Township officials urge 'NO' on all county levies

Here is a copy of the letter that 14 elected officials in eight of Lucas County's 11 townships have signed. I think the letter says it all, especially this point:

We believe one questions must be asked by the Commissioners prior to putting any levy on the ballot, and each individual voter prior to casting their vote on a property tax levy: “Is this levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

I think this also applies to city and school levies, too. Did Toledo City Council ask themselves this question before they decided they just had to have a brand new tax levy for recreation in the city?

You might not have your home, but you can have 'recreation' ... what a bargain!

Did Toledo Public School board members ask themselves this question before they decided they just had to have a brand new tax levy - on top of their multiple other levies - for a school system that has a budget carryover and health care savings that total a couple of million dollars MORE than the levy will give them in the next year?!?

As if more money will reverse their five-year trend of spending more than take in or help Pickett Elementary which has been in academic emergency for 12 years!


Here is the letter:

We, the undersigned Elected Officials in Lucas County do hereby state:

1) We believe our County Representatives are not acting like responsible leaders in placing numerous levies on the ballot.

2) We believe that the residents in our jurisdictions are becoming overburdened by the numerous “quality of life” levies that are already included in their property tax bills.

3) We believe that by placing these numerous “quality of life” levies on the ballot, the Lucas County Commissioners are jeopardizing our chances of getting any future levies passed for essential services such as Roads, Police, Fire and Schools.

4) We do not want to see our residents become financially burdened by their property taxes and potentially face losing their homes if they become unable to pay.

5) We believe that all of the levy requests that will be on the November Ballot are not “needs” for our community, but “wants” by these organizations.

6) We believe that it is irresponsible for our County Officials to allow the “wants” of these various organizations to become such a burden to the property owners of Lucas County that they can no longer afford to pay for the “needs”.

7) We believe one questions must be asked by the Commissioners prior to putting any levy on the ballot, and each individual voter prior to casting their vote on a property tax levy: “Is this levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

As such, we are asking the voters not just in our jurisdictions, but in all of Lucas County to vote “NO” on every county wide levy request that is on the your ballot in November. We must take a stand to get the attention of our County Commissioners. We must make them realize that we want the process to get a property tax levy on the ballot in Lucas County to be extremely difficult, not just a rubber stamp.

And that new levy review committee which I fought when I was a commissioner has 'recommended' all these levies and others in the past. Do the commissioner have nothing to fear from constituents because they hide behind individuals unaccountable to the public to decide if a levy is 'worth it'? I think so.

We'll talk about this today when I fill in for Brian Wilson on 1370 WSPD from 3-6 p.m. Eastern.

More GOP Clubs go against LCRP's levy endorsements

Immediately after the Lucas County Republican Party voted (questionably) to endorse several levies, including the third levy request for COSI, the Toledo Young Republican Club announced their opposition to the endorsements.

(Background information on the LCRP executive committee meeting and the issues that arose regarding the voting, the lack of notice to members of the committee and the lack of quorum.)

Now the Greater Toledo Republican Women's club has voted to oppose the endorsement decision. Their press release, issued late last night:

Toledo, OH - The Executive Board of the Greater Toledo Republican Women voted unanimously to speak out against the decision of the Lucas County Republican Party to endorse a variety of tax levies, including the COSI Levy. As Republicans we have no business lending our support to increase taxes for our community.

"I was shocked to hear that Mr. Stainbrook would push for the support of any type of levy." said Kay Clawson. "Had I been informed of the meeting I would certainly have been there. I hope Mr. Stainbrook will strive to adhere to our party bylaws in regards to future meetings."

And this from the Fallen Timbers Republican Club:

The Fallen Timbers Republican Club joins other area clubs denouncing the endorsement of Levies by the Party Chairman

In following the admirable lead of Jeff Simpson and The Young Republican Club, The Fallen Timbers Republican Club Executive Board Members officially oppose the endorsement of levies, including the COSI levy, by the Lucas County Republican Party. The Club was prompted to take a public stance due to extensive contacts from it's membership regarding their disenchantment with the disappointing endorsement of the levies by Jon Stainbrook, Chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party.

