Senators
Frank LaRose
R-Copley Township
All of us in Ohio value and honor the work of our first responders, teachers and others who serve the public. My colleagues and I felt that Senate Bill 5 offered reasonable reforms to protect the jobs of our public servants and to avoid increasing the tax burden on our families.
However, the voters have made it clear that this was not the course they wished to take. The challenges facing our communities remain, but we must continue to work on behalf of all citizens.
The challenges faced by our communities that compelled us to pass these reforms have not gone away. Ohioans have had their say and the good news is that a serious and ongoing dialogue is under way as to how we can pursue cost-savings measures and reforms as they relate to the public sector.
I embrace the opportunity to participate in that statewide conversation and I hope that my colleagues, regardless of party, will likewise do so. Only in this way can we seek solutions together to make Ohio prosperous again.
Senators
Larry Obhof
R-Montville Township
Ohioans no doubt had a variety of reasons for voting the way they did, but the people have spoken. We need to listen and learn from what they had to say. Public polling shows that voters support several of the bill’s key provisions, but there is a strong sense that the legislature tried to do too much. The voters expressed a similar sentiment about President Obama’s health-care bill by voting for Issue 3 by a 2-1 margin.
If we revisit any of these issues, I think that the process would be best served by addressing individual issues on their own merits and working together with interested parties. My primary focus in the coming months will continue to be where it has always been: working to improve Ohio’s economy and bring jobs back to this state.

Scott Oelslager
R-North Canton
As I said at the time I voted no on Senate Bill 5 in the Senate, I believe there must be a balance between management and labor in the collective bargaining process. I voted against Senate Bill 5 because it tipped the scales too far toward management.
Obviously the public felt the same way in repealing the bill. Also, I have been a strong supporter of collective bargaining during my service in the legislature.
As for whether any aspects of the law should be resurrected, he simply wrote: “No.”

Tom Sawyer
D-Akron
I believe voters rejected Senate Bill 5 because they saw it as an over-reaching attack on the carefully balanced relationship between administrators and public employees, who teach our children, keep us safe and provide a wide variety of other public services.
Since the law was passed in 1983, there has been far less labor strife, almost no strikes, more professionalism, and higher productivity and training among public employees. The strong turnout against this bill shows that Ohioans understand that collective bargaining has been positive for our state.
I would review the practical lessons that have been learned in the 27 years of largely successful implementation of Ohio’s public employee collective bargaining law to find ways to improve it.

Representatives
Ron Amstutz
R-Wooster
The voters have spoken on Senate Bill 5. Now it is our duty to focus on the challenges that continue to confront our schools and other community governments.
I’ve been focusing on the Local Government Innovation Program, which was enacted in June, and is getting started on promoting efficiencies in delivering all types of governmental services to our communities.
The only area that I’ll be looking at specifically from Senate Bill 5 involves a provision deep in the bill that got little attention. It would have created the Ohio commission for excellence in public service. Its charge was to promote best practices for achieving healthy working environments in the public sector.
This is a concept that I would like to see revisited at some point, since this is a foundational requirement in order to provide good, cost-effective public services.

William Batchelder
R-Medina
While the majority of Ohioans clearly were not receptive to all components of Senate Bill 5, that does not mean they rejected everything about the bill. Voters simply did not believe that all of the provisions within the legislation provided the best opportunity for Ohio to move forward.
Everyone wants this state to regain solid economic footing, and we have taken many positive steps to ensure that. We now must move on and work together towards the common goal of getting our economy working again.
There is no doubt in my mind that parts of the bill were popular amongst Ohioans; various polls that were conducted throughout the summer and fall reflected that. Government union leaders and public employees also expressed that they would be willing to collaborate to implement some of those policies, and perhaps some of those could be revisited.
For now, however, the people of Ohio have spoken, and I respect that. Any future, related policies should be looked at on an individual basis.

Kathleen Clyde
D-Kent
Senate Bill 5 failed because it was a terrible bill that would hurt us all. On Tuesday, middle-class Ohioans made their voices heard and told Gov. Kasich and the Republicans in the legislature that they do not like out-of-touch extreme policies.
Voters have sent a clear message that we need to be focused on creating jobs, restoring our economy and strengthening the middle class, not tearing them down.
The voters made their thoughts on Senate Bill 5 very clear, and its overwhelming defeat sends a clear message that we in Columbus should be focused on creating jobs, improving the economy, and education.
I think it also sends a message about what has become a common practice in the Statehouse this year — ramming sweeping, out-of-touch policies through the legislature with no cooperation or bipartisanship, while ignoring the voices of thousands of Ohioans who clearly oppose these measures.
This has to stop if we’re ever going to tackle the difficult problems facing our state.

