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???

I don't believe this! Ujvagi hired by the County

Fox Toledo is reporting that State Rep. Peter Ujvagi has been named the new Lucas County Administrator.

Ujvagi is term limited and cannot seek re-election to his current house seat. He had been rumored to be interested in switching positions with State Sen. Theresa Fedor, who is also term limited, though State Rep. Edna Brown and Toledo City Councilman Joe McNamara are also talking about that senate seat. This appointment removes at least one person from a contested Democratic primary. I've been told by Edna Brown that she was being pushed to run for Lucas County Commissioner, though she said she's not as interested in that position as she is the Ohio senate seat.

This appointment ensures Ujvagi a rather high salary for his PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) calculations. Under PERS, participants get approximately 80% of the average of their three highest years of earning. Considering that the administrator's position pays between $93,000 and $116,000, if he stays three years he'll probably double what he would otherwise get.

Ujvagi will be 61 in March.

I guess I'm wondering how many applicants there were for the position, where it was advertised and who else might have expressed an interest before the three Democrat Commissioners decided to hire Ujvagi....

According to the report in The Blade:

Prior to the unanimous vote, the commissioners' discussed a motion from Commissioner Ben Konop to table the appointment to allow time for others to apply for the job. That motion was voted down 2-1.

Interestingly, the item was not listed on the Commissioner's published agenda for today, though it could have been an item for Executive Session.

Clearly, the most qualified individual for the position is fromer assistant county administrator and current chief of staff, Bridgette Kabat. The position should have been hers, unless she declined. She is not only the most qualified, but has proven herself to be an extremely capable public servant, devoted to the best interests of the county.

She has also been very good at staying out of the politics end of things. But then, that might have been a disqualifier. And, of course, her appointment wouldn't solve internal Democratic Party issues...

Will township residents be double-taxed for 911 dispatching?

Most people who live in a township or pay attention to the local media will know that Lucas County is trying to get townships to pay for the cost of road patrols and dispatching from the Sheriff's Department.

This is in spite of voter rejection of recent levies in several townships to cover these costs.

One of the sticking points in the discussions deals with the 911 Levy as approved over several elections by voters.

Originally, this levy was supposed to cover the cost of dispatching. From an October 20, 1996 Blade article, "LEVY PUTS 911 SYSTEM - DESIGNED TO SAVE LIVES - AT RISK 911":

But the $5 million system - which was set up to answer calls with the speed of a computer - is on trial.

Weary of higher taxes and moved by union opposition, voters turned down a 0.9-mill levy in March.

Now, they will decide whether to approve a 0.7-mill tax to keep it alive for the next five years.

The tax would raise $4 million a year to run the system and make improvements.

Those include ``breaking up'' the downtown 911 station into six smaller centers to be scattered across the county to speed response times.

``We're talking about taking 911 to the next level - and bringing it into the next century,'' said Sandy Isenberg, president of the Lucas County commissioners.

But so far, there's no contingency plan to keep the phones ringing at 911 if the levy fails.

If it goes down, there wouldn't be any money to pay the 911 operators and their supervisors past Dec. 31.

``No one's going to be here to answer the phone,'' said Doug Kemp, data manager for 911 .

It is clear from this report that call-takers and dispatchers are covered by the cost of the levy.

From the same article:

Here's a snapshot of what the new levy would do:

* It would bring 911 calls closer to home.

As it now exists, if a frantic Sylvania mother dials 911 for help because her child has fallen down the steps, the call goes to the 911 center at 2144 Monroe St., in Toledo.

Then, the message is sent via computer to a dispatch center in Sylvania. From there, a rescue vehicle is sent to the scene.

Under the new plan, the call would go directly to Sylvania, eliminating the middleman in Toledo, and allowing the local operator to immediately send an ambulance. System officials hope to shave the response time by up to 45 seconds.

``In life-threatening situations, seconds can mean everything,'' said Tom Bodi, director of the 911 system.

This obviously describes dispatching as part of the services provided by the levy.

The 1996 levy included funds for upgrading the equipment, as county officials currently claim as the purpose of the levy. But news reports also show that the funding of the entire system was at risk, including dispatching, if the levy failed.

But just in case there was any doubt, a February 23, 1997 Blade article, "9-1-1 SPELLS QUICK HELP," further clarifies what the system does:

When a call comes in to 911 , an operator obtains necessary information from the caller, decides the priority of the call, then transfers the call by computer to the appropriate emergency dispatch system. Once the local dispatcher receives the emergency request - which takes just seconds after 911 operators obtain the needed information - a police, fire, or rescue crew is sent to respond to the call.

But changes to the system resulted in localized call centers run by the various municipalities. However, as reported in May of 1997, "Each community is to receive about $21,000 annually to help pay for operator salaries...", meaning that levy monies were still paying for dispatching.

In September, 1997, when the suburban call centers went on line, The Blade reported:

The decentralization of the main dispatch center is paid for by a five-year, 0.7-mill levy approved in November.

The levy raises about $4 million annually.

Subsequent reports in the paper over the next two years referenced the point that the suburbs took over paying 911 dispatchers in their own communities. But those news stories fail to mention that the county continued to subsidize those salaries with levy money. It's also important to note that the Lucas County Sheriff dispatchers, which service the townships, were NOT part of the decentralization.