The endorsement of these levies mar the core beliefs of the Republican Party. The Club is strongly against tax increases and the funneling of public funds to non-profit/private entities. Our members are resolute with their opposition to levies such as COSI, which clearly violates the soul of the Republican Party and conservative principals. The Club is strongly against tax increases and the funneling of public funds to non-profit/private entities. Our members are resolute with their opposition to endorsing levies which clearly violates the soul of the Republican Party and conservative principals.

The Fallen Timbers Republican Club believes that COSI should be privately-funded and not subsidized by the already over-taxed families in Lucas County. When COSI was founded, it was intended to be self-sufficient by donations and admission fees. Furthermore, citizens have given the responsibility and their tax dollars to public schools to teach science not to non-profit/private entities such as COSI.

FTRC President and Lucas County Republican Party Executive Member Christine Seles was not notified of the Executive meeting by the LCRP and is quoted as saying: "I would have voted “no” on any motion to endorse COSI or any other levy. My position is that elected officials should not tell people how to vote, and as a republican I am unsettled at the local chairman’s position on endorsing taxes. The voter should be allowed to form their own judgments on how to spend their hard earned dollars."

Furthermore the FTRC Officers would like to express our dismay that Jon Stainbrook did not adhere to the LCRP by-laws. Chairman Stainbrook did not inform the entire executive committee of the meeting. The FTRC has been informed by an member and other attendees that the meeting was not properly conducted in compliance with Roberts Rules of Order, and that Chairman Stainbrook voted twice on the same motion to break a tie vote. We would hope that the LCRP by-laws and proper parliamentary procedure is followed at future LCRP meetings.

To be a "Maverick" is to stand up and fight for what is right when you see something is wrong. The FTRC is inspired by Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, our true American Maverick's, as we also make our stand to protect the core principals of the republican party.

Sincerely,
The Executive Board of the Fallen Timbers Republican Club,
Christine Seles, FTRC President
Jan Lowe, Vice President
Diane Haupricht, Treasurer
Barbara Mott, Secretary
Stephen Imes, Sgt. At Arms

COSI gets endorsement of Lucas County Republican Party

Amid a series on controversial votes, it appears that the Lucas County Republican Party has endorsed the third COSI levy, despite the rejection of this levy by voters twice before.

According to several reports, there was a motion to adjourn the meeting due to a lack of proper notice to many members of the executive committee. The LCRP bylaws call for a 5-day notice of the meeting to all members of the executive committee via U.S. mail. I spoke to several people who never received the mailed notice, but who did get a last-minute phone call.

Again, according to what I was told, Chairman Jon Stainbrook ignored the required lack of notice.

It was also brought up that Stainbrook prohibited an elected state central committee woman from entering the meeting. The elected state central committee members are, according to the bylaws, members of the executive committee and, as such, are expected to participate in the executive committee.

Now, the person banned from the meeting was Joann Wack, someone Stainbrook has publicly opposed and against whom he's made several charges. His issues with her aside, she is still the state central committeewoman and he cannot ban her from participation because he doesn't like her.

Stainbrook also named additional members of the executive committee. According to the bylaws of the party, the membership of the executive committee is as follows:

ARTICLE VIII
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

A. An Executive Committee shall be formed after the organizational meeting of the Central Committee. Membership shall include:

1. All Lucas County Republican ward chairmen.
2. The elected officers of the Central Committee, plus three (3) additional officers to be selected by the Central Committee Chairman.
3. The members of the State Republican Central Committee who reside in Lucas County.
4. The president or designee of any Lucas County Republican auxiliary club with twenty-five (25) or more paid members that has been recognized during the previous two (2) years by the Executive Committee as an active Republican organization.
5. Past LCRP Chairmen who reside in Lucas County.
6. Any Lucas County Republican officeholder elected in a general election who requests appointment by the Chairman.
7. The Party Chairman may appoint any registered Republican residing in Lucas County to be an at-large member of the Committee. The number of the Party Chairman’s appointees shall not exceed the number of members listed in Numbers 1, 2, and 4 of this section.
8. Members who serve in more than one (1) position shall have only one vote.

