Thurber's fleeting thoughts on a sunny morning

* Lucas County Commissioners have tabled the plan put forward by Pete Gerken to change Lucas County's form of government to a charter council. Under his proposal, we would have voted in November for members of a committee to study and then present a county charter. Gerken explained that there wasn't enough interest among the citizens to run for the 15 positions, reflecting the general lack of interest fellow commissioner Ben Konop found for his proposal to adopt Cuyahoga's charter language.

So while the Democrats have abandoned their support for The Blade's latest fad, Republican Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook is still 'on the streets' trying to gather the signatures Konop couldn't in order to move the agenda of The Blade forward.

Now, I could go so many places with this:

- Did Gerken present a competing idea specifically to derail Konop's? Did he privately discourage people from expressing an interest in his 'committee plan' in order to demonstrate a complete lack of interest from the community? Knowing Pete, that is very likely.

- Why is the Republican Party pushing so hard to carry out the wishes of the local paper and its publisher? We all know it's because of the close, personal relationship Stainbrook has with John Robinson Block. But are Republicans as interested in the idea as his supporters are? And have his supporters who are going door-to-door actually evaluated the plan or looked at the pros and cons? Or did they just 'believe' what Stainbrook was telling them?

- Is this 'three strikes and you're out' for The Blade? They failed to garner support for their push to keep the old United Way Building. They failed to garner support for their push to prevent the YMCA from selling/closing the South Toledo Y. Now they have failed to garner support for their county charter form of government. And they just raised the price of their daily paper to $1.00. What's next?

- Stainbrook's petitions are due tomorrow and he needs over 14,000 valid signatures. If he doesn't get them, will his self-promoted 'reputation' for being able to put 'boots on the ground' be diminished? I mean, in other people's minds - not his own....

* Toledo Public Schools has a new superintendent, Jerome Pecko, and I wish him all the luck in the world. I want to have a good public school system in Toledo - I just disagree with the methods our current board is employing to achieve that goal. But I believe he may have gotten off on the wrong foot. TPS is facing a huge deficit and will be putting a 7.8 mill levy on the ballot for November, after a stinging defeat of their income tax plan in May.

Pecko also said something a bit disturbing (clip being played on WSPD). He said that if students are leaving TPS because they're afraid of a diverse student population, then their parents are doing them a disservice. Now, he didn't say that was happening, but 'if.' However, 'if' that is what he thinks the problem is, he is going to work to address an issue that isn't the cause of students leaving the schools. And 'if' he is merely reflecting the impressions or thoughts of the TPS board, then it's no wonder the school system has such a terrible reputation for actual performance.

Konop admits that I am right

For a number of years - too many, in fact - I've been saying that it isn't our form of government that needs to change in this area in order to stop the decline - it's the people we elect to office. And not just the people, but the philosophy of the people we elect.

Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop has now admitted that I am right.

Oh - he's not actually saying, "Maggie Thurber is correct." That would be a sort of blasphemy, I'm sure.

But in today's paper where he admits his effort to change the county form of government is going to fail (just like so many of his other 'bold, fresh ideas'), he acknowledges that the problem isn't the form of government - but the people in office.

Here's what I first said about The Blade's push to change Lucas County to a county council form of government:

It's important to remember that a change in government does NOT equate to a change in behavior. In fact, as we can see from Toledo's change from a city manager to a strong mayor form of government, we've gotten pretty much the same types of decisions we'd previously gotten and Toledo is STILL heading downhill in terms of population, job growth, etc... while heading up in terms of government costs, spending, taxation and fees.

So we have clear evidence that a change in government structure does NOT mean we'll get a change in the philosophy of those being elected to govern.
...
The major problem with county government is not the form or the structure - it's the people we elect and the policies they promote. I cannot emphasize enough: those two things are not going to change if we change the structure.

And I've said this numerous times on my blog, on the radio when I was hosting WSPD's Eye On Toledo, and as an elected official.

Here's what the news article today attributes to Konop:

Mr. Konop said there is no guarantee that a county executive/county council form of government would improve Lucas County's economy. He said, rather, such a government would make it more possible for good elected leaders to make necessary changes.

"It allows the community to have a chance to change these things, if we elect the right people," Mr. Konop said. (emphasis added)

Now, I certainly don't expect Konop to publicly admit that I've been correct all along - that would be 'hoping' for too much 'change' in behavior. But I am glad that he has seen the wisdom of my position, though it's disappointing that it happened with only six months left in his term.

Next public meeting on county council issue scheduled

Well, there's not been much publicity about this, so I wanted to emphasize that the next public meeting to discuss the county-council charter form of government for Lucas County will be Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. in the Commissioner Meeting Room on the first floor of Government Center.

According to various reports, Comm. Pete Gerken plans to hold a vote June 29 deciding whether or not to put the 15-member charter commission on the November ballot. Under Ohio Revised Code, such a commission would be in charge of drafting a county charter to be put before voters in the following year.

So - if you can make it, be sure to attend the meeting Tuesday at 4:30 and ask all the necessary questions!

***Side Note:
Comm. Ben Konop has been making the rounds at various group/club meetings in the county showing statistics on just how bad off Lucas County is. Here are a couple of additional questions for him:

* How will changing the form of government reduce foreclosures in the county?

* How will changing the form of government decrease the unemployment rate in the county?

* What party/philosophy has been in charge of Toledo and County government over the last 40 years and how will decisions under a new form of government be any different than the ones that got us to this point?

* You came up with some money-saving ideas early in your term of office, but wanted to put the savings toward paying for college education for only certain county residents. That idea is included in your draft of the county charter that you want voters to approve this November. If you could come up with ways to save money, why not just go ahead and do the savings, even if you couldn't then spend the money as you wanted by giving it away to only select individuals? This was one way to actually reduce the cost the cost of government, yet you didn't push the savings because you couldn't get support for how to spend the savings. How will a charter form of government give us real 'savings' if your document calls for the those savings to just be spent in other ways?

* One of your major complaints about 'changing' Lucas County is that you couldn't get the support of two fellow Democrats on the BCC. What makes you think that getting the votes of a majority of people on a county council will be any easier? What, in a county charter form of government, is different when it comes to decision-making that makes you think the 'change' you seek will actually occur?

Plus any you can think of.

***End Side Note

Commenting on AZ immigration law is NOT county business

I don't know why it is that so many politicians think they have to take a public stand on issues that don't impact them or their constituents. Perhaps it's because so many 'special interest groups' insist upon it? But whatever the reason, it doesn't surprise me that the Lucas County Commissioners decided to pass a resolution condemning Arizona's new immigration law.

As a commissioner, I vigorously opposed such actions. I repeatedly told my fellow commissioners that if they wanted to express their opinion on such matters, they were certainly welcome to hold a press conference and share with the public their personal views on anything, including actions by other jurisdictions.

I insisted that the role of the Commissioners was the governing of the county and passing such resolutions was not something the 'Board' should be concerned with - especially when you considered all the other statutory obligations we had.

I also pointed out that, absent a poll or some other survey of all residents in the county, it would be highly presumptuous of us to *assume* that our opinions were the same as the rest of the county. And even if we found general agreement on certain issues, it was a given that there would be significant portions of our constituents who objected either in whole or in part, so we could not properly 'represent' all of them by taking a position. Besides, it still all came back to the fact that a formal action by the board on such matters was completely outside our role as Commissioners.

These were pretty successful arguments as the number of these types of resolutions certainly declined during my term on the board.

But with three politicians, who all happen to be Democrats, too eager to cater to small special interests, these types of resolutions seem to permeate our county and Toledo governments.

And that's something else, we need to pay attention to. How many other cities, villages, and townships in Lucas County decided to stick their noses into the business of other jurisdictions? This type of action is rarely seen in the other jurisdictions in the county, so we should ask ourselves 'why?'

Is it because those other jurisdictions are focused on their statutory responsibilities? Is it because they realize that it's a pointless act, other than to cater to a very small special interest? Is it because they're too busy with taking care of their roads and keeping their governmental costs down?

These are all good questions, I know.

