Deconstructing The Blade's drug-pusher mentality on changing county government

Like a drug pusher trying to get you to get you hooked, The Blade is out with another editorial touting the benefits of bigger government and their 'revised' version of uni-gov. They've already sewn up the Toledo market (strong-mayor form of government they pushed) so now they want to expand into the county as a whole.

Like this effort, they pushed a strong-mayor form of government for Toledo telling us, in numerous 'news' articles and editorials, that a bigger city council with both district and at-large members along with a strong mayor who would appoint professionals to run Toledo would be a good thing.

Along with help from the Lucas County Democratic Party (who saw the inevitable outcome being more elected Democrats), they convinced a majority of Toledo voters and we were rewarded with the same 'stuck-on-stupid' thinking we've always had, except now from a larger, more costly government.

Oh - and we also had to suffer through two terms of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner, one term of Mayor Jack Ford, and another term of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner before getting a reasonable person, current Mayor Mike Bell, to hold that office. In case you're mathematically challenged, that's 16 years of two politicians from the same party with a council also dominated by Democrats, despite districts being drawn to supposedly provide for 'balanced' representation.

And how did all that work out? Well, they don't call us 'little Detroit' for nothing....

But if that's not enough to make your want to run screaming away from the county charter petitioners, let's take a look at what the unsigned editorial says about this proposal:

If you haven't yet endorsed the petition, you have every reason to do so.

Reform proponents need at least 14,500 signatures of registered voters, approved by the county board of elections, to advance their proposal for a new home-rule charter. Late last week, the grass-roots campaign said it had collected about 20,000 signatures. It seeks as many as 22,000 to fend off inevitable challenges by champions of business as usual.

Actually, no - you don't have 'every' reason to do so. In fact, the outcome from pushing for a similar structure for the city of Toledo should give you every reason NOT to.

Note the way they characterize people opposed to the idea: "champions of business as usual." Just because people like me - for valid reasons - do not support the proposal, it does not necessarily infer that we support the status quo. This is a logical fallacy - and someone who manages to make their way to the editorial board so as to write such attempts at persuasion ought to know that. Perhaps the author does, but expects readers not to know. What does that say about what they think of their readers?

I do want change in county governance - but I have yet to see any evidence that changing the form of the structure of our county government will give us anything different in terms of the policies, positions and actual governance of the county.

In fact, the study done by the self-appointed group that is recommending the change admits that, even under their structure, it boils down to who you elect - not the office you elect someone to. Given that admission from the study group, why are we going any further?

The reform plan would enable voters to exchange their 18th-century county government for a more-efficient structure. The new charter envisions a government that saves tax dollars, makes elected officials more accountable, and promotes economic growth and job creation.

This is the standard line from the limited supporters and it's what they've told their petitioners to tell people when they ask them to sign the petition.

But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the new structure will save tax dollars. They've not done a financial analysis; they've not shared fiscal comparisons of the two structures; they've only used a total spending comparison between Lucas County and one of the counties that has gone to a charter form of government and concluded that Lucas spends more per person than Summit County does,

This may be true - but they didn't compare Lucas County to the other 86 counties that don't have a charter form of government to see if we spend more per person than any of them. Is it likely that successful counties, like our neighbor Wood County, have a more efficient government than Lucas does without changing their form of government?

I don't know - but I question (and so should you) that if per person costs of government are the standard, why didn't the group compare Lucas to all counties to see where we stack up? The answer is that doing so might have shown that other counties have a less-costly government without going through such a change and that wouldn't fit with the goal of the paper to achieve the uni-gov dream they've had for decades.

They claim the new structure will "make elected officials more accountable." How, they don't say. Right now, specific elected officials are accountable for the actions of their office and we get a chance, every four years, to judge them on their actions and either re-hire them (elect them) or fire them (elect someone new).

Just like with a city council - how are we to hold individual members of council accountable for the failed action of a particular department - such as the Department of Neighborhoods? We can't. We can make one or more of their votes an issue in an election, but that will not change what a bureaucratic department is doing.