So Stainbrook does have appointment authority, but his appointments cannot exceed the combined numbers of ward chairmen, club presidents and the central committee officers.

Apparently, there was a question as to how many people could be appointed, with Stainbrook making a comment about being able to appoint as many people as he wanted.

Then came the discussion of the issues. There were questions about which issues would be considered for endorsement and Stainbrook decided only issues with a representative present would be considered. It was unknown whether or not Stainbrook informed the campaigns for the issues that they would be considered at this meeting in order for them to provide a representative. And reports indicate that there was no one present to represent COSI, even though that issue was voted upon.

There was a motion to abstain from endorsing any issue. The result of that vote was an 11-11 tie, with Stainbrook voting no. Under parliamentary procedure, the motion would fail because it did not have a majority. However, Stainbrook, despite voting 'no' already, decided that, as chairman, he could break the tie - so he voted again.

The Children Services Board levy was voted on and passed. The Port Authority levy was voted on and passed. Then the COSI levy was voted on and received a vote of 10-10. Again, under parliamentary procedure, the motion to endorse the levy would have failed. However, despite voting 'yes' to endorse COSI, making the vote 10 in favor, Stainbrook decided again that he would break the tie, thus resulting in an 11-10 vote to endorse the COSI levy.

Now, how support of these levies represents the core principles of the Republican Party of limited government and lower taxation apparently was never part of the discussion.

But for the chairman of the executive committee to vote twice is beyond any distortion of parliamentary procedure - and should be rejected by all Republicans in Lucas County.

Additionally, the lack of proper notice to members of the executive committee - as required by the bylaws - should negate any action taken tonight. Didn't Stainbrook make a huge stink about proper notice prior to being elected chairman of the party? Has he now embraced the very actions he once opposed? It appears so.

When I served on the executive committee - something I did for my entire time as an elected official - the executive committee would schedule a meeting and invite all the levy representatives to come and give a presentation. We also invited any opposition campaigns to give a presentation as well. We'd have them come in, give the presentation, answer our questions and then excuse them. We'd then decide whether or not we were going to take a position on the levy and, if so, we'd vote. The chairman never voted as part of the decision, though I suppose they could have cast a vote if we had a tie.

The LCRP will suffer criticism for the way this endorsement process was handled - or, rather, mishandled. Additionally, I expect there will be a huge outcry against Stainbrook and the party for endorsing the COSI levy - except from The Blade. I expect an editorial praising Stainbrook and the party for their 'courage' to endorse COSI will not be too far in the future.

Whether or not you personally support the COSI levy, you cannot - under any distortion of principles - claim that endorsing this levy represents the core values and principles of the Republican Party. Supporting a taxation of citizens in order to fund a non-profit entity that has proven it cannot support itself is contrary to the fundamental precepts of the GOP, including limited government, individual responsibility, and limited taxation - taxation only for the constitutionally mandated functions of government.

And local Republicans, being the people they are, will probably register their objections to this abandonment of principles by not supporting the party with their labor or their funds, rather than in any public commentary. But it would be foolish to underestimate their outrage over this.

It's only democracy if we get the vote results we want

This morning I heard Fred Lefebvre, morning show host on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD, read an email exchange between Ingrid and Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop.

Ingrid was opposed to putting the COSI levy on the ballot for a third time. Konop supports it, calling it 'democracy' to be able to vote on the issue. Ingrid pointed out that we've already voted on the issue twice, but Konop was undeterred.

I guess, according to Konop, that it's only 'democracy' when the vote outcome matches our personal desires.