On Monday, Comm. Ben Konop addressed a Rotary Club to promote his idea of changing to a county charter government. (You can review my prior articles on this subject here, here, here, and here.)

In his speech, he highlighted the problems of Lucas County - problems that have existed here for a number of years:

Mr. Konop's presentation showed Lucas County ranks high in rates of unemployment, poverty, bankruptcy, and migration out of the state and has lower median income than the state overall.

"There is really no shortage of disturbing economic trends to report on for Lucas County," Mr. Konop said.

Lucas County's jobless rate was the highest of Ohio's six largest counties for each of the 12 months ending in April, the most recent period available, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Now, he didn't explain how changing the form of government will give us different decisions about how to address these things, but that's beside the point.

With these types of concerns, issues, problems, etc... why in the world are the commissioners spending any time whatsoever addressing something in a city over 1,600 miles away???

They shouldn't. But they did. And this is just another reason why switching our form of government won't change anything in this county. We'll just get more of the same type of philosophy exhibited by these three commissioners: that taking a position on an Arizona law is something the county government should do, instead of what it's mandated to do.

But won't all those small special interests be happy and keep electing them to office?

In the meantime, the problems in the county will continue ... 'fiddling while Rome burns' comes to mind.

Konop forces failed ideas into his county charter proposal

Tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. in the Downtown Public Library is the first public hearing on changing Lucas County's form of government. I again urge you to attend and be sure to ask all the questions you can as to WHY we need to change our form of government.

And don't let the commissioners get away with saying "it increases effeciencies" without documenting exactly how it does so and why other methods of increasing efficiencies aren't being tried first.

If Commission Ben Konop is present to discuss his proposal, you certainly need to ask him HOW he's going to increase the efficiency of county government when he's creating three new departments and three new boards/commissions, not to mention the increased number of elected officials.

Remember when Konop wanted the Lucas County Improvement Corporation to cater to his latest whims and they rejected his ideas? He then led an effort to oust the executive director, and tried to get the agency removed as the county's economic development lead. While trying to destroy the agency, he was also in charge of finding a new executive director - an effort at which he, again, failed.

Why is this important to remember now? Because his new 'charter' for Lucas County ignores the LCIC in favor of creating a new 'economic development commission' as well as an economic development department within county government. It also creates a department of development. These are just three of the six new boards and departments created under his proposal.

The others are a human resources commission, a county audit commission and a department of internal auditing. His proposal also creates a 'law director,' which will probably require staff as well. Currently the county prosecutor performs that function on behalf of all county elected officials.

But that's not his only failed idea that becomes a permanent part of county government. Remember his illegal scholarship program? I say illegal because county commissioners have no authority to take tax dollars and distribute it to 'certain, chosen' residents of the county in the form of college scholarships.

From Page 8 of his proposed charter document:

(11) To establish and provide for the administration of a program to provide scholarships, loans, grants and other forms of financial assistance for residents of the County that will enable them to participate in post-secondary education, including vocational education and job training and retraining; for the funding of the program from money determined to be saved by the operation of the County government under this Charter and from other funds of the County, including gifts, grants and donations received for such purpose; and for the conditions for eligibility for participation in the program by individuals and educational institutions.

Imagine that!

I suppose this change in government structure is Konop's last attempt at getting his way. He cited rejection of his ideas as his reason for not seeking re-election. I guess he'll show us by pushing another 'fresh, bold, new' idea from The Blade that, like his other failed ideas, lacks forethought, analysis, logic, details and substance - not to mention the fact that it will not do what he claims.

Konop's proposal also increases the costs of county government. I've previously documented how elimination of elective offices doesn't really reduce the costs of county government. Under Konop's proposal 10 of the new county council members will be paid $30,000 per year (to start) and the president of the council will be paid $35,000. They would be considered part-time. This is significantly less than what Cuyahoga is paying their council, but even at the lesser rate, the $335,000 total in Konop's proposal is still more than the $260,510 that the commissioners are currently being paid for their full-time jobs.

And this doesn't even get into the requirement that all county positions pay the 'prevailing wage' in the area. From Page 18:

SECTION 12.08
EMPLOYEE RIGHTS.
Employees of the County and its offices, agencies and departments shall have the right to organize and to engage in collective bargaining as provided by general law. Wages paid under construction contracts entered into by the County and its offices,
agencies and departments shall be paid in accordance with general laws pertaining to payment of prevailing wages.

So even if the county wanted to negotiate something different, this charter provision says employees 'shall' be paid in accordance with prevailing wages. Oh - currently not all county employees are allowed to be in unions, but this seems to change that provision.

So Konop's proposal increases the size of county government, increases the costs of county government and incorporates many of his previously rejected ideas. How, exactly, is this a good thing for Lucas County?

I know - that's a great question.

But there are more questions you should ask - and I'll repeat them just in case you missed them in my prior post:

* What specific problems exist in county government?

* Why do we have these problems? Is it because of decisions by individuals or some structural problem?

* Where is the fiscal analysis showing the costs of the current government structure versus the cost of the proposed government structure?

* If there is no fiscal analysis of the cost comparisons, shouldn't that be done prior to any discussions on the matter so we're acting from an 'informed' point of view?

* If the problems with our county government have been identified, what are the other possible solutions to address them?

* Is there any type of documentation of the other potential solutions?

* Why are the commissioners rushing this? In the only two other Ohio counties to make this decision, it took them several years.

* Who are the other proponents of the idea - besides The Blade and certain politicians?

* Who are the opponents of the idea?

* What outreach have the commissioners done to the other municipalities in the county before proposing their new form of government? What was the reaction of the other municipalities?

* What new authority or powers would a charter form of government give the elected officials? What are the pros and cons of such new authority?

* What will be the taxing/fee authority of the charter form of government versus the limited taxing/fee authority of the current board?

* The Blade has done numerous articles promoting their perceived advantages of a charter form of county government. What are the disadvantages? Where are those documented and how will the commissioners share both sides of the issue with residents?

Konop didn't get his way so he's not running again

According to today's paper, Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop has decided not to seek re-election.

In a 1,644-word article, he details how he hasn't gotten his way as a Commissioner so he's giving up.

He claims it's because the area is so adverse to change. And he may have a point, though not for the reasons he believes.

He points to the massive and unified rejection of his idea to fund a scholarship program with public tax dollars.

"That meeting was probably the most clear-cut example of the good old boys circling the wagons to just shut down even any discussion of change," Mr. Konop recalled last week. "It's a win-win, logical program that is much needed in our community, and it was within 30 minutes just shot down by the entire status-quo network of northwest Ohio."

Actually, it nothing to do with status-quo and everything to do with the serious unanswered questions and faults with his idea.

He proposed paying for the scholarships by savings from various changes and efficiencies in county government. At the time, I stated that several of the money-saving ideas had merit, but what is the point of the county saving money in one place only to spend it in another to benefit some - not all - county residents?

The ideas to cut expenses in the county are admirable. I'm still not sold on open-source software, but a four-day work week, energy efficiency and privatized EMS ambulance service are terrific ideas. (I must remind Comm. Konop, though, that he opposed new windows for one of the county buildings - windows which would have improved the energy efficiency of that building.)

But if you can do these things and save $4 million, why don't you do it anyway, even if you don't pay for college for everyone? And since the county is planning on laying off people as of the first of the year, why aren't we already taking such steps to save money? And if you can save $4 million a year, the county can certainly lower the taxes (sales or property) so taxpayers don't have to pay so much. I'd much rather have the county apply such savings to my tax bill so I can further my own education - rather than pay for someone else's.

While Konop saw this rejection as a penchant for the status-quo, most others saw it as one more example of his failure to present ideas that had any merit. He was described as having 'big, bold, fresh' ideas, but most of them lacked details, enhanced government - not the individual, attempted to 'spread the wealth' by taking from all to provide for a few, and didn't address all the questions and/or issued that people had when they heard them.

Then there were the few ideas he did get passed, only to see them fail. Remember his Art Assist program that cost the county around $8,000 in interest and had to be cancelled because of lack of interest? What about his trolley idea to move people to points of interest? I think that only lasted a couple of weekends.