Some may say we can hold the mayor accountable for a department's action and, in the case of a charter form of county government, we would hold the county executive accountable. But even that's not a good enough answer (can you say three terms of Carty Finkbeiner?) as people will often overlook one or more issues because they agree with the elected official on so many others.

Additionally, with the majority of the proposed county districts incorporating the city of Toledo, how will a suburban community like Waterville hold the body accountable when they decide to do something that benefits Toledo to their detriment?

It's much easier to hold three county commissioners accountable than it is to hold six county council members and a county executive accountable. And having the ability to judge the individual performance of people elected to the offices of treasurer, auditor, recorder and sheriff means those individuals are directly accountable for the functions of their office to the citizens - not to some other group of elected officials who can escape blame in various ways.

The Blade also claims changing our form of government "promotes economic growth and job creation." Again, they provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this claim - but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? After all, job growth is what the area needs.

The hypocrisy, however, is something that cannot be overlooked. Economic development is not a function of the structure of government - it is a function of the policies the government puts in place. Elected individuals can implement policies that encourage or discourage economic development.

Sadly, too few elected individuals in Toledo and county government have any experience whatsoever in the business world so they make decisions that feel good (recreation levy) or that benefit a certain constituency (government unions and other groups that rely upon government funding for their existence) to the detriment of the business community which hurts their ability to grow, prosper and provide jobs.

The Blade did not oppose Toledo's living wage ordinance. While supporters claimed this was a good policy, it was - in effect - a mandate on employers and unnecessarily drove up the cost of contracts the taxpayer ended up paying. That's not-business-friendly and it hurt job providers. No doubt the paper will push for such a policy county-wide.

The Blade did not oppose the county's most recent plan to mandate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on all county contracts, despite having done so when the matter was first brought up. In case you're not familiar with that, it's when the county mandates that you must have a union agreement with your workers - whether you are a union shop or not - for the project you do for the county and the county will negotiate that contract for you to be sure it's consistent with what other contracts say. But it goes further and also mandates the same thing on any sub-contractors you may use. (Background and more details are available here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Talk about increasing the cost per person of county government! Bet the committee didn't look at that aspect before concluding that our government costs more than Summit. But I digress....

In fact, many of the numerous 'not-business-friendly' policies and votes that work to the detriment of economic development and job growth have been supported by The Blade. I've heard our local daily referred to as the "single most destructive force in the county" because of its many stances in favor of things that have hurt economic development and job growth in the area.

So how, exactly, will changing the form of government help? Are we to assume that a new county council (made up of a majority of Toledo elected officials who are term-limited, I predict) will repeal such anti-business policies in order to free our job providers from unnecessary costs and mandates? (That sound in your head is called hysterical laughter.)

Here's where one of the supposed 'champions of business as usual' believes change for the better could be made - and it doesn't require a change in structure. Just repeal all these anti-business rules, quit saying yes to every tax increase that comes along, lower property taxes and sales taxes and get out of the way of the people who are actually providing jobs in the county. See???

Like the authors of the study admit, it depends upon electing the right people.

The proposal would abolish the three-member Board of County Commissioners and seven of the county's eight elected -- but largely invisible -- row offices. The current government structure encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy, and leaves taxpayers wondering who's responsible for what.

Again, the editor clearly thinks people in the area are stupid if we don't know who is responsible for what. As for 'encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy,' this is incorrect. As a former county commissioner I can tell you that any redundancy in county government is a factor of governance - not of structure. And having been in the office, there is not as much redundancy as some claim and the ability of the commissioners to control the budgets of the other elected officials means that the commissioners can insist upon elimination of duplication - if they have the will to do so. Again, it comes back to the people - not the structure.

The ballot plan calls for an elected, nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians to head county offices. It also would create a county council whose nine members would mostly be elected by districts rather than at large. Those elections would occur in November 2013, and the new officials would take office the following January.

"Nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians" ... Yeah - because that's worked out so well with Toledo and the county already. Just take a look at who the elected officials surround themselves with - partisan individuals who support the partisan or electoral efforts of the people who appointed them.