My hope was that Comm. Pete Gerken would stand by his earlier comment that he wouldn't be able to support a third request unless there was significant change in the business plan presented by COSI. According to the information they submitted to the county's Citizen Levy Review Committee, the only 'change' was that this was a presidential election and more people are expected to go to the polls.

However, based upon a press conference yesterday, Gerken's criteria for 'change in the business plan' might be a bit different from my own. Several businesses have announced they will form a 'Businesses for COSI' committee to push for passage of the ballot issue.

"County Commissioner Pete Gerken said the new partnerships made him more likely to support the levy.

“It gives it a different flavor,” he said. “It doesn’t look like a retread of what didn’t work before.”"

Now, my question would be why the 'Businesses for COSI' weren't working on permanent funding for the facility rather than telling us that we should tax ourselves for it. And are we even remotely surprised that three of the four companies leading the effort are represented on the COSI Board?

Ronald Unnerstall, quoted in The Blade article today, is a COSI board member. Steve Krull from Owens Corning does not serve on the board, but fellow employees David Johns and Thomas Winston do. First Solar is also represented on the COSI board by former CEO Chip Hambro.

While I'm grateful for the corporate support these companies have and are offering, I take exception to them telling me I should tax myself for a facility I don't use and which has, over the last 10 years, had a negligible impact on math and science test scores, simply because they think I should. I'm tired of other people telling me what the best uses for my money are - or calling me 'uncaring, insensitive and mean' because I want to spend my money on my priorities rather than on theirs.

Then there was the last line in the newspaper article.

"So far, the levy campaign has raised $220,000, according to Lori Hauser, COSI’s director of operations."

If COSI can raise nearly a quarter of a million dollars to run a levy campaign, wouldn't their time be better spent raising that money for their continued operations? If they put as much effort into fundraising for their museum as they do for the levy, imagine where they'd be today - perhaps still open???

Contradictions abound - UPDATED

Update: I made a mistake in my calculations and have corrected this post accordingly.

Our local newspaper, The Blade, has an interesting editorial board. Unfortunately, they just can't stop contradicting themselves.

In this editorial about COSI, and in previous ones regarding their levy requests, The Blade makes the point that the cost of COSI is a "paltry $5.21 a year" for the owner of $100,000 home.

They've also supported just about every other levy that's ever been on the ballot.

However, in this editorial about dog licenses, they think $25 for a yearly licenses is too high:

Dog ownership should not be a privilege only of the well-to-do. People from every strata of life benefit from pet ownership, not to mention that for many, our first lessons in responsibility were learned feeding, watering, grooming, walking, and playing with a pet, often a dog. But excessive fees, such as Lucas County's highest-in-Ohio $25, encourage people, especially those of modest means, not to license their pets.

Reducing the annual fee, giving low-income families a discount, and offering on-the-spot licensing instead of a citation are ideas that might lead to more people obtaining tags for their canine friends.

So how can $25 be too much for people to pay, but they can urge voters to increase their property tax bills when they endorsed every levy on the ballot last November?

If you can afford all the other costs of a dog, shouldn't you also be capable of affording the $25 license?

If you can't afford a $25 dog license, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that you can't afford any additional property taxes for a science museum, public transportation or the zoo?

Does anyone else see the contradiction in these two positions, or is it just me?

Weekend round-up

The editors of The Blade think that we, the voters of Lucas County, just don't understand tax levies. In this editorial, they say "(t)he third time should be a charm for COSI Toledo."

Yes, two failed levies and they think it needs to be on the ballot again.

"COSI may ask voters again to help fund the museum with a 0.167-mill levy, the same amount as last year. That would be a good move, provided it is backed up with an adequate campaign to educate the public about what's at stake."

You see, we just didn't understand what was at stake when we defeated the two previous levies.