How about his effort to destroy the Lucas County Improvement Corporation? This is the only public entity that joined together the jurisdictions of the county to work toward a common goal of economic development. But because he couldn't control it, he decided it had to be destroyed. At one meeting, his outlook on his failure to kill the organization was very clear:

In the meeting, Konop exhibited paranoia (thinking all the people were there to try to intimidate him), hypocrisy (questioning an employee's qualifications despite not having any himself), and class warfare (accusing others of meeting at the exclusive Inverness Country Club while he was meeting with union members - duh! Where does he think people who 'create' jobs are? in union halls????). He also threw in a few catch phrases like 'mismanaged bureaucracy' and 'good ol' boys' just for good measure.

This sounds like his 'explanation' for not running again.

Konop complains that he was out-voted 2-1 on his initiatives. That was because his initiatives weren't good ones - at least, not from a detail, planning or implementation perspective - though most of them were consistent with the general philosophy of the other two commissioners.

I know how that feels because I was often outvoted 2-1 when I was on the board. But I went in the office expecting to not have the support of the two Democrats for my efforts to keep spending under control, limit the intrusion of government into individual lives, reducing taxation, following the state law about the limits of the commissioners' authority, and doing things that lead to a business-friendly environment.

I often say that my biggest success in office when it came to actual votes was that really bad ideas weren't nearly so bad because of my input. That's not something one would normally look at as 'success,' but in Lucas County, that was major.

Of course, for taking such 'no' positions, I was called an obstructionist and described as 'difficult' and 'stubborn.' Konop, however, gets praise for his opposition. But then, again, this is Lucas County.

The problem was that much of Konop's 'ambitious agenda' was more of the same political philosophy that got us into the mess we're in. His ideas might have been new in certain aspects, but they weren't new in terms of what's been tried before - and failed.

The article also quotes Konop as saying he didn't form enough political coalitions to get his ideas passed.

"That's a good lesson I think I've learned, that you can't just rely on the integrity of your argument. You have to build some sort of political coalition to push it through," the commissioner said. "Whether that would have been enough to overcome this circle-the-wagons mentality - who knows."

Note that he criticizes other political coalitions as 'good ole boy' networks. They're the same things, Ben. Calling your 'network' a coalition while describing other networks in a negative manner doesn't work.

I believe Konop had unrealistic expectations of what he could do as a commissioner. I know he didn't understand the limits state law puts on the authority of a board of commissioners because several things he said he wanted to do during the campaign the BCC had no authority to implement. I think he expected the support from The Blade and its publisher to mean more than it did to his fellow commissioners and other elected officials.

I also believe that Konop's unrealistic expectations are a sign of his immaturity, and that immaturity is clearly demonstrated by this article. The article is not flattering, making it look as if he's quitting because he didn't get his way. While that is part of it, I think he knows he wouldn't win if he ran again, and he's choosing to quit rather than lose.

What this means for Lucas County is that there will probably be contested primaries in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Toledo City Councilman George Sarantou and Springfield Township Trustee Andy Glenn have said they will run. On the Democrat side, there is talk that Edna Brown is being encouraged to run for Commissioner rather than State Senate. Former Oregon Mayor Marge Brown and current Maumee Mayor Tim Wagener have also been rumored to be interested.

Lucas County will have good choices this year - from adults - now that the little boy is taking his ball and going home.

***
Side Note: Did you notice the box off to the side in the article titled "The Ben Konop File"? It says:

• Political endeavors: Elected Lucas County commissioner in 2006; ran unsuccessfully in 2004 against Republican Mike Oxley for Ohio's 4th Congressional District seat.

Now why, do you suppose, it fails to mention his most recent political endeavor of his failed bid for Mayor???

Sarantou to run for commissioner - again

NewsTalk 1370 WSPD is reporting that Toledo City Councilman George Sarantou has announced his intentions to run, again, for Lucas County Commissioner. Sarantou lost to Ben Konop when he last sought this office in 2006.

According to the news broadcast, Sarantou is touting his financial background as an asset to the county and as a reason to elect him.

Of course, this flies in the face of reason.

You see, through all the recent financial issues the City of Toledo has faced, George has been chairman of council's Finance Committee. With Toledo facing huge budget deficits over the last several years, while George chaired the committee, and now facing a $48 million deficit for 2010, you'd think George would realize the irony of promoting his 'financial expertise.'

This is not to say that he isn't a good financial advisor. I have no idea about his work skills. I only reference his failure as the finance committee chairman and wonder how in the world he thinks that can be any sort of positive for his campaign against Konop (or whoever wins the Democrat primary for the position Konop now holds).

Maybe he's counting on the disillusionment of the voters who chose Konop over him last time. Konop certainly hasn't given them any reason to stay loyal. But George has failed to distinguish himself during that time frame as well.

Of course, neither Sarantou nor Konop may make it through the primary. Area voters seem to be in a 'throw the bums out' mood and both men may qualify as 'bums' in that respect.

But there is always The Blade to consider. Like it or not, they still buy ink by the barrel and have been very supportive of all of Konop's antics - providing plenty of slanted coverage for his ideas while rarely (if ever) covering the failure of many of them. Rumor has it that the Republican and Democratic Party Chairmen were told by the publisher not to run anyone against Konop. I'll emphasize that this is a rumor, but certainly a believable one considering the perception many people have of the publisher and his penchant for wanting to direct elections in Lucas County.

What this all means, though, is that we'll have an interesting time leading up to the May primary and then the November election.

Stay tuned!

'Not business friendly' Post #17 -You're going to have a union contract whether you want one or not!

Well, that's if Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop and the Northwest Ohio Building and Constructions Trades Council have their way.

Tomorrow the Commissioners have a resolution on their agenda titled: Incorporating Project Labor Agreements into Bidding Specifications for all County-Supported Projects.

Here's the summary:

Whereas this Board of County Commissioners is responsible for facilitating funds for social services, employers who contract to construct county-supported projects are effectively compensated with public dollars and should pay their workers enough so that those same workers might not also rely on taxpayer-funded social services. Applying project labor agreements on all county-supported construction projects, which will ensure workers on those projects are paid prevailing or union-negotiated wages, will also create more opportunities for our local working families, promote fair-bidding practices, protect area standards, avoid disruptions, delays and labor disputes, and create a higher level of workmanship on the aforementioned projects.

What does this really mean?

In a nutshell, if you're going to bid on a contract with the county, you're going to have to enter into a labor agreement with a local union for that specific project.

Talk about insanity and 'not business friendly'!

Additionally, the resolution has two lines - one for 'budget impact' and one for 'statutory authority' - where the costs to the county and the source of the authority for the resolution are cited. These two lines are blank for this resolution, so we have nothing to detail how much it will cost the county to implement, nor do we know if the commissioners even have the authority to institute such a provision.

Let's look at the 'assumptions' in the summary:

"...employers .... should pay their workers enough so that those same workers might not also rely on taxpayer-funded social services."

There are so many fallacies in this assumption, I'm not sure where to begin. So let's start with the basics. Employers should pay employees what they are worth in terms of the value of their labor. They should compensate employees based upon the work that is being done and how well the employee performs the assigned tasks.

But this resolution says employees should be paid based NOT upon those things, but based upon what the government has determined to be eligibility for certain hand-outs. This resolution states that employees should be paid so they make more than what the government determines is the maximum amount people can earn before they get such things as food stamps, Aid to Dependent Children, housing vouchers, heating vouchers, and a host of other hand-outs.

Of course, government has increased the amount of money you can earn and remain eligible. So does that mean that private employers must also increase their pay based upon a political decision designed to purchase votes?

Additionally, eligibility for many programs includes the number of dependents a person has. Should employers then base their pay on how many kids an employee has, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the job the person is performing? And wouldn't an employer get into trouble for paying one woman more than another when they're doing the same job just because one has kids and the other doesn't?

Pay for workers should not be based upon some arbitrary factor established by government, especially when that factor (eligibility for 'social services') is completely unrelated to the labor being done.