Lucas County had one of the most respected and admired county administrators in John Alexander. But when Pete Gerken was elected to the board of county commissioners, he and Tina Skeldon-Wozniak told Alexander they didn't want him anymore. Alexander graciously went away and is now benefiting Perrysburg. The county got Michael Beazley - a former Democratic Party officer - and when he left for an even higher paying position in Oregon, they hired Peter Ujvagi, former Toledo city council member and former state representative who was termed out and had, in his background, the bankruptcy of his family business. So much for 'professional administrators' - I can't wait to see who they hire next!

So do you really think that if someone like Pete Gerken gets elected the county executive that he's going to hire all professionals? Again, that sound you're hearing in your head is hysterical laughter.

A similar structure in Cuyahoga and Summit counties has cut costs of county government. It also has encouraged central cities and suburbs in these counties to cooperate in providing regional public services, thus reducing duplication, and discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that costs in Summit and Cuyahoga have been cut as a result of the change in government structure. As for cooperation in providing regional public services, The Blade forgets the cooperation and collaboration that already exists.

When Mayor Jack Ford decided to push The Blade agenda of uni-gov, then-County Administrator John Alexander made a list of everything the county and its jurisdictions cooperated on. The list was two pages long! It included everything from joint purchasing of items like office supplies and road salt, to the first-in-the-nation completely integrated criminal justice computer system. The paper isn't going to tell you about the ways the municipalities do work cooperatively because that might make you question their premise that a change in government structure is needed.

But the real kicker is this: "discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs." The Blade has long opposed what it perceives as suburban communities raiding Toledo for businesses and job - even residents. They believe Toledo needs to dominate the area and be the focus of the region.

There is a lot to be said for strong cities, but in today's world and with the technology now available to us, that concept is as antiquated as they claim our structure of county government is.

It also presumes that businesses should have no other choice but to be inside the city limits, despite the more business-friendly policies of surrounding communities and whether or not surrounding communities would better meet the needs of the business.

Since Toledo is showing it really can't compete with the surrounding communities because of the bad decisions Toledo has made (usually with the strong backing of the paper's editorial board and publisher) The Blade's solution is to make the entire county like Toledo. And note that they have no problem with Toledo raiding other communities for businesses and jobs - just the other way around.

But here's the rub: businesses who found refuge from bad Toledo policies by moving to the suburban communities can also move to Wood, Fulton or Ottawa county if those bad business policies are exported, as I expect they will be, into county government.

The businesses, if they are to survive, will find the place that provides them with the tax, fee and regulatory structure necessary to support their legitimate goals of growth and profit. The Blade will then start complaining about how the surrounding counties need to support Lucas instead of 'raiding' them. Do you see where that is going?

The reform plan would make the Lucas County executive a focused, high-profile agent of economic development in northwest Ohio.

Oh my - where to start on this one? The structure of government will not make any person a focused, high-profile agent of economic development. The only way to get someone like that, as the study authors reluctantly admit, is to elect someone who is already like that. Duh! And what if we elect someone like Carty Finkbeiner or Jack Ford? Or like the new Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald who, in his first term under a brand-new governmental structure, is already "sending strong signals" that he's interested in running for governor in 2014. I'll bet his attention is fully focused on economic development.

Advocates argue plausibly that it also would make county government more diverse and bipartisan.

"Plausibly"??? Really??? Take a look at this proposed district map and tell me how in the world we'd get a more bipartisan body.

It may be true that we'd get one Republican county council member out of six - but I'm living proof that a Republican can be elected Commissioner - one of three. So to say we'd get 'more' bipartisan representation is false. One of three is greater than one of six, so just electing a Republican in the current structure would actually be better if numbers of R's and D's are all we're looking at.

The problem is that party affiliation and skin color are immaterial to what we really need, which is a diversity of ideas and perspectives. What we'd get with proposed districts like these is Toledo-centric domination - and Toledo doesn't have a very good track record of saving tax dollars, making elected officials more accountable, and promoting economic growth and job creation.