I guess we didn't understand that OUR priorities for spending were more important than theirs - and COSI's. I guess we didn't understand that the management of the facility was lacking in sound financial practices. I guess we didn't understand that the attraction didn't continue to attract attendees because they didn't keep their exhibits current. I guess we didn't understand that such a museum needed to do more to be self-sufficient rather than rely upon eventually turning to taxpayers for support. I guess we didn't understand that Toledo tax dollars were already subsidizing the facility through the payment of utilities. I guess we didn't understand that the financials for the facility showed that it was not sustainable when it was first built. I guess we just don't 'get it.'

But when you consider all these points, I'm of the opinion that the voters are actually smarter than the Blade editors because they chose NOT to give their tax dollars to a non-profit organization that shouldn't ever be on the ballot in the first place.

In the end, The Blade thinks "COSI should give Toledo voters another chance to reconsider the folly of previous levy failures. Maybe a third time will be lucky." COSI should give US another chance??? COSI hasn't done anything to earn another chance from us - and hopefully the Board of County Commissioners will, for a change, heed the will of the voters and tell COSI no when when they ask to put another levy on the November ballot.

***

The Lucas County Republican Party has a new chairman - Jon Stainbrook. He was elected by the Central Committee during their meeting Saturday. Of course, winning the chairmanship is the easy step. Raising the money and following through with all the promises is where the real work begins - and it's much harder to do than it is to say.

***

The City of Toledo, in an anti-business move, took over providing ambulance services and is now getting ready to make their first lease payment on the vehicles. They're saying that they've billed about $1.4 million - as they planned in their original budget. What they don't say is how much they've actually collected. Hopefully city council members will ask about the money actually received as part of the discussion on the payment.

The Fire Department also says that response times have improved. That's because they dispatch an ambulance with the rescue squad, ensuring that the ambulance and rescue squad arrive at almost the same time. Of course, when the private ambulance companies suggested this very same dispatching protocol, the Fire Department objected. You see, if an ambulance with a paramedic arrived before a rescue squad, that paramedic could begin to provide treatment and care - and wouldn't have to turn over the patient to the Fire Department upon arrival. And that just wasn't acceptable to the Fire Department and their union members.

Now that the union members are providing the ambulance services, it's okay to dispatch at the same time, so it's clear that this wasn't really about 'patient care' because they could have accomplished the same 'reduced transport times' by changing their dispatching protocol.

In the mean time, private ambulance companies have laid off employees, reducing the amount of payroll taxes the City collects. I wonder if any council members will think to ask about how much tax revenue the city's lost when they evaluate the 'success' of the ambulance program.

Another COSI levy?

WSPD News is reporting that the city is considering spending tax dollars to mothball the COSI building ($6,900 per month) ... and that COSI wants to put another levy on the ballot in November.

I guess their defeat last year wasn't enough of a notice that residents in Lucas County just don't have the money to be taxed for a science museum.

The only way they can get on the ballot is if the Board of County Commissioners votes to put their levy on the ballot. Considering all their complaining about how bad county residents have it, I can't imagine that the three commissioners will vote yes ... but this is Lucas County where elected officials never met a tax they didn't like.

Stay tuned...I'm sure it will get much more interesting.

NBC 24 Exclusive on COSI - UPDATED

NBC 24 is reporting that Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and Lucas County Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak met today with COSI board members to discuss keeping Toledo's Center of Science & Industry open for another year -- and then placing a third levy request on the ballot.

NBC 24's Aaron Brilbeck spoke to COSI Chairman David Waterman this afternoon.

Watch NBC 24's news at 6 p.m. for more details!.

This will be Tuesday's topic on Eye on Toledo at 6 p.m. on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD.

From NBC 24:

A new plan to save COSI

By Aaron Brilbeck
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2007 at 5:43 p.m.

(Toledo)--Twice, voters have said they don't want any more tax dollars used to save COSI. But today, a "top secret meeting" was held to do just that. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner called the meeting today with local business and political leaders.

That despite taxpayers sending a clear message by turning down not one-but two COSI levies. The most recent just a few weeks ago.