Applying project labor agreements on all county-supported construction projects, which will ensure workers on those projects are paid prevailing or union-negotiated wages...

For most county projects, prevailing wages already apply. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find county projects under which prevailing wages are NOT applied. So this resolution will do nothing in that regard - though it sure does sound nice in the reso, doesn't it?

Prevailing wages are often based upon 'union-negotiated' wages - or at least incorporate those rates into the calculation, so to include the phrase 'union-negotiated wages' in the resolution is really just a duplication.

This is not just about wages, though that may be how it is advertised. No, this is about a host of other issues like binding arbitration, fringe benefits, no strike-no lockout, and all the other issues a labor agreement traditionally covers outside the scope of wages. This is about making sure all workers, whether they want to or not, are actually 'unionized' whenever they work for the county.

The resolution won't ensure the rate of payment for county projects, that's already being done under existing county policies in accordance with state law.

"...will also create more opportunities for our local working families ..."

It will? How? How does forcing union contracts upon workers create more opportunities for them? It doesn't. Employers and employees who have made a conscience choice to NOT be unionized will either be forced into a unionization contract or they won't get the county work. That's not 'creating opportunities.' That's punishing employers and employees who made a decision that unions and politicians don't like.

"...promote fair-bidding practices,..."

No - it won't promote fair-bidding practices. It endeavors to make unionized shops more attractive because their costs are traditionally higher than non-unionized shops. Fair bidding is to allow each company to put together the best proposal and to rate them on what they say they can do. What's even more fair to the taxpayers footing the bill is to select the less costly qualified bid.

But if not enough unionized workers are being hired because the costs of their contracts drive up the overhead of the company and result in a higher bid for the project, then politicians step in and try to spin a burdensome and unfair practice as somehow being more 'fair.'

I wish Commissioner Ben Konop, the sponsor of this resolution, was as concerned about taxpayer money as he is unionization of county workers. If he was, he'd never insist upon an arbitrary increase in costs just to satisfy a local union.

"...protect area standards..."

The only way this could be true is if unionized workers are inherently better at doing a job than non-unionized workers are. And we all know that 'unionization' is a far cry from a fair determiner of ability. In fact, many unions have reputations for protecting bad workers while non-unionized employers have a reputation of having an easier time in firing a non-performing employee.

Besides - this resolution doesn't mandate standards - it just mandates a union contract for a job.

And then there is this little phrase from the actual contract proposed to be signed if this resolution passes:

...protecting the area standards for wages and benefits realized through the process of collective bargaining by imposing union scale for all work covered by this Agreement.

Apparently, the 'standards' the unions are interested in are the ones for wages and benefits.

"...avoid disruptions, delays and labor disputes ..."

Well, I suppose since there is a no-strike/no lock-out clause in the agreement the resolution requires, this could be true. However, we've all seen labor disputes, delays and disruptions even when union contracts are involved, so there is no way this resolution can promise or ensure such.

"...create a higher level of workmanship on the aforementioned projects."

How, exactly, is a higher level of workmanship created? It doesn't say. In fact, this appears to be promotion of the fallacy that unionized workers are better skilled than their non-union counterparts. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that one person is more qualified to perform construction work simply because they're in a union.

The factors that relate to workmanship are training, experience, and ability. Simply having a union card doesn't ensure the skill of the individual, even if they've participated in union-sponsored training. In fact, there are plenty of training programs that are not union-sponsored that produce equally- or better-skilled individuals. The test is in the individual - not the card they carry in their wallet.

So, again, we have a statement that cannot be supported with fact and the proposed resolution contains no provision for guaranteeing the statement.

But the worst part of this is the fact that all workers will have to pay union dues to the union while employed on the county projects. Yes, that's right. This is a pay off to the unions to get them more money. As a condition of employment they must be a union member during the duration of the project. Section 3.4 of the proposed agreements states:

Upon being presented with a written authorization form by an employee covered by this Agreement, the Employer will deduct from the wages of such employee and remit to the Union all initiation fees, dues, and representation fees in accordance with the signed authorization.

There are other onerous provisions in the actual contract as well. If the employer doesn't make the mandated payments to the union for certain fringe benefits, the contract requires the county to withhold those amounts from any payment they'd be making to the company. The county would then pay the union directly. If the union negotiates other contracts with greater benefits while the project is on-going, those new terms of wages & benefits are applied to the county project - retroactively, if necessary. That means that costs for the project can never be known because, at any time, a union may engage in negotiations with other employers and any agreed-upon terms automatically apply to the county project as well.

There's also the standard union access clause that grants a union representative unescorted access to the work site at any time. They also get to designate stewards for the work.

Do these provisions make any sense to anyone but a union????

There is nothing in this resolution that will even remotely address the items it claims in the summary. All it will do is add to the cost of government projects by imposing unnecessary mandates on bidders. And with the county facing a $10 million deficit and planning to dip into the stabilization fund, is this really the time to increase the cost of projects?

In this economy, commissioners shouldn't do anything that adds to the cost of government, even under the guise of 'helping' 'working' families. I'm part of a 'working' family that is tired of footing the bill for preferential treatment for unions and other special interests.

You should read the entire resolution as well as the 'proposed contract' the resolution calls for.

And then you should do two things:

1) Call your commissioners and ask them who wrote the contract. I'd bet any amount of money that Ben Konop didn't - but that the union did.

2) Tell the commissioners that if they really want to destroy business and employment opportunities in the region - pass this resolution, for that's the outcome if they do.

Pete Gerken: pgerken@co.lucas.oh.us
Tina Skeldon Wozniak: twozniak@co.lucas.oh.us
Ben Konop: bkonop@co.lucas.oh.us
Phone number: 419-213-4500

Of dogs, political agendas and the rule of law

I've written briefly about the latest issue regarding the Lucas County Dog Warden. Now, Tom Skeldon has announced his retirement and that should end the discussion.

But it hasn't.

People are very emotional over the issue of euthanasia of animals - and they should be. It's not a pleasant subject, but a necessary one. Individuals who have not been responsible with their own pets, combined with various state and city laws, put the county in a position of making hard choices, including the decision to put dogs down.

Many of Skeldon's opponents have actually accused him of 'liking' the killing of dogs. How absurd - and outrageous! To even remotely suggest that the dog warden kills animals in his care because he enjoys it tells you all you need to know about the people who are criticizing these actions.

When you confront such individuals with the starkness of pointing out what they are actually suggesting, they quickly back down. But only from saying Skeldon 'likes' it...they continue to maintain that dogs shouldn't be killed - regardless of many other factors.

These opponents have found a target in the dog warden and they are taking out their frustrations with the law on this individual charged with following and enforcing those laws.

Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop - always the first to jump on a band wagon - now wants Skeldon fired because getting rid of the man just isn't enough. From WTOL:

"I'm not comfortable with him as our dog warden for even another day. On Tuesday at our next commissioners meeting, I'll make a motion to terminate Mr. Skeldon," Konop said.

Yet when Konop was running for mayor, do you remember him ever addressing the subject of Toledo's laws that the dog warden has to follow, including the definition of pit bulls?

It may have happened, but I don't remember it.

As the mayor, he would have been able to submit legislation to city council to address many of the concerns animal advocates have about the dog laws. But instead of doing that, Konop has, months later, suddenly decided that Skeldon can't stay on for "even another day."

Of course, that's not the end of it. Today's paper has the story of Konop trying to vindictively prohibit one county employee from participating in a county-wide program. Konop has an early buy-out program he wants to offer to all county employees - but not Skeldon, even though he'd be eligible.

Mr. Konop said he doesn’t want to scrap the buyout plan and is inquiring with the county prosecutors’ office to see if a mechanism can be inserted that would exclude Mr. Skeldon.

“I don’t see why we would want the dog warden to get this lump sum as he walks out the door,” Mr. Konop said.

So why is it in Toledo that some want the rules to only apply to people they like? You may not like a person, but if they're eligible for certain programs or payments, they're eligible. End of story.

However, in Toledo and Lucas County, the politicians, the editorial board of the paper and many groups believe that rules should apply only to certain people and not others.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." And that is very pertinent to this discussion.