In 1999, the Lucas County Commissioners decided to upgrade and expand the Emergency Services Center on Monroe Street to "put Toledo police call takers and Toledo fire department and Lucas County dispatchers under one roof on the same floor."

In 2000, officials began discussions of the levy's renewal scheduled for 2001. Because of a provision in state law, this renewal was treated as a 'new' levy, taxed at the current property values and generating a bit more money as a result. News reports from 2001 show that the levy would be used to operate and maintain the 911 system. The additional funding would go toward a countywide communications system for public safety personnel. That levy was approved by voters.

In 2006, the levy was up for renewal, but officials wanted a replacement levy - the same millage charged against current property values, resulting in more money for the county. As explained at the time, the funds would continue to support the maintenance and operation of the 911 system and pay for enhanced inter-agency communications among first responders. That levy was also approved by the voters.

So what does this really mean? Over the years, the levies have been advertised as funding the call-takers and dispatchers as well as the maintenance and operation of the system. Even when the county decentralized the dispatching to the suburban cities, they subsidized the salaries of the workers. However, the townships continued to receive dispatching through the Sheriff's dispatchers, funded by levy dollars.

But with time comes increased costs in wages and benefits, along with everything else. Through the years, the funding did not keep up with the costs. New equipment, necessary for today's needs, was purchased and had to be maintained. Which is why the county finds itself in a position of asking - rather, demanding - funds from the townships to pay for costs the levy no longer covers because of decisions made by those same county politicians.

The elected officials have known for years that the increased personnel costs they approved with their votes on union contracts would mean less money for other purposes. With a finite set of money from the levy, the scenario of needing additional money is a no-brainer and easy to predict.

So now the county wants even more funds from certain jurisdictions to cover increased costs the county is responsible for. The Commissioners and Sheriff know that a levy request for such things probably wouldn't go over well. Increasing a levy to cover increased personnel costs when many who would pay the levy haven't seen pay increases or might not even have a job anymore is, well...dumb.

So rather than go after all county residents, they've decided to go after the townships, extorting cash for promised safety.

The townships are right to raise the question of what, exactly, the levy was supposed to pay for versus what it's actually covering. They've got valid reasons to believe dispatching is a service they're already paying for and the township trustees owe it to their taxpayers to ensure they are not double-taxed.

Too bad the Commissioners and Sheriff don't realize the same thing, especially knowing that township residents are their constituents as well.

Commissioners approve PLAs while cutting positions

You wouldn't know it from the coverage in the paper, but yesterday the Lucas County Commissioners voted unanimously to increase the costs of all projects they undertake.

They did so by approving a new policy requiring project labor agreements for all construction projects valued at $25,000 or greater. The resolution setting the new policy calls for the county to negotiate an agreement with the Northwest Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council (and/or its affiliates) and for all bidders on county projects to include a provision in the bid requiring the successful bidder - and all their contractors and subcontractors - to adhere to the PLA negotiated by the county for that specific project.

So the county is going to negotiate terms of employment for the companies who win the bids???? Government isn't just dictating such things as minimum wage and safety provisions, now they're actively colluding with unions to force unionization upon their citizens. That's what PLAs do - they require union dues to be paid by workers for the duration of the project. They also traditionally require companies to contribute to union health care and pension funds during the duration of the project, even though the non-union employees of the company will never see any of those funds because they're 'members' of the union only during the project.

But the Commissioners don't stop with just the successful bidder. They apply this forced unionization to every other party the bidder wants to use!

How much extra do you think this is going to cost taxpayers???

At the same meeting where they passed this increased cost, they eliminated six management positions in an effort to balance their budget for next year.

Stuck on stupid? Insanity? Payback to unions? You decide - my head hurts thinking about it.

There are two strange parts about the passage of this policy:

1) the 'statutory authority' cited on the resolution, and

2) the absence of Blade coverage of the action in light of their past position on this very same policy.

The 'statutory authority' citation appears on each resolution presented to the Board of County Commissioners. This came about because as a commissioner I constantly asked where, in the Ohio Revised Code, we had the authority to do many of the things that were being presented to us. I wanted the statutory authority clearly cited on the resolutions.

If the staff or sponsoring commissioner couldn't find any authority in the code, I voted against the resolution. Commissioners and county government are creatures of state statute. Without specific authority to address an issue, they cannot act. This is a long-established legal precedent in Ohio.

The statutory authority reference for this new PLA policy is listed as ORC 305.30. Interestingly, this relatively short section of the ORC details the powers and duties of the county administrator.

I suppose that since they're making the county administrator the person responsible for entering into the labor contract, there is a bit of relevance to the resolution. But they don't address where they have the authority to require a PLA in the first place. They only reference their authority to direct the county administrator, not where the authority to implement a PLA comes from.

This is certainly a stretch. Just because you direct the county administrator to perform a task, it doesn't mean you have the authority to order the task. But if no one is checking, the Commissioners get away with such 'illogic' in their actions.

They do state, in the summary of the resolution, that PLAs are legal under federal and Ohio law, though they give no evidence to support that statement. I guess the commissioners all missed the recent news that the federal government yanked a project in New Hampshire due to problems with the PLA requirement.

Another oddity is the change in the language of the resolution. The first one that was introduced included an actual contract - with the terms of the project labor agreement spelled out in detail. This current approved resolution only has three provisions attached (as you can see in the link to the document). I believe this was done to give the commissioners coverage for actual terms of the agreements - leaving it up to the county administrator to negotiate.