The four months until Election Day will provide ample time for a thorough public debate on the merits of county reform. But that can't occur unless county voters give themselves the opportunity now to opt for positive change and modernized government in November. That means adding your signature to the petition drive.

Somehow I can't help but think of Rep. Nancy Pelosi's statement that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."

The fallacy - again - is thinking that we should have a measure on the ballot before we have a "thorough public debate" on the merits and that such debate "can't occur" unless we sign the petitions.

What they really mean is that if the measure makes it on the ballot, they can use the 'support' of the signers as 'proof' that people want the change. They've done that before, when it suited them. If The Blade really wanted debate on the issue, they'd seek out and publish the valid arguments against the proposal and allow the people to decide, rather than demonizing those of us who oppose it.

But tell me - what news article have you seen (out of the dozens they've published on the subject), that 'focused' on any argument against this proposal? What news article have you seen that provides for any 'public debate' on the issue? I'd wait while you search, but you won't find it, so you might as well keep reading.

The problem is that what they're putting on the ballot is flawed - in original premise and, thus, in conclusions. They write:

“Simply put, we believe government must lead.”

They don't say why, they don't explain any other option, but with this as their premise, the study group obviously had no other choice but to conclude that:

Lucas County needs a single unifying leader. The absence of such an office and such a person makes reversing our condition more difficult and perpetuates a fragmented decision-making environment.

So rather than look at the decisions - or the people who make those decisions - that make our current condition a bad one, they conclude we must change our form of government so we can elect a perfect person to lead us to salvation.

So sign those petitions so ignorant people can be swayed by fallacious arguments like these to do The Blade's bidding and achieve uni-gov once and for all!

Okay - back to the facts...

The Blade and the study have failed to demonstrate a need, failed to identify and analyze various methods to meet the need and failed to document why their preferred option is the best. They have just decided and are expecting everyone else to just fall in line.

But fortunately, this tactic of theirs is too well known and, hopefully individuals in Lucas County will reject The Blade's belief that they know what's best for us and refuse to sign the petition.

Thurber's fleeting thoughts on a sunny morning

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

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

Now, I could go so many places with this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next public meeting on county council issue scheduled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plus any you can think of.

***End Side Note

What's an 'American-made' vehicle?

I just had to laugh when I read that Lucas County Commissioner and former UAW member Pete Gerken is in hot water over the lease of an Ohio-made Acura TL.

The car was a Christmas gift to his wife and, according to the report, was her choice. But that's just 'an excuse,' according to one UAW member, to get Gerken off the hot seat.

First of all, none of those union people who are so outraged can provide a definition of 'American made' when it comes to cars. I once had a conversation with a UAW leader that went something like this (note the ownership of the various brands was different back then):

ME: Would I be in trouble with the union if I bought a car made entirely at the Honda plant in Marysville? It's an Ohio-made car, so wouldn't that be good to support manufacturing in our state?

UAW leader: No - the plant is owned by Honda and the money goes back to them in Japan - it doesn't stay here in the states.

ME: Well, then. What if I bought a Volvo? They're made in the U.S. and Canada and the brand is owned by Ford - so the money would stay with an American company.

UAW leader: No - it's a foreign vehicle...Vovlo is German.

ME: But I can buy a Jeep made in Toledo by a German company who takes the money back to Germany - that's okay?

UAW leader: Yep - now you've got it.

This really happened! I was dumbfounded - there was no logic whatsoever to the thought process, except, perhaps, that some of the plants are union and some are not, but even that didn't explain the opposition to a Volvo made by UAW members.

The problem is with the thinking - or lack thereof. The UAW has never provided their definition of 'American made' - which makes it very easy for them to pick and choose what they want to support or criticize when it comes to car purchases.

Cars.com actually has an "American-Made Index":

"...rates vehicles built and bought in the U.S. Factors include sales, where the car's parts are made and whether the car is assembled in the U.S. Models that have been discontinued are disqualified, as are those with a domestic-parts content rating below 75 percent."

This seems like a fair way to judge whether or not a car is 'American.'

The #1 rank goes to Toyota Camry - what a surprise!