But NBC24 has learned the mayor held a secret, closed door meeting to discuss having the county and city use tax dollars to keep COSI's doors open at least for the short term. We're told city and county leaders at the meeting also talked about possible long term solutions to keep COSI open.

And while COSI Board Chair Waterman says there seems to be a lot of support, no real concrete answers came out of the meeting.

Waterman says if there is a taxpayer funded bailout, it would have to be enough money to keep COSI open for at least a year.

Arrogance and Condescension in Lucas County

Well, there you have it. The voters in Lucas County rejected, for the second time, a levy to fund COSI. That means we're "unwise" if you listen to our mayor, or "nervous" if you listen to the editorial board of The Blade.

I prefer to think that the voters were neither. Just because we disagreed with you doesn't mean that we're wrong - unless you are so arrogant as to think that you always know best and those who fail to follow along are just in need of education. But this is an attitude we see so often from those 'in power' or considered 'elite.'

The Blade's editorial says "It's a mystery why Lucas County voters rejected COSI's request for nominal taxpayer support..." It's no mystery to anyone who bothered to actually talk to many residents - they don't want to be taxed for this. They don't want to increase their own property taxes and they don't believe this non-profit organization should be on the public dole. They obviously think that the Board wasn't responsible enough with the money they did have to give them any more, especially when Board Chairman Dave Waterman said that they've had a failing business plan for 10 years - but they aren't developing a new one or making changes in the failed one in anticipation of tax receipts.

Rather than wonder why we could have possible said no to this - The Blade and the Mayor should be asking why, in light of declining revenues and attendance, they said yes!

And calling the tax 'nominal,' 'mere' and other terms designed to makes us feel bad for being so 'stingy,' doesn't enhance the position any. In fact, I believe voters are beginning to see through this tactic and reject it.

The Blade says:

"Many complicated reasons can be involved when voters refuse levies. Maybe this one failed because it was a new tax, which makes voters nervous in wobbly economic times. Other levies - for Lucas County's public libraries, Metroparks, and TARTA - were successful, but they were renewals."

(Aside to the editorial writer: they weren't renewals - they were replacements. And if you can't get that right???)

Again, it's not complicated if you talk to people or pay attention to what is going on in the community. People are complaining about being overtaxed; we've got commissioners doing fake food stamp challenges because so many residents 'have to struggle just to eat'; commissioners give out gasoline cards because people can't afford the increased gas prices; and our welfare offices give out vouchers to pay for winter heating because it's too costly and our fellow residents just can't afford it. Of course, we also lead the state in terms of number of foreclosures and, according to these same elected officials, it's so bad we have to have a foreclosure task force! Plus, we lead the urban communities in unemployment - and our population is declining.

Yep - it sure is a mystery why we didn't vote to increase our tax burden! Actually, I think the real mystery is why, considering all of this, any of the levies passed.

But The Blade comes to at least one incorrect conclusion. They say, "It's hard to believe, though, that anyone would think COSI wasn't worthwhile." I didn't hear anyone say COSI wasn't worthwhile. What I did hear them say is that it shouldn't be funded with tax dollars - that if it's SOOOO worthwhile as supporters claim, it should be able to earn the donations and memberships of private individuals.

The incorrect conclusion is to assume an opinion of COSI based upon a rejection of a particular funding mechanism. But when you're trying to embarrass or shame the public into adopting your perspective on the issue, such reason and logic about funding mechanisms are intentionally confused with emotion over the product/services being offered in an attempt to persuade. (see also Emotion versus Reason)

To think that your opinion of 'worthwhile' is all that is needed to tax the entire public is yet another example of the arrogant and condescending attitude that is so prevalent in the area. But it's especially so when you consider the access that The Blade has to all their prior stories on COSI.

In a quick review of old Blade articles I found Brent Cousino, COSI board treasurer, saying that they lost money every year of operation. I found that, in May 2001, COSI's attendance was down 5%, even before the events of September 11th. Based upon the numbers in multiple articles, I found that their attendance, while averaging 250,000 per year since opening, was actually an average of 155,000 over the last 8 years. And considering other references to declining attendance, was probably much less than that over the last 4.