If you don't like the rules, that's one thing. There are certainly provisions regarding the payout of unused vacation and sick time for public employees that I don't like. But the solution is not to prevent some eligible people from getting them - the solution is to change the rules, and continue to apply them equally to all.

But that's not the way it works in this political world - and that's just wrong. The principle is the rule of law - that our rules, laws and policies apply equally to all, and not just to those we want to favor.

Public employees (and voters) should know what the rules are and that they are applied consistently, without bias. Rules that are not in the best interest of the taxpayers should be changed, especially when they are costly and provide a better benefit than what the taxpayers, themselves, have.

To allow certain groups, special interests and the politicians to tailor the rules based upon their personal feelings about an individual negates one of the very core values of our nation - the rule of law. It violates the principle of equal treatment - and it does so to satisfy a political agenda.

Even when we don't like the outcome of a rule or law, we should insist it is followed (at least until we change it).

Skeldon - no matter what your opinions of him - is eligible for vacation and sick time payouts based upon county policies and state law. If Konop is successful in implementing a buy-out program and Skeldon is eligible, he should be allowed to participate as well.

You may not like it, but you must insist that the principle of 'rule of law' is applied ... otherwise, you may find yourself on the receiving end of such bias one day.

Toledo mayor primary prediction

As mayoral candidate D. Michael Collins was quick to add to his campaign website, pollster Fritz Wenzel (on Conklin and Company) predicted that Collins and Mike Bell would be the top two vote-getters in Tuesday's primary. Wenzel believes the two independents will benefit from voter dissatisfaction and anger.

I will agree with him on Bell, as I don't believe Mike Bell has done anything to discourage the general 'feel-good' opinion and respect most Toledoans have of him and his prior service as Fire Chief.

However, I don't believe Collins has the necessary momentum to finish in the top two, due to his late entry into the race. While he's very well known within his current council district (District 2), I don't believe he's had the time or the media coverage to garner the support of the rest of the city.

So my prediction is that Keith Wilkowski will be the other candidate we'll see on the November ballot.

I choose Wilkowski for two reasons:

1) He's the better known and more 'liked' candidate among the democrats running. He's spent roughly a full year preparing his campaign and his supporters for next Tuesday. He's also had more positive press than the other candidates - due to his length in the race and the kind headlines the local paper has given him.

2) He's organized and will, I believe, have a good 'on-the-ground' effort for Tuesday. I'm sure he learned valuable lessons from working on the Obama campaign on how to mobilize your identified voters, and that he will use those techniques to be sure his supporters get to the polls and vote.

All candidates know that the important part of an election is not just getting people to vote - but getting your supporters to show up and vote for you. I believe that will be the key to his finishing in the top two.

As for the other candidates, I don't believe that Jim Moody has generated the enthusiasm within the local Republican Party that he would need to ensure a top-two finish. While he has many good ideas, the internal issues with being Chairman Jon Stainbrook's candidate may be too much to overcome. In general, Toledo Republicans are not motivated toward the GOP candidates, though they may be motivated toward conservatives in general. This will hurt Moody and will, I predict, cost him on Sept. 15th.

Current County Commissioner Ben Konop has also benefited from positive press from The Blade, but not enough to overcome his other campaign problems, including his push for failed policies and, especially, his disrespect for the U.S. Flag. He is seem by too many as immature and 'not ready for prime time.' Additionally, being perceived as a favorite of The Blade may actually hurt Konop at the ballot box. I predict he will not finish in the top three.

Opal Covey, the final candidate, will probably finish last, even though there are some who've stated they'll vote for her just because they're so fed up with everyone else. Whether words are followed through with votes in the ballot box remains to be seen. While Opal has passion, it is not tempered with reason, and her references to being sent by God make her more of a fringe candidate than anything else. However, some people are talking that she may, considering the general mood of the voting public, be able to pull off a fourth-place finish ahead of Konop, which would be a remarkable thing if it happened.

Do you have a prediction? We'll await the results to see who is right.

Death threats, cell phone numbers and politics as usual in Toledo

As a former county commissioner and someone who's had death threats in that position, I believe I can speak with some authority about the latest circumstances surrounding Ben Konop.

First, let's address the issue of his personal cell phone number being given out on WSPD's afternoon show by Brian Wilson.

Many are saying they wouldn't want their own cell phone numbers given out over the air, but those who make such a statement are not public officials. Such 'privacy' issues are different when an individual is in the public eye. Is Konop's cell phone listed publicly on his website for his campaign, his blog or in any other communication, like a press release? If so, then it's publicly available and all WSPD did was share it with a wider audience. If not, then I would have to question the use of that number rather than his office number when urging people to call him.

When I was on air and Konop refused to respond to my invitation to appear on Eye On Toledo, I encouraged people to call or email his office to ask him to 1) provide a response to my invitation and 2) encourage him to accept. I also encouraged them to ask him about this when he appeared in person at events or forums. There's nothing wrong in encouraging citizens to engage their elected officials.

But before anyone can take exception to the broadcast of Konop's personal cell phone number, you need to know whether or not it's already a public number. Only then can you make an informed decision about whether it was the right thing or the wrong thing to do.

Threats:

When I was first elected to the commissioner seat, but before I was sworn in, I had a death threat on my home telephone - at an unlisted number I used only for family and friends - and they left the message on the recorder. Rather stupid of them, but they did so. The details in the threat made it clear that they were familiar with my house, the people in my house and our daily routines. I probably would have just dismissed the threat if it hadn't been for the additional details which made me believe they'd observed the goings-on in our home for a while.

My reaction was to call the Toledo Police since I live in Toledo and also because I was the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court and worked very closely with that agency. Because I did not want to encourage the caller, in any way, by publicity about the incident, I called the chief's office to ask about the best way to handle the call and my family's concerns. They sent a detective over who listened to the recording, make out a report and suggested some additional patrols in the neighborhood. It was suggested that officers in patrol cars would be asked to park at the end of our street to do their paperwork or during their breaks, to provide an additional presence that would, hopefully, discourage any unwanted activity.

We also took some additional measures and installed a security system in the house, which we'd been planning to do anyway, and went over the advice given out at most block watch meetings about being aware of suspicious activity.

Shortly after being sworn in, there was a break-in at the house. Fortunately, the alarm system worked - quite well, in fact - and while a rear basement window was broken and the perpetrator did get a foot on the table, the alarms went off and nothing was taken.

After getting the phone call from the alarm company, I arrived at home to find both TPD and Sheriff Deputies (LCSO) on the scene. While I was not surprised to find my local law enforcement personnel, I was surprised to find the Sheriff's Department had responded. As it was explained to me by then-Chief Deputy Ken Perry, the LCSO believed it was their responsibility to protect all county-elected officials, in addition to county residents, and they take threats against such individuals - regardless of the politics - very seriously. (Perry was my opponent in the 1995 election for Clerk of Court.)

Fortunately, following the investigation of the break-in (which was never solved), the police concluded that the break-in and threats were separate incidents and not related. But I know that when my family took our annual vacation a few weeks later, Chief Deputy Perry made several stops at my house just to check things out and make sure everything was okay. Though I told him that wasn't really necessary, he said he wanted to do it and, upon my insistence, assured me he wouldn't stop during his normal work schedule and take time away from his obligations to the Sheriff to do so.

So I know, first hand, the attention the LCSO places on the security of the individuals they assume responsibility for. But with the serious and detailed nature of the threat I received, I did not ask for a body guard so I wonder about the threats Konop has gotten and why this has become a rather public issue when prudence would dictate keeping a lower profile on the security.

I would like to see the emails Konop has received to judge for myself, though I know they'd probably be designated as non-public documents relating to an on-going investigation.

As an elected official, you get all kinds of communications from all sorts of people who use varying degrees of words when they don't like decisions you've made.

One of the easiest ways to handle such communications is to diffuse the issue yourself through conversation or response. Konop, unfortunately, has a reputation for not being able to do this well, if he bothers to respond at all. Is it likely that his reaction to such communications has escalated the situation? It's a good question to ask and the answer would probably only be revealed with an investigation of both sides of the communications.