Here's a question for you: how often do you think the final terms of the PLAs will differ from the union-written contract language that was included in the first resolution?

The second issue is the lack of media coverage. This is a huge cost increase to taxpayers and an economic development/business killer. At a time when the county is trying to cut costs to balance their budget and everyone is talking about how we attract businesses to the area, how does this help? It doesn't - but with the main stream media in the area ignoring the issue, most residents are blissfully unaware.

This same proposal to implement PLAs was tried - and failed - in 1996. At the time, the editors called it payback to the unions for their support - and blasted the policy as contrary to a economic development efforts.

(click for larger view)

A search of 'project labor agreement' on the websites of The Blade, the Toledo Free Press and the four television stations showed no articles on the subject. So why no news coverage of an issue that will increase the cost of county construction projects at a time that the county has no money?

Is this a testament of the power of the unions? Or a reflection on the media in the area? I don't know...

But I do know that this is 'not business friendly,' not budget friendly, not taxpayer friendly and an all-around really bad idea.

The question, now, is whether or not, like in 1997, the policy will be repealed. But with the lack of attention to the issue, I expect not.

Lucas County 1996, 2009 PLAs nearly identical

I've received the copy of the 1996 approved Project Labor Agreement resolution passed by the Lucas County Commissioners as well as the 1997 resolution that rescinded the policy.

The first two pages are the resolution which repealed the policy and the remaining pages are the original policy:

1996 Lucas County Project Labor Agreement Policy and 1997 PLA Rescision Interestingly, the 2009 resolution has many clauses that are identical to the 1996 policy that was repealed. You can compare the two documents yourself to see that many of the itemized provisions of the two policies are word-for-word. 2009 Lucas County PLA reso So again, if this was a bad idea that had to be repealed in 1997, why is it a good idea now?????

PLAs already tried - and rejected! - in Lucas County

As it turns out, project labor agreements (PLAs) have already been tried - and rejected - in Lucas County.

In September of 1996, the Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution requiring union contracts for all companies who received a bid for county work above $50,000 - whether they were unionized or not. I've requested a copy of the actual resolution and will share it with you when I receive it.

Apparently, according to an old Blade article (County May Restructure Policy on Construction Bids, April 28, 1997):

The policy was added by hand to the typed agenda prior to a public meeting Sept. 19, when it was adopted by the commissioners.

Even back then, there was an effort to keep this damaging and costly proposal under the radar. I guess nothing has been learned in the intervening years.

But it quickly became a problem when the commissioners rejected bids for new lights at the county recreation center - including the two lowest from non-union contractors.

Unlike today (so far), editors of the paper weighed in with an opinion on the matter:

“It’s a taxpayer-be-damned attitude, and Ms. Isenberg is acting as if she is above criticism.” ~ Lucas County (Toledo) Commissioner Sandy Isenberg and the rest of the County Commission taken to task in an editorial (Union collar a snug fit) for “quietly drafting a new policy” that would “help those who have helped [them] get elected.” (Toledo Blade, 11/25/96)

By April of 1997, the commissioners were rescinding that policy in favor of a 'best-bid' policy with terms agreed to by both opponents and proponents of the original requirements.

From a May 4, 1997, Blade article, (Isenberg Says County Board Mishandled Decision on Bids):

Lucas County commissioners should have acted differently in agreeing on a now-rescinded policy on awarding contracts for construction projects, Sandy Isenberg, president of the board of commissioners, said.

"Shame on us because we didn't bring all the people together up front," she said during a taping of The Editors television program. "And we should have done that, and after the fact we did."

So the question now is this: why are the Commissioners even considering a policy they've rejected in the past? The fact that the item is still on the agenda and has not been defeated is troublesome.

As I've previously documented, there is no logic or validity to the claims offered in support of PLAs. Instead, they raise the costs of all projects, eliminate opportunity for a majority of workers (since 83% of the private sector is non-unionized) and cannot ensure promises of better quality work. Besides, they're 'not business friendly' and what we need most in this area are more businesses.

If you haven't already done so, please contact the commissioners and tell them to stop deferring this resolution and just defeat it!

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

Commissioners again defer project labor agreement vote

I've previously written about the push to institute Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) for all Lucas County contracts - and the fact that the commissioners deferred a vote on the measure until today.

Today, they deferred the resolution until Dec. 15.

Interestingly, The Blade's coverage of the commissioner meeting focuses solely on the appointment of a Skeldon family associate to the dog warden advisory committee.

Now I know they're really interested in getting Dog Warden Tom Skeldon out of office - they have been for years. But in terms of impact to the community, which would you say is more newsworthy: 1) appointing someone who worked on a relative's campaign to an ad hoc committee, or 2) a plan to require that all contractors (even non-union companies) doing business with Lucas County enter into a labor agreement for the duration of the county project?

Obviously, option #2 has a significant financial impact on the county and the taxpayer - as well as sending a strong negative message about doing business in our area.

But of course, the paper hasn't even mentioned this agenda item. They're too busy trying to bury the dog warden who's done nothing but follow the rules, laws and policies put into place by the politicians The Blade routinely supports.

Pay attention, Lucas County! You need to call or email your commissioners to make sure PLAs are never instituted in our county:

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

For more information about the negative impacts of PLAs, be sure to check out The Truth About PLAs website.