Only five of the top 10 vehicles are what most people would think of as 'American' because of the name of the company that makes them. According to Cars.com, that's a record low for the Detroit automakers.

Funny, but the Jeep products don't make the list.

In the news article, Bruce Baumhower, president of United Auto Workers Local 12, makes the point very well:

"My wife has always wanted a [Chrysler] PT Cruiser, which is made in Mexico, so there will never be a PT Cruiser in my family."

Rather than purchase a vehicle made by his employer (or the employer of his union members), Baumhower supported the purchase of Jeep products, even when the profits from the sale of those items was going to the German company, Daimler. But if you thought you were 'buying American' by purchasing the Chrysler PT Cruiser, you're wrong, even if it means you're sabotaging the sales of your employer.

How is anyone supposed to know what's 'acceptable' these days? In a global market where companies have plants all over the world, employ workers in markets where they hope to sell their cars, and where everyone is dependent upon trade with everyone else, how is a concerned buyer supposed to make a good decision?

Is it better to purchase a Japanese car made in Ohio by fellow Ohioans or to purchase a Detroit automaker vehicle made in Mexico by your employer? Which is 'better'????

Or is the decision supposed to hinge upon the unionization status of the workers? If so, then why would a unionized plan in Mexico making PT Cruisers be off limits?

What? You didn't know that Mexico had unions? Confederacion de Trabajadores Mexicanos, CTM, is Mexico's largest union and it represents the workers at the PT Cruiser facility in Toluca.

Maybe it's just UAW union plants that count.

This whole thing is just another way for unions to control their members and the politicians. Do you think Gerken will suffer any consequences for this purchase? The UAW did give him tens of thousands of dollars for his first campaign for commissioner. Will he get as much financial support for his next one? Or will the union decide that a Democrat is still better than any Republican opponent, even a Democrat with a Honda in the garage?

***SIDE NOTE:

I couldn't let this story go by with commenting on the decision to even publish a story about what kind of car some politician's wife drives. Does anyone else find it 'selective' that The Blade thinks this is worthy of a 742-word story but they didn't even mention the Commissioners vote to impose Project Labor Agreements for Lucas County bidders?

PLAs will increase the costs of government, force unionization on private employers and their workers and, interestingly, were opposed by The Blade the last time they were tried in Lucas County. Yet the paper never even mentioned the issue, despite covering the meetings at which they were discussed on voted upon.

Yet the paper thinks this is worthy of a front-page story on their second section.

END SIDE NOTE***

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.

'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

Living wages hurt those they are supposed to help

The Lucas County Board of Commissioners has a living wage resolution on their agenda for today. Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop introduced the idea in January and the Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce opposes the measure.

A living wage is defined by this resolution as at least $11.66 per hour. For those employers who do not provide adequate healthcare coverage, a living wage is defined by this resolution as at least $13.78 per hour. Because these figures are defined by Department of Health and Human Services guidelines which change yearly, these wage numbers merely apply for 2009.

Here are some of the components of the resolution:

Section 1. The Board hereby adopts a policy which requires that all businesses that: 1) request public incentives from the Board, and/or 2) receive a contract from the Board of $10,000 or more pay all employees a living wage and provide adequate healthcare coverage. This living wage policy will not apply to small businesses, non-profit employers, seasonal employees, or interns.

Section 2. The Board defines a living wage as a wage equivalent to at least 110% of the most recent federal povery guidelines for a family of four, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Board defines adequate healthcare coverage as single-person health benefits available to employees at less that 15% of the employees’ monthly wages. If no healthcare coverage is provided, the living wage is hereby defined as a wage equivalent to at least 130% of the most recent federal poverty guidelines for a family of four, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Section 3. The Board defines public incentive as including but not limited to tax abatements, economic development loans or grants, tax increment financing, or other forms of taxpayer funding including CDBG funds.

Section 4. The Board defines a small business as an employer with 25 employees or less for the purposes of contract with the Board of $10,000 or more, and as an employer with 50 employees or less for the purposes of the award of public incentives.