When you've done your best to de-escalate the situation and it isn't working, it is logical to share the information with law enforcement. But does this warrant a body guard - a LCSO deputy to escort you various places, including within a well-protected government building? I don't know because I haven't seen the emails.

But I do know that the Commissioners used to have a Sheriff Deputy on duty for all the commissioner meetings. Shortly after Tina Skeldon Wozniak and I were sworn in, we examined the need for this person and Tina, Harry Barlos and I decided that we had enough protection in the building from the State Highway Patrol officers and really didn't need a deputy at our meetings. Besides, we figured we really had nothing to fear from our own constituents, especially in Government Center. So we asked the Sheriff to use that deputy more productively within his organization. And we never had a problem. In fact, I don't believe subsequent boards of commissioners have had any such issue that would warrant changing that decision.

So where does that leave us, as taxpayers footing the bill for all of this? Wondering, speculating and opining - which is all we can do under the circumstances. We do not have enough details to make an informed decision and it is likely that we never will.

So we are left with questions:

Is it likely that Konop is taking advantage of the situation in order to generate sympathy for his position and get in a few digs at a radio station he hates? Yes.

Is it likely that people are more angry at Konop's actions with the trampling of the U.S. Flag than what he expected? Yes.

Is it possible that he is at risk of physical harm? Yes.

Is it possible that the threats against him are real, credible and worthy of the concern of law enforcement? Yes.

Is it possible that he requested a body guard rather than have the LCSO insist upon one? Yes.

Is it possible this is being blown out of proportion? Yes

Will we ever really know the answers to these questions? No.

So some comments:

To the people who read my comments and other news stories or blogs about this: take a step back and ask yourself if you really have enough information to establish an informed opinion about the incident ... or if your preconceived ideas about Commissioner and mayoral candidate Konop are influencing your perspective.

To the media who cover the 'what' without asking for the supporting evidence to justify the 'who' and 'why': get the whole story and share it without bias.

To Konop: if you really believe you are in danger, protect yourself. Only you know the truth about that. But if you're taking advantage of the situation for political purposes, know that such a strategy can and will backfire when facts are revealed.

Also to Konop: while you have the 'right' to not speak to any media outlet, news department, reporter, TV news show or radio talk show host, your constituents also have the 'right' to hold you accountable for such decisions. Just because you can and should make such decisions, you are not immune from the consequences of those decisions and you should expect the public to respond as they see fit - which includes calling you out on the issue.

To the law enforcement officials involved in this: thank you! Your willingness to serve and protect is always, always valued and appreciated.

UPDATED: Konop tramples the U.S. Flag

If you view this farce of a video of Lucas County Commissioner and mayoral candidate Ben Konop, you'll see he's trying to make fun of the fact that he got booed and heckled at a press conference - and the video of that event made national news.

However, what you'll see is that the U.S. Flag gets knocked to the ground, trampled on, and never picked up.

Konop picks up a sign and a chair, but not the flag. In fact, each time he bends over, once for the sign and then again for the chair, I thought he was going to pick up the flag...but no.

No matter what the purpose of the video, this is not the way to treat our flag - and is certainly not acceptable behavior from a candidate and sitting commissioner.

UPDATE: As you can see from the link, the video has been removed (sometime this morning after it started getting media attention) and is no longer viewable at this site. Obviously Konop and his handlers realize that this was very stupid, completely irresponsible, disrespectful and damaging to his political aspirations.

Because I expected Konop to delete this, I videotaped it from the public domain and am providing that video here under Fair Use rules, as it demonstrates a newsworthy action of a public official:



In this Toledo Free Press article, Konop says this was a mistake that 'could have happened to a 60-year-old political.'

When asked about if participating in this video played into the idea that he is too young to be mayor, Konop said he is 33 years old, a commissioner, an attorney and a law professor. He said he believes he has acted maturely in elected office. This is a personal issue, not a campaign issue, he said.

Yeah - right! This is a campaign issue no matter how much he says it isn't.

WTOL also covered Konop's press conference and his comment that he hopes "to deal better with these kinds of situations in the future."

His failure to show the proper respect to the flag of our country, no matter what the circumstances, is a direct reflection on him and while he has apologized, it won't be forgotten.

'Stuck on stupid' thinking is part of the problem

This is part of our problem in Lucas County and the nation as a whole:

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS), which loses $7 billion every year, has listed two locations in Toledo as targeted for closure. One of them is here in my neighborhood, Point Place, which doesn't make me happy.

But when the government actually wants to reduce the size of its operation to bring it in line with its revenues, that's a good thing.

Our County Commissioners - and many others - may agree with reducing the number of offices, but not with doing it HERE. You see, they all think our locations should remain and other ones should go.

(Sidenote: This is the same perspective when it comes to getting rid of politicians - when everyone wants the incumbents gone, they mean other incumbents, not their own. And when they rail about pork, it's the pork other areas are getting - not the 'necessary funding' we need. See the resemblance???)

So the Commissioners yesterday passed a unanimous resolution urging the U.S. Postal Office to keep these two locations open.

When a news reporter for NewsTalk 1370 WSPD asked about the USPS cutting costs and how this compares to Lucas County cutting services, Comm. Ben Konop actually said:

"It's a little different than in Lucas County because the federal government has the ability to print money."

That's the quote they played with the news and here is the story from their website:

County Board Seeks to Save Post Offices

Two Toledo Branches Could Close

By WSPD News

Lucas County Commissioners unanimously sign a resolution asking the Post Master General to spare the Mid-Town and Point Place post offices that could be part of a nationwide downsizing.

Commissioner Ben Konop says post offices serve as community hubs and help reduce crime.

He says he would prefer seeing the post offices moved into smaller, more efficient buildings.

The agency runs about 7-billion dollars in the red each year.

When asked about the county making cuts to save money, Konop says, that's different because the federal government can print it's own money.

Konop, who is also a Toledo mayoral candidate, thinks that it's okay to continuously run a deficit so long as you can print up money out of thin air to cover the expenses?

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?

Sadly, this is what many people think. The scarier part is that 1) this is a sitting county commissioner and 2) this is a candidate for mayor. This man obviously has no idea about basic economics; no idea about why governments, just like individuals and businesses, need to live within their (OUR) means; and no idea just how ridiculous he sounds when he says things like this.

Of course, I really don't expect main stream media to cover this blaring display of ignorance, though the paper did include the 'cut somewhere else, but not us' comment.

If this is the type of logic utilized by our elected officials - and supported by voters - is it any wonder our nation is broke?

Konop promises failed policies if elected mayor

On Sunday, Lucas County Commissioner and mayoral candidate Ben Konop was in a church giving a political speech from the pulpit.

Aside from the fact that this was a Christian church and Konop is Jewish, and the fact that his fellow liberals, including the editorial board of The Blade, have previously said that "The Pulpit's for Preaching" (Blade editorial Oct. 5, 2008), what is most disturbing are the failed proposals he suggested in trying to pander to his listeners.

* He promised to 'acquire' funds from the $12 billion that President Obama has set aside for community colleges and use that money to help Owens Community College open a campus in downtown Toledo.

There have been numerous proposals to put higher education in downtown Toledo. The University of Toledo had a 'campus' at the Convention Center and offered classes there. The Blade has long pushed for moving the law school downtown, though there is little interest in moving it off the main campus of the University of Toledo. And there has been no indication that Owens even wants to put a campus downtown.

Of course, there is also no guarantee that Konop would be able to get $12 million for this purpose along with the question of whether or not our colleges and universities might have a better use for it should it be 'given' to us.

From a 'basic functions of government' perspective, it's not the role of the mayor to address higher education facilities - there are presidents and boards of trustees of those institutions to perform that task.

* Despite the failure of the state-wide push last year to implement such a policy in Ohio, Konop promised to put a ballot initiative before voters by November 2010 that would require businesses with 25 or more employees to provide paid sick days to both full and part-time employees.

