be healthcare providers, in particular from Cincinnati Children's Hospital who have taken a beating during the proponent testimony.

- Let me ask one other thing about the supporters of the measure.

They say it prevents those under 18 from circumventing their parents, and claim someone under 18 cannot give informed consent.

That's this argument that's being made.

- That's not a thing right now, though, right?

So parents are part of this process.

This bill gets in between parents and children.

So even in cases where a 17 has the consent of their parents, the legislature would be stepping in here and saying, we don't care.

You can't do this.

You cannot pursue gender-affirming care, even though all of the research and all of the major medical organizations have said that gender-affirming care saves lives.

(dramatic newsroom music) - Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance want remote workers to leave their houses and come back to the office downtown.

To entice them and restore the city's income tax base, there's a summer full of programming planned downtown, including live music, food, and happy hours.

In complicating matters, COVID-19 cases are rising again.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says Cuyahoga County and Lorraine County are red again, indicating we now have a high level of community spread of the virus.

This just as they're saying, "Hey, everybody, come on back."

That's the tricky part of this, Glenn, is there's, every time you sort of come up with, okay, we want you all to come back, and this is gonna be good for the city and we need it and we're gonna have parties.

And then spread goes up a little bit higher.

And obviously, not quite as, it seems, not quite as dangerous as in the past.

But we really are in a position where the city of Cleveland and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance are saying, we need people down here.

- Yeah, they're trying to generate more revenue.

And they're also trying to bridge the gap between now and when Sherwin William's massive new home opens and will draw a lot more people downtown.

I think Mayor Bibb and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance look at this and say, "Well, what can we do in the interim "to get people down here?"

I don't know that block parties on Euclid Avenue, the Warehouse District and the Gateway District will entice people as much as they think.

They probably feel like they've gotta try something.

They're gonna have concerts at Mall C, I believe.

And kind of like a happy hour thing weekly during the summer.

They're trying.

I don't know how successful it's going to be.

And I don't know how enticing it is, but I think Mayor Bibb and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance got together and said, "Well, what can we do?

"Can we do something to try and get more people down here?"

But I can say driving back and forth from the Ideas center here at Playhouse Square, traffic seems to be up.

It seems like more people are.

- [Mike] Yeah, the parking garage is a little fuller.

- The parking garage is a little fuller.

I-90 is a little more crowded.

And so, it feels like more people are downtown.

When you walk around, it seems like more people are downtown.

But how can we really, if people really wanna stay home and they're saying, "I'm as productive or more productive at home "as I am at work.

"I don't wanna come into work."

Gas prices the way they are.

I mean, this is another tough issue.

- And you can come downtown for a concert or a food truck rally and not work here.

I mean, you could just visit.

- [Ken] That's what I'm excited about.

- So Ken, the work-life balance that's happened that many people prefer and appreciate.

I mean, that's not going away.

- That's not going away.

Look, if Mayor Bibb wants to bring Wilson Phillips to downtown, I've always wanted to work them into a Sound of Ideas show.

- Hold on for one more day.

- Yeah, there you go.

It's a deep cut there.

Yeah, there is no one who was working at home who said, "I am working at home "'cause there's not enough food trucks "and concerts in downtown."

Right?

But when I was reading about this, I was thinking, someone who lives in Detroit Shoreway, yeah, I will totally hop on my bike and come downtown for more of that.

So I wonder how much of the byproduct here can be people who are not working downtown to make it more of a destination.

But obviously, obviously this doesn't address the benefits that people have discovered by working remotely.

(dramatic newsroom music) - A Cleveland city councilman wants FirstEnergy to remove its name from the Cleveland Browns Stadium because of its involvement in a massive bribery scandal.

Glenn, legislation to have FirstEnergy relinquish the naming rights has been introduced.

Does that have support in city council?

Will that go somewhere?

- This doesn't have a lot of teeth to it, right?

They can't force the Browns or FirstEnergy to withdraw from this.

And council president Blain Griffin said, "Hey, we're separating the two.

"We love the Browns.

"This is about the name on the stadium."

The Browns say FirstEnergy is a dedicated partner to the Browns.

FirstEnergy says, "We've taken swift action "to address these events."

As you know, they've pretty much blown out their entire executive team and got in a new team.

But we've taken swift action to address events that have occurred in recent years, and to ensure culture of strong ethics, integrity, and accountability at the company.

As long as the dollars keep coming, I don't think the team nor the FirstEnergy is going to budge on this issue.

This is kind of a thing for city council to say, "We think this is the right thing for them to do."

- Interesting to note that FirstEnergy does not supply power to that stadium.

- Cleveland Public Power.

- It should be called the Cleveland Public Power stadium, although they didn't give 'em any money.

Monday on the Sound of Ideas on 89.7 WKSU, the team is off for the Memorial Day holiday.

In our place, we'll bring you a special, "With Good Reason", which explores the health gap in America and how racism impacts health outcomes.

I'm Mike McIntyre.

Thanks so much for watching and stay safe.

(gentle music)