Commissioners extend deadline for dog registrations

At today's Lucas County Commissioner meeting, the board unanimously voted to extend the deadline for dog registrations from January 31, 2010 to February 26, 2010.

From the resolution:

The Lucas County Auditor’s recommends providing an extension of the dog license registration deadline that normally expires January 31st of each year, to February 26, 2010 for the year of 2010 in order to provide extra time to dog owners to purchase dog tags due to the potential economic hardship of citizens.

Ohio law gives commissioners this authority. The current licensing fee for dogs is $25 in Lucas County.

Lucas County to 'governmentize' private sector jobs

Lucas County Sheriff James Telb has decided to move in house the job of appraising foreclosed properties, effectively having government take over private sector jobs.

I'm not a fan of how Telb has doled out this task, making sure that politically connected individuals get the lucrative contracts. But that concern is for how the Sheriff selects the individuals - not in the fact that the private sector is employed for the task.

You see, in Ohio, each foreclosed property must have three independent appraisals prior to auction. All three appraisers must agree on the value which is then set as the minimum amount in the auction. When the property is sold, $35 is collected from the buyer to pay for the cost of the appraisal.

The best 'political' part of the process is that state law doesn't require any special expertise in order to do the appraisal and the county sheriff gets to decide who gets the job.

Bringing the appraisals in house means that sheriff deputies will perform the appraisals. Some might say this is a good thing because the patronage will end. I'm not one of them.

If there is the potential for bias in the selection of appraisers, then revise the selection process. But it's wrong for government to take over private sector jobs just to bring in revenue.

And that's what this is all about - more money into the county coffers.

From The Blade report on the issue:

Last year, the nine appraisers were paid a total of $459,148 by buyers at auction - money the county would like to have for its own. Moving the work in-house could preserve the jobs of some deputies and it would make the money available for the county's general fund.

In March, Commissioner Pete Gerken said he'd rather pay UAW members to do the work. The UAW represents the Sheriff deputies:

"...I'd rather be paying UAW-represented county employees to keep their jobs ... than to pay sub-contractors," Gerken said.

So this all about finding work for government/union employees and bringing nearly half a million dollars into the general fund.

But having that revenue in the public coffers means that the individuals who were performing the work (and for some of them it's their ONLY income) will no longer have a job. Perhaps the commissioners have decided the only jobs they want to 'preserve' in the county are government ones?

And this may not actually save any money. The news stories report that a deputy, with benefits, costs around $65-70,000/year. Let's use the $65,000 figure for our comparison.

In 2008, nine appraisers were paid $$459,148. That means the average yearly payment is about $51,016. That's less than we'd pay the deputies. Now, some of the appraisers did more work than the others, resulting in higher payments, but that doesn't change the fact that the work needed to be done. And with foreclosures expecting to remain high (maybe even higher than in 2008), the amount of work isn't going to decrease - at least for a while.

So what happens when the appraisal work does decline - as it surely will? Will those deputies who kept their job still remain on the payroll? Knowing the county operations and the desire for law enforcement over other expenditures, they probably will. The costs of the deputies will remain, while the 'revenue' funding them will decrease. And that's an excellent argument for using private contractors for the work.

Except in Lucas County - where the focus is on government revenue.

Is this really what government priorities should be? To get as much money as possible even if it means 'governmentizing' what the private sector is both capable of and willing to do?

Some in this area think so. It's why government has taken over the towing tasks and ambulance transportation services in the city of Toledo. And why Toledo politicians are constantly talking about 'revenue enhancements' - which translates into 'higher taxation' in one way or another for citizens.

If the Lucas County Commissioners really want to 'save' money, they should look at privatizing tasks - not governmentizing them. There is no need or logic for government to take over jobs, functions or activities that the private sector can and will do - and usually at a lower cost.

Commissioners delay vote on project labor agreements

Yesterday, I wrote about the proposed resolution to require project labor agreements (PLA) for all Lucas County work.

Today, the commissioners decided to defer the resolution until Dec. 1.

That means there's still time for you to weigh in on the negative impacts of this proposal.

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

This issue has also made it to TheUnionLabelBlog with an entry by my friend, Warner Todd Huston: Ohio’s Ben Konop Wants Kids to Starve so he can Give Gov’t Payoffs to Unions. WTH takes a different take on the idea, but comes to a terrific conclusion:

"This fool is just shifting the government money from the welfare office to the funds that pay for building projects. What’s the difference? Only the tiny mind of a Democrat can see the difference."

This is a business killing proposal that will do nothing but increase the cost of projects Lucas County government pays for. We all need to tell the commissioners to vote NO on December 1st.

'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

Charging for Sheriff patrols needs to be uniform

The Lucas County Commissioners and Sheriff James Telb have been meeting with and telling township trustees that they will now have to pay for services from the Sheriff's Department.

I understand the county's desire to collect more revenue for the Sheriff's Department - which habitually overspends and is rarely able to stay within their approved budget.

As a commissioner, I advocated against bailing out the Sheriff when he couldn't meet his budget, but was always on the losing end of that idea. My position was that rewarding his overspending with more funds just encouraged the poor fiscal behavior.

Then there is the general perspective that government should fund its mandates before doing anything else, and if the Sheriff's Department has a mandate to 'preserve the public peace' in the county, then that should receive funding before any 'initiative' that is the fancy of any commissioner.