Christina Hagan
R-Marlboro Township
Senate Bill 5 was undoubtedly a complex and intricate law. I believe with the information we had available to us as legislators, facing an $8 billion dollar deficit, we did what we believed was best for financial sustainability and job retention and more importantly job growth in Ohio.
After receiving the results of the election, we need to listen very carefully to what the public has said to us, over the past several months, and understand that the voters made a decision that they thought was best with the information that they had available to them.
Many Ohioans, including those whom voiced they would ultimately vote against the law said on many occasions that they believed there were many good components of the bill.
When I would ask for clarification, many referred to the reasonable requests of provisions including the 10 percent pension pickup, 15 percent health-care contribution and many policeman and fireman mentioned that they would thrive in and desired a merit-pay opportunity.
Portions of the bill are worth taking back to the drawing board and working through with thoughtful consideration of our state as a whole. I believe there should be a more balanced approach.

Todd McKenney
R-New Franklin
With respect to both questions, I don’t know why voters rejected but it is clear that they did and their decision should be respected.

Zack Milkovich
D-Akron
I think the people are just starting to really understand that the government isn’t listening to the working class; they’re working for the privileged few. Senate Bill 5 made that clear and the people acted accordingly.
In these austere times, we all need to tighten our belts. I know our union brothers and sisters understand this and we would be willing to take a look at a revising our current collective bargaining law. But nothing as far reaching as Senate Bill 5 should ever be on the table.

Kristina Roegner
R-Hudson
While the polls indicated that there were many individual components of Senate Bill 5 that the voters liked, taken as a whole, perhaps it was viewed as simply too much at once. Additionally the opponents to Senate Bill 5 ran a very well-funded and well-organized campaign from the beginning, which the proponents of Senate Bill 5 simply could not match.
That being said, the people of Ohio have spoken, we have heard them and respect their decision.
It is my understanding that Ohioans supported components of Senate Bill 5. One example is making employment decisions for public employees based primarily on PERFORMANCE instead of seniority.
Despite the defeat of Senate Bill 5, the need for state and local government to reduce costs and reduce taxes remains. Ohio got our fiscal house in order, we closed an $8 billion budget gap without raising taxes; we need to help local governments achieve that as well.
Ohio is on the right track, but there is still a long way to go. We will not rest until Ohio returns to prosperity.

Kirk Schuring
R-Jackson Township
It was a complicated issue with many provisions in it. Some of the provisions were very controversial and became a lightning rod for the anti-Issue 2 campaign. Voters decided to stay with the status quo rather than run the risk of perceived unacceptable consequences.
The voters have spoken, and it is important that elected officials within state government listen. There are some provisions in Senate Bill 5 that could be revisited, but it is imperative that all sides are involved and common ground is established before any legislation moves forward.

Lynn Slaby
R-Akron
There may be several reasons Issue 2 failed: money, emotions, misinformation or just plain effort by the opposition. What is important now is how we can continue to try to help local communities meet their budgets without raising taxes. That was the true purpose of Issue 2.
There may be provisions in Issue 2 that would be acceptable to all. It will depend on new legislation that will need to have full and open hearings in committee in the future.

Stephen Slesnick
D-Canton
Partisan politics fueled the momentum of Senate Bill 5, when the majority of Ohioans never supported it to begin with. I think the voters appreciate the work done by public employees — our bus drivers, teachers, first responders, police and fireman — and didn’t want to jeopardize the entire middle class at their expense.
The people of Ohio want their representatives to focus on economic development and job creation, instead of trying to fix something that’s not even broken.
The people who have worked so hard to repeal this legislation deserve some time to bask in their success. If and when negotiations do begin, I don’t want to see a repeat of Senate Bill 5. Any such provisions would have to be thoroughly debated and deliberated, allowing us enough time to truly evaluate their impacts and repercussions.
Discussions would have to bring all parties to the table, with the surety that their voices and opinions would be sincerely considered this time.

Vernon Sykes
D-Akron
Senate Bill 5 was disapproved by voters because it failed to provide ample opportunity for their opinions to be considered. The bill was an overreaching attempt by the Republican leadership to punish their opponents and it unfairly targeted some of Ohio’s finest public servants. Therefore, I feel it would be a mistake to suggest reconsideration without input from the petitioners.
Because the repeal is the result of a citizens’ initiative it is premature and inappropriate to speculate on provisions that should be identified by, discussed with, and/or agreed to by the petitioners and the leadership of the We are Ohio Campaign.

David Hall, R-Killbuck, did not respond.

Beacon Journal staff writer Rick Armon compiled the responses.