It's also a shame that our local newspaper intentionally ignored all the signs of trouble as well as the original promise COSI made to never go to the voters for support.

But the voters aren't the only ones being chided in the editorial.

"City officials say they are not writing COSI's obituary yet. That's encouraging, but we didn't notice much of a push from Government Center before the election, which might have meant the difference."

But, just wait. Now that said elected officials have realized that the voters have a different position than they do, they'll embark upon their own campaign to 'educate us' on the error of our ways.

In fact, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and our three county commissioners, Tina Skeldon Wozniak, Pete Gerken and Ben Konop, signed a letter sent to all 34 board members asking them to keep COSI open.

"On behalf of the citizens of the City of Toledo and Lucas County, we encourage COSI to stay open until a logical future-funding plan can be discussed. We will work to seek the help that you need in order to make this happen.

In the meantime, we encourage you to keep your doors open. We fear if you close, we may lose this valuable resource forever.

Yours from Toledo – a City of the Future! *"

First, you don't speak for me. You're supposed to represent me and the other residents of the city and county. You are NOT supposed to subordinate our demonstrated decisions to your own opinions. The voters have spoken - twice, and by a greater margin than the first time - that they do not want to fund COSI with tax dollars.

If - and I emphasize IF - you do anything, you had better not expend any public dollars on this failing entity. To go against the wishes of the voters in this regard would be tantamount to asking for an uprising - unless you think we're so dumb as to let you get away with that.

But, given the past actions of voters in this regard, you may have grounds to believe you will suffer no consequences. I believe, however, that times have changed and that the voters are wiser and more knowledgeable than they've been in the past. This COSI vote demonstrates that, and YOU would be 'wise' to consider this fact.

Sadly, the issue of voter apathy gets lost in these details about a specific levy. Less than 30% of the registered voters bothered to exercise their right on Tuesday. But when you consider comments by the mayor, letters urging the opposite of what voters decided and newspaper editorials telling us we're stingy for not increasing our tax burden - not to mention the arrogance and condescension so evident in these missives - is it any wonder why people think their vote doesn't matter?

Voters wanted to keep the old workhouse open but officials closed it anyway. Voters rejected (either two or three times) building a convention center, but officials built it anyway. While there may be some technical points, many Toledoans thought they voted to build a new arena on the East Side - but it's being built in downtown Toledo (and still without a solid funding stream to support the projected $100 million in costs). And the same entities who supported going against the voter wishes on these projects are now suggesting that it's time to do so again - this time with COSI.

And those same people wonder why so many don't bother to go to the polls??? It's no mystery to me.

As for the future of COSI, it seems obvious. There are bank presidents, accountants and corporate leaders on the board of COSI. If COSI came to them and asked them to invest their own monies, would they? Would Huntington, FirstMerit, National City, Bank of Maumee or Key Bank loan this business any money? Would any accountant or fiscal officer risk the funds they were responsible for in this institution with this kind of fiscal history? And if their answer is 'no' why do they expect the voters to be any different?

The voters have spoken - twice. It's time to abide by what they decided.

Post-Election Thoughts

For complete results of the Lucas County election results, you can go here, to the Lucas County Board of Elections, who did a nice job of regularly posting updated results throughout the night.

To the winners, congratulations. Now the hard work begins as any incumbent knows. To the newcomers: you'll be a bit overwhelmed at first with all the things you don't know, but you'll catch on very quickly and your constituents are counting on you to keep the promises you made. I wish you success in this endeavor.

To those who lost, my sincerest thanks and appreciation. You offered the voters a choice, which is something not everyone had in this election. You gave of yourself in terms of your time and energy - and often in terms of your own funds - and you sacrificed attendance at other events in order to be where the voters were. Having been through this process, I recognize the great toll running a campaign can have on you, your family, and even your shoes. I hope that, despite your loss at the polls, you are rewarded by your participation, by the supporters who worked hard on your behalf because they believed in you, and the votes you did receive.