Comm. Ben Konop has identified several cost saving measures (from a 4-day work week to lowering thermostats in buildings, including privatizing some services), but he wants to use those funds to give some Lucas County residents a 'free' college education (though it wouldn't really be 'free' if they have to 'serve' after graduation). He, and the other commissioners, reject using those cost saving ideas to fund current services - like the Sheriff's patrol in the unincorporated areas of the county.

This is part of the overall expansion of government that many, including me, find so repulsive: available dollars or cost savings are not used to reduce OUR payments to government, but to provide more and more 'services' for some while continuing to expect the same, and often more, funding from the rest of us.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that billing the townships for the services of the Sheriff Department makes sense and is the 'right' thing to do.

Will the Commissioners and Sheriff also charge the City of Toledo? Or is this just a billing of the townships?

The Sheriff has a downtown Toledo patrol car/route that covers many of the county buildings. Around the first of May, at the urging of Konop, the Sheriff agreed to some additional services within Toledo to help with the safety of citizens after the city laid off police officers.

According to the paper at the time, these are some of the arrangements made:

- Deputies who already patrol county buildings will be more available to respond to police calls downtown.

- Toledo Police would get first-in-line status at booking prisoners in the jail to get officers back to the street more quickly.

- Off-duty deputies will be assigned to the schools to replace Toledo police known as "school resource officers" for the rest of the school year. The school districts would pay for the deputies' time.

- Laid-off officers would be deputized so they can continue to earn money "projecting" at supermarkets, baseball games, and concerts. The entities hiring the officers would pay for the uniforms and gear.

- Deputies would attend Block Watch meetings in place of Toledo police officers.

- The sheriff would keep four SWAT team officers on duty to back up Toledo in an emergency.

Some of these have no costs associated with them - but others do, as Telb explained:

"We understand it's a bad situation and we'll do the best we can in the sheriff 's office to do our part to try to make the streets as safe as we can, at very limited cost."

So - if there are 'limited' costs, will Toledo be charged for those costs the same as the townships? And at the same rate?

If the commissioners believe that some jurisdictions should pay for road patrols by the Sheriff, certainly they agree that ALL jurisdictions should be treated the same, and charged the same rate.

I'll be interested to see how much Toledo is charged for the patrols within their limits.

Lucas County living wage proposal on hold.

Commissioners have decided to hold a policy creating a living wage requirement for businesses doing business with Lucas County while the Prosecutor's Office reviews the resolution.

As I've stated previously, my understanding from the last time such a proposal was made is that counties have no authority to impose such requirements. Assistant Prosecutor John Borell gave us that decision in 2005.

He is the person to whom this resolution was referred so we'll see if anything has changed since then.

Konop proposes living wage for Lucas County

Here we go again - another proposal from Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop that commissioners have no authority to do.

This press release was received at 10:11 p.m.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: David Mann, Public Affairs Liaison

ON MLK DAY, KONOP PROPOSES LIVING WAGE RESOLUTION FOR LUCAS COUNTY
Policy would reflect Dr. King's commitment to economic justice, ensure fair wages for working men and women

Today, marking what would have been Dr. King's 80th birthday, County Commissioner Ben Konop will propose a living wage resolution designed to help ensure citizens receive an honest day's wage for an honest day's work. Konop's proposal would cover the wages of workers who are employed by businesses entering into contracts with Lucas County or getting tax incentives or loans through the county.

Under the living wage program, a worker in Lucas County covered by the resolution would have to earn at least $8.38 an hour based on the calculator developed by Dr. Amy Glasmeier and the Pennyslvania State University.

"This initiative is based in fairness and social justice, so I think it's appropriate to propose it on Martin Luther King Day," stated Commissioner Konop. "This is not going to put anyone out of business, but what it will do is help ensure that workers receive decent pay for a day's hard work," added Konop.

Though Dr. King is primarily remembered for his groundbreaking work in the civil rights movement, he focused much of his later career on the pursuit of economic justice for all Americans. In the years before his assassination, he worked tirelessly on the Poor People's Campaign and called for an economic bill of rights. In fact Dr. King was in Memphis supporting a sanitation workers' strike for better wages when he was assassinated in 1968.

Commissioner Konop will be available for this afternoon, after he takes part in the MLK Unity Celebration at Savage Hall. Please contact Lucas County Public Affairs Liaison David Mann at 419-410-4215 to coordinate.

As Comm. Pete Gerken will be able to explain, County Commissioners have no authority under the Ohio Revised Code to implement or set a policy that requires a living wage. One of Gerken's first ideas upon becoming a commissioner was to institute a living wage requirement in Lucas County, as he had supported for the City of Toledo. As I explained to him at the time, commissioners cannot do this. My position was backed up by the County Prosecutor's Office which agreed, and so informed Gerken.

No county in Ohio has the ability to institute a living wage requirement, because the Ohio Revised Code gives counties no such authority.

Being an attorney, you'd think he'd check such things ahead of time. And, considering the public 'smack down' Gerken gave Konop in this letter to the editor (third letter in the link), I'm expecting Gerken to have a bit of fun in the way he 'educates' his fellow commissioner on this topic.

Personal health and county government

Well, just when you thought county government had much more serious issues to consider, the Board of Lucas County Commissioners voted unanimously to name a 'weight loss czar' or - as many are calling it - a 'fat czar.'

This is the brilliant, bold, fresh new idea of Commissioner Ben Konop - to encourage Lucas County residents to lose a total of 1 million pounds as part of the "looking fine in 2009" campaign.