The reason the unions pulled this off the ballot last November is because they could read the reaction of the public to this proposal just as well as everyone else - and it was in for a huge defeat. Businesses do not want to have their benefit packages dictated to them by a bunch of politicians. Employees want the ability to have benefits that meet their needs - not a one-size fits all mandate.

Locally, Toledo is at a huge disadvantage for attracting and retaining businesses with our higher payroll income tax, higher property taxes and the amount of regulations enforced upon them by current and previous councils and administrations. The last thing a Toledo mayor should do if they want to promote businesses in Toledo is create a new mandate.

Konop cites 'studies' that prove this mandate is good for business, but the paper doesn't identify which one(s), if they even asked. Of course there was an Ohio specific study which showed just the opposite, and my previous post on the issue addresses the discrepancies between the two.

I could go on and on about the fallacies presented by Konop to justify 'why' paid sick days is a good idea, but let's just look at Konop's background. He's never run a business, never been employed in a management position within a business and, as far as I can tell from his published background, never even worked in a private business. I think that says everything you need to know about his 'opinion' on what is good for business.

* He also wants a 'living wage' requirement for any business with 25 or more employees that gets money from or does business with the city. This proposal is similar to the one he presented for Lucas County, but couldn't implement because it wasn't allowed under state law.

Now, common sense will tell you that if companies hired by the city of Toledo have to pay their employees more, the costs of government will be higher than what they might be without this regulation. Duh!

The hypocrisy of this proposal is that living wages actually hurt those the politicians claim they will help. Additionally, the Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce is on record opposing the proposal before the county, and will probably stay on record to oppose it if presented within the Toledo limits.

This will, as would the mandatory sick days, put Toledo businesses at a disadvantage within the region. That is not business-friendly.

* He also proposed merging the county and city building inspection departments. This actually has some potential for savings on the part of everyone and is an idea that should be considered. But why wait for an election? If it's a good idea, then start now to evaluate it and don't worry about whether or not it gets votes for Konop in November.

But you see, just like with many of his other proposals, they seem to be a ploy to pander for votes, not a genuine interest in reducing the costs of government.

Today's paper has the reaction of the other candidates to his proposals, including D. Michael Collins questioning the appearance in a church.

They all say the proposals are anti-business, put the city at a disadvantage, or are recycled failures. Konop's reaction is to personally attack some of them and call their positions 'right-wing talking points,' a phrase he utters often when people point out common sense observations that poke holes in his ideas. (note to Ben: it's getting old.)

The mayor is the CEO of the city and we need someone who, at the very least, has a modicum of supervisory/management experience. Konop doesn't - and his ideas and campaign are clearly designed to pander to specific groups with promises he cannot implement by himself.

The more Konop speaks, the more he proves that he's just not qualified for the position.

An oldie but goodie - Konop should read it

With both Lucas County Commissioner (and mayoral candidate) Ben Konop and President Barack Obama touting a taxpayer-funded college education for all, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at this oldie but goodie from the Foundation for Economic Education.

The article, "No More Subsidies for Higher Education" by George C. Leef, was published in FEE's magazine, The Freeman, which is also available on line.

The author makes several excellent points:

* He tears apart the 'social justice' argument that higher education is something that society 'owes' to low-income and other 'under served' populations.

* He points out that a 'good education' does NOT equate to a college degree, especially considering the lack of 'quality' education many students are getting in today's public schools.

* He looks at employment outlooks that show many anticipated job openings are in fields that might require specialized training, but do not require a college degree.

* He questions why existing opportunities are not sufficient to meet the demand. (And note that neither President Obama nor Comm. Konop have indicated a 'demand' for more college graduates - especially in such fields as women studies or English literature.)

While the article is from 2002, the points are as valid today as they were then. Even if you look at the 'green job's' being touted by the President and Konop, you'll see that many of them are for tasks that certainly do not require an 'advanced' degree. Does a window or insulation installer need a four-year bachelor's degree - or just some on-the-job training?

Konop should read the article ... but I won't hold my breath waiting for his 'rebuttal.'

It's called 'savings' for a reason

Dictionary.com defines 'savings' as:

–noun
5. a reduction or lessening of expenditure or outlay: a saving of 10 percent.
6. something that is saved.
7. savings, sums of money saved by economy and laid away.

Pretty simply, isn't it? Common sense? Definitely. If you have cost 'savings,' it means money not spent.

Except when it comes to politicians - especially in our area.

The most recent example is Lucas County Commissioner and mayoral candidate Ben Konop's idea for garbage.

You see, he doesn't think that anyone over 62 or disabled is capable of putting out their trash on a weekly basis - so government needs to do it for them.

Let's start with the condescending attitude that age equates to infirmity. My parents are both over the age of 62 and are perfectly capable of taking out their garbage, even in bad weather. Now, I recognize that not everyone over 62 is in good health, but to set an age limit doesn't make sense.

It does make sense to address those with disabilities. But if a person has a disability, how are they taking care of their garbage right now? The new cans will have wheels which make them easier to maneuver - and residents have the option of smaller sizes to fit their needs. So the new cans aren't any more difficult than whatever is being used right now by people with disabilities.

The suggestion that people with disabilities need help might also be offensive to those with disabilities who prefer to think of themselves as 'differently abled' and who have made accommodations for such routine tasks as taking out their garbage.

Konop also suggests that it's not 'morally right' to 'force' someone to take care of their garbage:

"It's not morally right to force a 95-year-old grandmother in the city of Toledo living alone to take one of these to the curb by herself," Mr. Konop said, pointing out the increased difficulty of doing it in winter.

This is the same Konop who thinks he has 'no moral obligation' to appear on WSPD radio, so I'm not sure about his judgment when it comes to 'moral' issues. But even if you think he's right about the grandmother, does that mean that you and I need to pay taxes in order to meet what Konop believes is a 'moral obligation'? (And just how many of these grandmothers do we actually have in Toledo????) Aye, there's the rub...and the point of this post.

He didn't have a cost estimate. "If there are additional costs, I think we can generate it from savings," he said.

I do not understand why it is that politicians, and Konop in particular, think that finding savings in government operations means that the money can be spent in another way that they think is equally, or more, important.

Konop has suggested savings in county government operations in the past - some of which I believe deserve further examination and discussion. But he didn't want to have savings in order to reduce the overall cost of government. No, he wanted those savings so he could spend the money on his pet projects (can you say government funded scholarships). And his suggestion for his latest 'bold, fresh, new' proposal is to again use taxpayer funds for what he thinks is a better use.

Konop isn't the only one - politicians do this all the time. They decide they want X so they take money from Y or generate 'savings' from cutting Z and then put the money toward what they want (or what they've told their constituents they can get them) and they think all is well. Obviously, if government has the money it needs to spend it. Heaven forbid that they actually return any of it to the taxpayer who provided it. And they only look for 'savings' when they have another need for the funds - they rarely, if ever, decide to reduce the cost and size of government 'just because' it's the right thing to do.

What they all fail to realize (or maybe they do realize and just don't care) is that savings created should not be spent in the first place - they should be used for either the long-term needs of the mandated - and limited - functions of government, to cover down times like we're having now so we jurisdictions don't end up laying off police officers, or returned to the public from whence it came.

That's what we all do with savings. Think government will ever learn that lesson?

Konop gets heckled...

Several media outlets mentioned this, but Justin Billau has the video...

Random Thoughts on a Wednesday

* A recent Blade editorial praised the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Passed by Congress and signed by the President on Monday, it expands government control over the production and marketing of tobacco products.

We all know that smoking is bad for you - but so are a lot of other things. If this product is so bad for you that government has to mandate huge warnings on the package (as if we didn't already know the facts) why not just go ahead and make the things illegal?

Because politicians (and anti-smoking advocates) know that they cannot outlaw smoking - which is what many would like - because the public would revolt. So they attack it incrementally, removing a bit of freedom here, a bit of freedom there ... all under the guise of 'promoting public health.' They know what's best for you and so they'll take things slowly until one day when you'll wake up and wonder how government was able to mandate what you eat, drink and consume.

Of course, they're also counting on the revenue taxes on these products generate - a bit of irony, don't you think?