(Side note: this is copied directly from the resolution - spelling errors and all)

They justify this action by saying:

Lucas County has an interest in ensuring that businesses that receive contracts or other benefits from our taxpayers are meeting minimum compensation levels for their employees. Such minimum compensation levels should allow citizens to support themselves and their families with dignity. (emphasis added)

Actually, the 'county' has no such interest but, more importantly, they have no such authority. The Lucas County Prosecutor has previously told the Board (with different members including me) that county commissioners have no authority to implement such a policy. The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor told the Cuyahoga Commissioners the same thing. A phone call to the County Commissioners Association of Ohio will get you the same answer: no such authority.

Konop, having requested a legal opinion as to the authority and receiving it, has refused to release it citing 'attorney-client confidentiality.' In checking, this is a valid exemption under the public records law of Ohio. However, as Konop is the client, he could waive that confidentiality and release the opinion if he wanted.

So why doesn't he?

Well, obviously because to release it will prove that he has no statutory authority to implement his planned action. So why are the commissioners so intent on doing this? Well, it's all out their personal intentions and desires to help the poor. According to the resolution:

"Sub-poverty level wages do not serve the public interest and place an undue burden on taxpayers and the community, who must further subsidize employers who pay inadequate wages by providing their employees social services such as health care, housing, nutrition, and energy assistance."

There are so many questionable statements in this - from the concept of 'inadequate' wages, to 'sub-poverty' wages (which were and are NEVER intended to be able to support a family of four), to 'public interest' (which ignores the public's interest in having the lowest best prices for government contracted services), to the the idea that employers are somehow responsible for ensuring that their employees get housing and nutrition.

But let's just focus on the stated goal of the Commissioners: to reduce poverty.

Here are some facts and their sources when it comes to living wages and their impact:

"Living wages may at first seem a natural way to fight poverty, but there are two reasons why such mandates may not help to achieve this goal, aside from the fact that they do not cover many workers. First, economic theory predicts that because a mandated wage increase operates essentially as a tax on the use of low-skilled labor, living wages will discourage the use of such labor. Thus, whatever wage gains accrue to workers who retain their jobs (and do not have their hours produced) may have to be offset against potential job and income losses for other workers.

Second, living wages may ineffectively target low-income families.
...
Laws that extend only to city contractors cover very few workers...However, for the broader living wage laws that also apply to employers receiving business assistance from the city, we do detect evidence that living wage laws raise wages but lower employment of low-wage, low-skilled individuals." (source)

So Konop's "desire" to help may end up hurting the intended recipients.

"...the living wage in Santa Fe significantly increased unemployment and decreased hours worked for those who were able to keep their job. Even more troubling, this research found that almost the entire negative effect of the living wage was concentrated on the city’s least-skilled and least-educated employees. These are the very individuals the living wage is purportedly helping.

"...living wage advocates point to an increase in overall employment in Santa Fe since the ordinance as “evidence” of success. This a faulty analysis that fails to control for factors such as overall economic growth in the state or a growing population. The importance of controlling for these factors is the very basis of credible economic analysis and one of the first things taught in any rudimentary statistics course.
...
For those that do keep their jobs, Dr. Yelowitz found that they end up working fewer hours than before. On the whole, the living wage ordinance reduced hours worked by 1.6 hours per week. Similar to the unemployment results, these hours reductions were felt most by the least-educated employees. Those with 12 years or fewer of education saw their hours reduced by 3.5 hours per week." (source)

There is also this op-ed piece that appeared in The American Spectator:

"The activists say that requiring businesses to pay wages based on local cost-of-living expenses lifts low-income families out of poverty.

Has that actually happened in the 145 cities and counties that already have a living wage on the books? The data suggest "no." In fact, the living wage has turned out not only to be a terribly ineffective anti-poverty tool, but to actually hurt poor, low-skilled workers by cutting into other forms of compensation or -- in more than a few cases -- getting them fired.

And most of the people it helps don't really need the help at all. Research from Mark Turner of Georgetown University and Burt Barnow of Johns Hopkins University indicates that over 70 percent of families benefiting from living wages have family incomes almost double the poverty level, and that as high as 64 percent of families affected by living wages have "incomes above the 20th percentile."