Yes, Konop believes that if every resident would lose a little bit more than two pounds, we could reach his goal. And his goal is so much more important than any of our goals, that he had to start a program to be sure to meet it.

So here's my question: now that the commissioners have told us we need to lose weight, are you somehow more encouraged or committed to doing so? Now that three elected officials have announced the plan, are you ready to jump on board?

Konop says that no public funds will be spent in this effort, but that's not exactly true. Staff time has already been expended to issue press releases and help with the announcement. Someone is going to have to contact, meet with and organize the 'private sector' involvement - and that's likely to also include county staff time. If the goal is to keep track of how much weight is lost, someone will have to maintain a list and track the pounds - again, probably a staff person. So county funds will be expended in this program.

Konop, however, says that "if this saves one person's life, it's a worthwhile program -if it extends one person's life, if it allows one person not to get an adult form of diabetes." The only thing missing was 'for the children,' but given time, I'm sure that excuse will be thrown in as well.

Using tortured logic, Konop justifies this as a the proper role of government by saying that government often covers the costs of bad health decisions through various medical programs it funds. When faced with the fact that government has decided to cover health costs, the natural extension proposed by liberals (and some who call themselves conservative) is for government to then dictate to you how to live.

It's funny, in a sad sort of way, that the solution is for government to expand rather than contract. Another option for government to consider is to stop funding such medical coverage. It is the equal, but opposite solution to the problem. If people don't take care of themselves and then incur expense for their health issues, government could stop making it easy from them to ignore their own health by no longer funding treatment of medical conditions that are, in many ways, self-inflicted.

But that would shrink the size of government and then elected officials would have nothing to feel good about. And that's more important to them - which is why Konop justifies such an illogical program by saying that if it saves one life, government should do it. The ends justifies the means to them, regardless of the liberty it destroys.

Furthermore, by government assuming such a role, it negates the consequences of individual decisions. Why should people take care of themselves if they have nothing to fear if they don't do so? The contradictions abound. Government tells you to lose weight, stop smoking, get more exercise, etc. so you are healthier, but then rewards you by taking care of your medical costs when you don't do so. The next logical step in this illogical reality would be for government to mandate, rather than suggest, what you should do. It is the incremental erosion of your individual liberty.

Is it true that most of us would be healthier if we lost a couple of pounds? Absolutely. Would we be better off if we got more exercise? Definitely. Should we all make an effort to pay more attention to our own well-being? Sure.

Now that government has created a 'program' and named a 'czar', are we all somehow more inclined to change our behaviors? Doubtful. Should government spend its time doing these sound-good, feel-good programs when other issues that are within the purview of government remain unaddressed? No.

We hear the cries all the time: government has no role in the bedroom; keep your decisions out of my womb. Maybe we need one along the lines of 'keep government off my dessert plate.'

So what are we to do? Do we ignore the program because it is so ridiculous, has no bearing on us or our activities and 'isn't worth the fight'? Or do we protest the inappropriate role the commissioners have assumed and prevent one more step down that slippery slope?

The decision is yours, but as my goal for 2009 is to encourage greater participation in our local government, here is the contact information for the commissioners. Maybe you can tell them that if this really won't cost any money, that means no staff time for the effort:

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

Commissioners approve increased conveyance tax

The Lucas County Commissioners voted today to approve the increase in conveyance fees - the tax applied to the sale of a home within the county.

As announced in his press release, Comm. Ben Konop voted no. Commissioners Tina Skeldon Wozniak and Pete Gerken voted yes.

The resolution was to dedicate the funding from the increased tax to the operations of the Lucas County Improvement Corporation. (Background on the issue, on chronological order is here, here, here, and here.

However, in a walk-on resolution, the Commissioners voted to allocate $150,000 from Economic Development Funds in 2009 for the Toledo-Lucas County Housing Fund. Wozniak and Gerken voted yes. Konop voted no.

This means that everyone who wanted money from the taxpayers is a bit happier - and people who want to sell a home in this already depressed market will have additional costs. And this is supposed to help.

Kudos to Commissioner Ben Konop

According to a press release Comm. Ben Konop issued late last night, he will vote no on increasing Lucas County's conveyance tax.

Real Estate Tax Hike Set to be Voted on at Commissioners Meeting--Konop to vote NO

Konop: raising taxes by $120 on working families "unconscionable" in this economy

At Tuesday's 9:30 a.m. Lucas County Commissioners Hearing, Commissioners are set to vote on a real estate tax hike proposed by Commissioner Gerken that would raise taxes on the average home seller in Lucas County by an additional $120. Commissioner Konop will vote NO.

"It is unbelievable to me that in this economy, the worst since the Depression, we are even discussing Commissioner Gerken's proposal to raise taxes on home sales in Lucas County," stated Commissioner Konop. "This tax hike will hurt working families who are already having a tough time selling their homes and paying their bills," added Konop.

"Once again, I will forcefully oppose this tax hike, and I hope Commissioner Skeldon Wozniak will see the light and save working families from a tax increase in this horrible economy," Konop said.

It's not often that I agree with Konop's votes or proposals, but he's right on not imposing a tax increase.

The vote on the proposal will take place during today's Board of County Commissioners Meeting which begins at 9:30 a.m. It is likely that the tax will pass with the support of the other two commissioners.