* Congress has passed the 'cash for clunkers' provision which, in case you haven't heard, would confiscate tax dollars from everyone in order to subsidize the purchase of new vehicle for some. Now, you only get the subsidy if you're trading in a 1984 model or later for a vehicle that gets at least four miles to the gallon more than the one you're trading in.

It's no surprise that liberals love this new law...but here's the problem. The old vehicles have to be scrapped. What, you ask? That's right. The old vehicles cannot be resold or traded, they must be destroyed.

This means that people without the financial ability to purchase new cars will no longer have older cars in the market. When you reduce supply, but the demand stays the same, the prices go up, making it harder for people in difficult economic times to actually afford the transportation that everyone says is key to getting and maintaining a job.

Liberals, of course, love the fact that the cars will no longer be consuming more gasoline than they think is proper. But the 'poor' people they constantly claim to want to 'help,' will be worse off in the long run.

And then there is the unintended consequences of the law. If a dealership must scrap the traded-in vehicle, it has no value to them. They're not going to give you a fair market value for the car with the hope of re-selling it for a bit more in order to make a profit. No - because they cannot re-sell it, you're only going to get what the government is willing to pay you for the vehicle. And that amount may be significantly (at least in these economic conditions) less than what the dealer would normally offer prior to the law taking effect.

Government has now interfered again in the free market - substituting their social agenda for the fair trading of goods.

And they claim we're not heading toward socialism....

* Lucas County Commissioner and Toledo mayoral candidate Ben Konop submitted an op-ed piece to the paper, which they published. It touts his idea to take savings from privatizing the county life squad transportation services to create a scholarship fund so people in Lucas County can go to college for free. Well, almost free, because they'd have to 'give back' to the community by performing one hour of 'service' for every $20 of scholarship they get.

As I've said before, if there are savings to be had in county government, let's look at them. Konop has previously suggested a work week of four 10-hour days. I think it needs to be considered - along with any other money-saving ideas. Gather the facts, evaluate the proposals, and, if they can result in the same level of service for less cost, go ahead! Don't wait until there is agreement on how to spend the savings before creating the savings in the first place.

Of course, Konop's ideas are NOT about savings for tax payers. They're all about how to get his ideas implemented, which is why you haven't seen any of his potentially good cost-savings ideas go anywhere.

Side note: he likens the area to a "sinking business lacking in forward-thinking leadership" and says, "We're speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, and all anyone cares to do is argue over which radio station we're listening to."
Actually, Ben, the car speeding toward the edge of the cliff is government spending and your idea is just more of the same. So who's really playing with the radio?

* We all know how Mayor Carty Finkbeiner likes to read articles about other cities and then try to duplicate their experiments here...Well, I just hope he hasn't seen this, or this yet.

* In case you missed it, Justin's got a great clip of mayoral candidate Keith Wilkowski and Vice President Joe Biden. Apparently, Wilkowski was being so disruptive that Biden called it a 'conniption fit' in finally calling on him.

* Thomas Sowell is one of my favorites. In his column today, he starts with: "Even if the "stimulus" package doesn't seem to be doing much to stimulate the economy, it is certainly stimulating many potential recipients of government money to start lining up at the trough." So true - so true....

(And this column is also an excellent rebuttal to Konop's scholarship scheme, though I doubt Konop would heed any of it...)

On the campaign trail #1

* In response to comments made by mayoral candidate and Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner issued the following statement:

"Candidates for public office should never use human tragedy to further their political ambitions or agendas. Mr. Konop should be ashamed of himself."

Of course, never one to take his own advice, Finkbeiner did exactly that when he announced the suicide of a 'very good friend' in a Toledo park. He was trying to make a point about safety even during layoffs of police officers, saying that the mother of the man did not blame the suicide on a lack of police officers to patrol the park. Of course, the tragedy occurred in Maumee, not Toledo, but Carty should be 'ashamed of himself for using human tragedy to further his political ambition and agenda.'

* There's more evidence of bias from The Blade when it comes to headlines in the mayoral race. As I've previously documented, the lack of the candidate's name in the headline is a subtle bias designed to impact name ID and recognition. Here are the latest headlines and word counts for the most recent press conferences:

Konop sees savings in city-county office merger - 289 words (candidate Ben Konop, Democrat)

Bell says city needs business advocate
Mayoral candidate wants to cut red tape, rules - 294 words (candidate Mike Bell, Democrat running as an Independent)

Wilkowski criticizes city for $2.5M paid in severance - 523 words (candidate Keith Wilkowski, Democrat)

Toledo mayoral candidate focuses on livability - 270 words (candidate Jim Moody, Republican)

All stories included photos of the candidates, with photos of Moody, Bell and Konop being upper body shots of them talking and gesturing with their hands. Wilkowski's photo is a head shot with a dark background, so it looks portrait-like. And Wilkowski is smiling.

* I've not covered the city council races yet. It seems like every day there is a new candidate announcing their run for one of the seats. After the petitions are in and certified, I'll cover the candidates who will be on the ballot.

I'm encouraged at how many people are actually pulling petitions and think we may set a record for the number of contenders. I'm not surprised, though, by the number who want to run as an independent. I think the number of candidates indicates that people are not only tired of the current decisions being made by the people who hold those offices, but also tired of the same old party politics that have given us these incumbents.

Random Thoughts on a Sunday morning

* President Obama has said he wants reforms for credit card contracts. He wants protections that "forbid abusive fees and penalties" and said that plain language should be used. "No more fine print, no more confusing terms and conditions. We want clarity and transparency from here on out."

Can he please start first with the IRS and apply these conditions to them - and then to Congress?????

* The Blade editorial board has slammed the Ohio Supreme Court for upholding the confidentiality of attorney-client privilege and exemptions of such correspondence from Ohio's public records law. This was a ridiculous position for The Blade to have taken and they deserved their ruling. While their motives have nothing to do with the Court's decision, the only reason they wanted the report released was so that they could continue to attack Jim Hartung. It's not enough that the man is no longer the president of the Port Authority - they just want to bury him.

Their penchant for vendettas is part of what has cost them any semblance of credibility. Sadly, it doesn't seem to stop them.

* Can you say "CONTRADICTION"?

This past week, Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop asked the Warren County Commissioners to send him the stimulus funds they don't need and want to return. Warren County responded politely, telling Konop that such a decision would defeat the purpose of returning funds in the first place. (Read the correspondence here.)

Konop's statement upon receiving the response was, in part:

"...I will not get into a right-wing-radio-fueled, Rush Limbaugh-esque debate about taxes. Now is not the time for political posturing. Our job losses are real. Our home foreclosures are real. Our challenges are real. Despite Mr. Kilburn's objections and rejection, I will continue to fight for every dollar out there to provide the services our taxpayers deserve. Also, I will not apologize for, nor will I stop, pursuing every angle to put our citizens back to work. ..."

But just two days later, Konop, contradicts himself:

In a prepared response, Democratic opponent Ben Konop said he saw "a troubling pattern" - a reliance on taxpayer dollars "that don't exist."

So when you're slamming a campaign opponent, you oppose using tax dollars that don't exist, but when Warren County Commissioners tell you that the stimulus funds you want to take from them are tax dollars that don't exist, you don't want to discuss the issue? Unbelievable!

Konop also said:

"Now is not the time for pie-in-the-sky proposals," Mr. Konop said.

You mean, like having trash collectors serve as crime fighters? Or subsidizing loans so people can buy art? Or participating in fake food stamp challenges? Or using tax dollars to pay for a college education for everyone in Lucas County? etc., etc., etc., ...

Will anyone else call him on this?

* When it comes to Toledo's budget, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't aware of the massive deficit. Revenue predictions for income tax collections are a major part of the problem, as they are significantly below previous years.

But here's a critical question that no one is asking: Since it is now the end of April, what have the ACTUAL collections been for the first quarter? Are they consistent with projections? Are they higher - or lower? Where do we stand for the first quarter of the year???

Before council acts to raise taxes to address what is projected to be a decline in revenue, can we first get some FACTS about what the revenue actually is? Maybe then they can make informed decisions - for a change.