After studying the economic climates of over 100 jurisdictions around the country (both with and without living wage laws), economists David Neumark of the University of California and Scott Adams of the University of Wisconsin concluded that living wage laws "reduce employment among the least-skilled, especially when the laws... are accompanied by similar laws in nearby cities." "

There are numerous articles and studies that detail the negative impact of such laws, like this one from Cato which concludes:

"Decades of research have shown that the minimum wage harms the least-skilled workers from poor families while heavily benefiting young workers from middle-income households. Several studies critical of the living wage come to similar conclusions. The main beneficiaries of the living wage are public-sector unionized employees because of the reduced incentives for local governments to contract out work. Instead of exploiting grievances of the marginally employed against "greedy" employers, advocates for the poor should focus their energies on building the skills of the poor."

It's also important to know who supports these living wage initiatives:

ACORN has a website devoted to the subject in the ACORN Living Wage Resource Center.

United for a Fair Economy, which envisions "communities and nations without disparities of income, wages, wealth, health, safety, respect, and opportunities for recreation and personal growth," has their Responsible Wealth Living Wage Covenant, which includes a statement that "no one working full time should live in poverty."

Let Justice Roll, which supports a $10 in 2010 federal minimum wage, has a downloadable "Resources for Living Wage Worship Services and Community Events" to celebrate the Living Wage Days campaign.

The problem is that these organizations focus on getting more money to people without a corresponding increase in the skills or experience which would normally accompany such an increase in wages. Additionally, under the Lucas County resolution, all these groups, being non-profit, would be exempt from having to pay the wages they're advocating.

Interestingly, quite a significant number of social service organizations who are contracted to provide services to the clients of the county's Job and Family Services department are non-profit and would also be exempt.

The worst part of the action scheduled for this morning in the Commissioners meeting room is that no public hearings have been held on the issue. Despite the protestations of Konop, the business meetings of the Board of County Commissioners (unlike city councils) do not include an opportunity for public comment. Commissioners, in taking public comment, have to set a public hearing and publicize the event. That was not done, so such pros and cons of the living wage proposal have not been heard and debated.

And then there is that legal opinion which is conveniently being hidden from public view.

My hope is that Commissioners Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak will not vote in favor of the resolution having learned they have no authority to implement such a requirement, despite their publicly-stated support of the issue.

But if they vote along with Konop and pass this mandate, will there be anyone who will challenge it?

*** If you're a fan of tongue-in-cheek, check out the latest addition to the Stuck-on-Stupid dictionary.

LCIC - better late than never

When Commissioner Pete Gerken decided he wanted to 'remake' the Lucas County Improvement Corporation into a county-wide economic development agency, I agreed that it was a good vehicle for coordinated efforts - but disagreed with the way the entity was being structured and the content of the bylaws which gave so much authority to the Toledo mayor and the Lucas County Commissioners.

One of my main objections was the dominance by politicians (and their appointees) on the executive board and the lack of oversight the full board had of the decisions the executive board would make.

This week, the make up of the executive board was changed to all business members - no elected officials - which is what I originally advocated. So while it took several years, it's better late than never.

But there are still issues with the agency over funding. Commissioner Ben Konop continues to oppose allocating any money to the LCIC, despite the 2-1 vote to increase the conveyance tax in Lucas County by $1 in order to fund the agency.

But like any politician, with extra money in the coffers, Konop wants to spend it elsewhere.

"Mr. Konop said he plans to introduce a resolution that instead would allocate the funds for public safety - specifically to hire a class of sheriff's deputies and "to stave off a cut in road patrols."

While funding law enforcement is a statutory authority of the BCC and the LCIC is not, I don't think the additional tax would have been on the agenda or received the votes of Gerken and Comm. Tina Skeldon Wozniak if it was just to increase county revenues for general fund purposes. It also might have received more intense public opposition if that had been the purpose.

So the conflict over the agency continues.