In other business, the commissioners will vote on an agreement with the Toledo Science Center, formerly COSI. This is the new name of the facility and the agreement will disburse the levy dollars approved in the November election.

Rec Center vs. Arena - and the county budget

The Lucas County Commissioners have announced that they will no longer be booking events at the Lucas County Rec Center, though will they honor events scheduled there through June, 2009.

(WSPD story and audio, and Toledo Blade story)

The reason, they claim, is financial. The buildings, including the roofs, need between $750,000 to $1 million in repairs and, with the County facing declining revenue and laying off people, there is no money to pay for it.

Now, the funds for making these repairs would come from the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - not from the general fund which is where the layoffs are coming from. And I know for a fact that the repairs at the Rec Center were on the CIP plan when I was a commissioner. Usually, items get placed on the list and move up as other projects are completed.

The problem isn't that the County doesn't have the money - it's that they're spending it elsewhere - namely, on the new arena.

Does anyone besides me find it rather disconcerting that the County cannot maintain the Rec Center, but they're building a new arena which will also have to be maintained?

Does anyone besides me wonder why we're spending our CIP money on an arena when we've not yet completed the items on the CIP list?

Does anyone besides me wonder where the County will get the money to repay the $18.5 million they've already borrowed to pay for the arena - or where they're going to find the additional $25 million in extra costs (original cost estimate was $80 million and is now $105 million)?

Is it likely that needs detailed in the CIP are being pushed aside in order to construct a shiny new arena? And, if so, is this the right priority?

Each person may have their own answers to these questions, but the fact that they aren't being discussed in public should send a warning to all County residents.

Thoughts on the conveyance tax increase-why taxation does not lead to growth

According to the Lucas County Commissioners, if they increase this tax - the 'cost' of selling your property - they will be able to fund their economic development efforts. Their 'logic' is that an additional tax amount will lead to growth in the county.

Increasing a tax does NOT lead to growth - except in the numbers of entities that put their hands out for that money.

The way to provide an environment that leads to growth is NOT to make it more costly to do business in the area. Taking more money from taxpayers, residents, businesses and even visitors, does not leave them with funds to invest, create new products, spend in the local economy or start/expand a business. Taxes remove capital from the economy and divert them to expanded government functions - which create nothing for the market.

Before the Lucas County Improvement Corporation was re-organized, it performed various functions on behalf of its members. The County's Economic Development Department also performed various functions - supporting economic development projects and providing the 'public sector tools' to be used by private investors as they created the jobs. If the LCIC were to revert to its previous structure, these tasks would still be performed.

I'm not advocating the destruction of the LCIC, but I am questioning the logic of removing money from the economy in order to support a government (or quasi-government) agency.

Think about it - when did increased taxes ever create more jobs than the private sector if the money stayed in the hands of the taxpayers? Some will claim that taxation can result in construction jobs as government spends money to construct buildings (like arenas) or roads. While some may question the logic of government building roads, most would agree that roads are a legitimate function of government so it is true that when government builds roads, it 'creates' a job. However, it is a temporary job and certainly not a long-term strategy for economic growth.

True growth in a community comes about when individuals have money - not when government takes every spare cent, and then some. When people have money, they put some into savings accounts, generating assets that banks use for lending. When people have money, they invest it, providing the capital for others to expand and grow. When people have money, they spend it, putting dollars into the local economy and exchanging it for goods and services which, in turn, creates demand for those goods and services, leading to growth.

If government takes those funds, they're telling you and me and every taxpayer, resident and business, that they need those dollars for their own purposes more than they think you need them. Talk about arrogance - telling us that their purposes (in this case: funding positions and offices and expenses) are more important than our own retirement, medical bills, mortgages, children's educations, etc....

To make matters worse, their additional taxation will NOT contribute to economic development or growth in the county.

(You see, the problem isn't what we are or aren't doing - it's that we need MORE MONEY. And where have we heard that argument before???)

Many individuals who would normally be against additional taxation are saying that dedicating this tax to the LCIC is okay. They also say that consolidating the functions being performed by the numerous economic development entities will result in the turn-around we so desperately want to see. But they're putting the cart before the horse. They're all saying to impose the tax and provide the funds. Why aren't they first saying consolidate, eliminate duplication and then see how much money is truly necessary?

The task force the Commissioners established to make recommendations about the LCIC did more than say 'provide steady funding.' Other suggestions included changing the bylaws and structure and exiting their costly offices in the train station. According to some, that would save thousands every month. Why isn't cutting costs the FIRST step in order to determine exactly how much money is actually required to operate? Why is a tax the first step?

It's because a tax is 'easy' to do, while restructuring would require some to give up their power inherent in the current set-up. It would also result in a loss of control for a few who would rather take more of your money than 'do the right thing.' It's also because the people making the decisions do not understand the basics of economics. Remember, these are the same people who think billing your insurance company, Medicaid or Medicare for ambulance runs doesn't result in any cost to you. With that sort of logic, it should come as no surprise that they think taxing you and taking more of your money will result in growth in the area.

The problem in Lucas County is not a lack of spending on economic development. It is the philosophy that government needs our disposable income and, once it has it, they will somehow create jobs. Even when these same politicians mouth the words 'government doesn't create jobs,' they act in a opposite way, giving lie to the words they've uttered.