Congratulations to the Library and the MetroParks for their replacement levies. While I questioned the amount of the money requested in these difficult (for many) economic times, there was never any question of the quality of your institutions nor of the services your provide. I do hope, however, that you will constantly re-evaluate what you do and how you do it. Your levies will be up again and, at that time, many of the same questions asked this time around will be asked again. It would be nice if you had a list of things you've done to reduce costs and stay within the budget we've provided to you.

Congratulations to TARTA for their win, as well. But...your success at the ballot box should not be taken as a mandate for continuing to operate as you have in the past. Severe dissatisfaction with the way services are provided still exists and you now have yet another opportunity to examine what services you provide and how to provide them more efficiently and at less cost. Instead of reacting or continuing the status quo, it would be nice to see you anticipate and plan for changing needs in the future. It would also be nice to see you provide a financial explanation on the actual cost of operations, how much is offset by rider fees and how many riders (not rides) you actually serve. Your other levy is up in 2011 and many of the same questions will be asked if you don't do something now to address them.

As for COSI, I hope that being rejected two times will be all it takes for you to either decide to close up or find another way to finance your operations. Despite all the claims of how much such a facility is needed, this second vote clearly indicates that the public doesn't want to finance your non-profit organization with tax dollars. The challenge you've had since 2005 when your board first approached the commissioners to ask for public funding has not changed. But as I was told at that time, going to the public for a levy was the 'easier' way to approach your difficulties. You now have to make decisions you should have made two years ago - and it will be even harder to do so having waited this long.

To those who took the time to research the issues and then vote, my thanks. To the 71% of Lucas County registered voters who didn't bother to cast a ballot ... your lack of participation has allowed the other 29% of us to make decisions on your behalf. I hope you're happy with what we decided, because you've earned no right to complain.

But it's only....

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of the expression, 'but it's only...' followed by a dollar figure. And it seems to be used primarily for unnecessary expenditures.

Parents probably hear this a lot - I know it was a phrase I used myself when young. But every time I used such a phrase, I got an economics lesson about how those 'it's only's' added up.

COSI Toledo, our local hands-on children's science museum, has requested a second attempt at passing a levy. Their attempt last year, approved by the Board of County Commissioners by a 2-1 vote (guess who voted 'no') to be on the ballot, did not pass. As our local paper put it, it was only a 1,200 vote margin.

COSI board members had said they would have to close without the levy...but they didn't. They found some generous sponsors (as they should have done prior to the levy) which allowed them to stay open until they could put another levy on the ballot. It is expected that the vote by the BCC today will be 'yes' and they will have .17 mill levy on the ballot in November.

But, you say, it's only .17 Mill...that's only $5 per year for a $100,000 home. Yes, it's only...

However, I remember when, in 2003, the Commissioners were faced with an issue of either tapping into the general fund to support the operations of the Dog Warden (it's supposed to be a self-sustaining operation) or raising the license fees by $5. Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak was very concerned that seniors, who rely upon dogs and other pets for companionship, would have to choose between the license and their prescription medicines. Her comment, for the press release announcing the increase was:

“I am concerned that this fee increase represents an additional financial burden on senior citizens already facing increased healthcare, prescription, and other costs,” said Lucas County Commissioner Wozniak.

With this as her reason, she voted 'no' on increasing the fee.

Please understand...I have no problem with her position on this. I disagree with it, but can understand her concern - if - and this is a big IF - she is consistent with her position and votes against other such increases that represent an 'additional financial burden on senior citizens.' Besides, costs today are even higher than they were four years ago, so her logic is even more applicable. If she's truly concerned about our senior citizens, she'd vote 'no' to put COSI on the ballot.

We'll see...especially since "it's only"...

NOTE: please check back tomorrow as I'll be discussing all the county-wide levies and their financial impact.