If the Lucas County Commissioners and those supporting this increased tax were really interested in economic development, why did they vote to put increased property tax levies on the ballot? Why did they support and campaign for the increased property taxes? Why are they spending money on non-essential things, thus increasing the costs of government? Why are they creating news rules and regulations on people and businesses? Why are they raising fees and creating new costs for people and businesses to pay? Why are they NOT doing what has proven to work every time: lowering tax rates????

If these individuals were truly dedicated to creating an environment that leads to growth, they'd do what works - and they'd know what that is.

'Not business friendly' post #16 - I told you so

How I wish I were wrong...but I did tell you this was going to be a problem.

Today the Lucas County Commissioners hold the first of two hearings (at 2 p.m. in the Commissioner hearing room on the first floor of Government Center) on the proposal to increase the Lucas County Conveyance Fee from $3 to $4.

The conveyance fee is a tax for transferring any property within the County. The fee is charged per $1,000 value of the home, so a $100,000 house would have a fee of $300 or, if the increase is approved, $400.

The claimed purpose of this increase is to fund the Lucas County Improvement Corporation, as recommended by a 'task force' the Commissioners put together to address many of the issues that were arising and the criticism from Comm. Ben Konop.

Comm. Pete Gerken supports the idea, but Comm. Tina Skeldon Wozniak has been non-committal in her public comments. Comm. Konop opposes the tax, saying we don't need another tax in the county, but his main objection is not the tax, rather the intended use. He wants to destroy the LCIC and failure of a source of funding would help. Interestingly, he was much more receptive to the idea of using the tax for a housing fund, as suggested by Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara.

The LCIC was re-created in 2005 following the election of Pete Gerken as a commissioner. Originally - and prior to being sworn in as a commissioner - he met with current Comm. Wozniak and then Toledo Mayor Jack Ford to discuss merging the county and city economic development efforts. Unfortunately, when he shared with me this idea, I had to inform him that such a merger was not allowed under Ohio law.

Plan B was to take the existing LCIC and reorganize it into a different type of entity, including designating it as the county's economic development agency and expanding its staff. Gerken's thought was that the new LCIC would somehow get the proceeds of the Port Authority tax levy, in light of the separation of the Regional Growth Partnership (which had been funded with those dollars) from the Port Authority and its re-establishment as a completely privately-funded, business-led economic development agency.

My objections to Gerken's plan was that it created a large bureaucracy, put all the power in the hands of the elected Mayor and the majority of the Commissions (as they got to make appointments), and had no source of funding to meet the increased budget costs that would result from the re-organization.

As I said at the time, the devil is in the details - in this case, the details on how the entity was to be funded. But that didn't dissuade Gerken and Wozniak who went ahead anyway with new offices, new staff and additional costs.

Now, especially with the financial situation in the county, they don't have the funds necessary for the organization to continue in its present form.

Enter a new tax - the conveyance fee increase.

At the time, I told them that the only way they could generate the amount of money necessary to support the structure they were proposing was to spend county dollars for the expansion - or to raise a tax due to the dwindling amount of available funds within the county's general fund.

The Commissioners, in setting up a 'task force' to 'examine' the issue and 'make recommendations' have a degree of deniability when it comes to this new tax - they think. However, we all know that the responsibility falls firmly at the feet of Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak for refusing to address this issue BEFORE going ahead with the new structure.

Please don't get me wrong - I support the idea of the LCIC and believe it has been highly successful in getting all the jurisdictions in Lucas County working together. That's a major accomplishment. But it could have had that success without the internal structure Gerken created - and it wouldn't now need a new tax to support it - if anyone would have heeded my questions and concerns at the time.

Now we are faced with a dilemma - how to fund the organization that is an established and important part of the economic development tools we offer in Lucas County. The way to attract people and businesses to this area is NOT to make them pay more in taxes for the privilege of coming here or growing here. That point seems to be missed by many who hold elective office in the County and City offices.

Strange that no one is talking about how the size of the organization can be reduced, or how it can work with some of the other economic development entities to reduce its costs of operations - or even if it can perform some of the public sector activities under the original structure before Gerken redesigned it in his own image.

No, such ideas are never discussed or considered - especially by the creators of the problem.

This tax is not business friendly. And it's a bit contradictory that the Commissioners have a Foreclosure Task Force to help people avoid foreclosures on their homes at the same time they're seriously considering raising the cost of actually selling that home. And then there are the housing fund advocates who have, for years, wanted that tax for themselves, saying that the money spent in the county on economic development is enough while the money spent on housing isn't and needs have permanent local funding.

So all the housing fund people are in favor of raising the tax with the caveat that they get some of it. Of course, all the people in favor of raising the tax are the recipients/beneficiaries of the tax - imagine that!

The Toledo Board of Realtors has announced their opposition to the tax, for the reasons stated here - it's just one more nail in the coffin of the county, making one more excuse for someone to go elsewhere.

Personally, I think the Commissioners deserve the struggle they're facing - I told them this would be the outcome, though I hate that I was right.

ASIDE: This is the same warning I issued over the new arena being built - the funding stream was not sufficient to meet the projected costs. The Commissioners recently passed a resolution pledging to cover any shortfall between funding stream and costs, pledging the taxing authority of the Lucas County to the purpose. I'd like to be wrong on that prediction, but I'm not hopeful.

And one final thought: if the Commissioners were really as interested in economic development as they say they are, why did they allow increased tax levies, including a new tax for COSI, to go on the ballot??? Inquiring minds...