The members of the Executive Committee - which has the ability to make all decisions on behalf of the LCIC - are:

* Keith Burwell, president and chief executive officer, Toledo Community Foundation;
* Joe Rideout, partner, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick;
* Mary Jo Waldock, special assistant to the president for economic development, University of Toledo;
* Rashmi Agnihotri, director of corporate strategy, The Andersons Inc.;
* Baldemar Velasquez, president, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee;
* Gary Yunker, vice president of real estate development, Timberstone Group Inc.;
* Derick Gant, president, Gant Investment Advisors Inc.;
* Mark Rasmus, president, Tomahawk Development Co.;
* Joseph H. Zerbey IV, president and general manager, The Blade.

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.

Gerken asks for budgets from LCIC, Housing Fund

A press release from Commissioner Pete Gerken:

Toledo, Ohio – In response to yesterday’s public hearing on a one dollar increase in the Lucas County conveyance fee, Commissioner Pete Gerken is calling on leaders from the Lucas County Improvement Corporation and the Toledo-Lucas County Housing Fund to submit a proposed budget and plan for 2009.

“After two public hearings it is clear that both the LCIC and the Housing Fund are interested in this potential increase in the conveyance fee. In order to give my colleagues and me a reasonable basis to make a final decision, I am asking the leaders of both organizations to present a proposed budget and plan for how they would spend these funds in 2009,” said Gerken.

To allow both organizations time to present this budget and plan to the County Commissioners, Gerken is asking that any decision on a conveyance fee increase be deferred until Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at the regular Commissioners’ meeting.

“We as a Board must make a final decision with the best information available to us. If the LCIC and the Housing Fund have a detailed plan for these dollars, it’s important that the Commissioners have a chance to see it before we decide,” said Gerken.

Gerken is asking that each organization present its budget and plan to the Commissioners within the next 10 days.

The Commissioners are currently debating an increase in the conveyance fee, which would raise it from its current rate of $3 per $1,000 of property valuation to $4. This extra dollar fee is expected to generate approximately $800,000 in new revenue in 2009.

Comments: I appreciate that Gerken is actually asking for some accountability on how a new source of tax dollars will be spent...but we all need to remember - this is new taxes.

By asking for how these organizations will spend the money, they're all saying that they need the money more than the people paying the tax do...You and I are better judges on how to spend those dollars than any publicly-supported agency - especially if we're allowed to keep them and not fork them over to the government.

'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...

Debunking "Eight Years of Economic Pain"

As to be expected, two Lucas County officials yesterday held a press conference to denounce President George W. Bush as part of a partisan effort in the 2008 presidential campaign. That Bush is not running this year seems to be missed on Commission Pete Gerken and Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz, but that's a discussion for another post.

As proof of the 'Bush is evil, McCain's the same' mantra, they produced a 'report' that claims to document "Eight Years of Economic Pain, How GOP Economic Policies in Washington have Devastated Ohio." Media covered the press conference and have referenced the 'report' but without the clarification below.

The first thing you need to know about this report is that it wasn't done by any independent body or researcher, it was done by the Ohio Democratic Party and the Ohio Campaign for Change, which is the Barack Obama campaign. This is not an objective analysis, it is a partisan attempt to portray the Democrats' view of things.

It contains a listing of all companies that either closed or laid off workers since 2001. According to the report:

The bulk of the data on factory, company and operation shut downs and layoffs is a result of Ohio’s Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The WARN Act provides protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. WARN notices are provided by employers to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Bureau of WIA, Rapid Response Section. This current and historical data can be found at http://jfs.ohio.gov/warn/.

This initial State of Ohio data was supplemented by private service databases, including Lexis‐Nexis, online searches, BuildCentral information, archived business directories at the local library, and business street address information from InfoUSA’s business databases. This information was then compiled into a master database used for the analysis.

They admit two problems with the data: 1) it doesn't include companies that are exempt from the WARN requirements, and 2) it doesn't account for companies that issued WARN notices, but then did not lay off all notified employees or actually close.

Based upon this clarification and the methodology identified, I find no reason to challenge the actual data. Attributing the data to a specific reason, however, certainly deserves to be challenged.

The report is primarily charts and graphs with the data broken down by county, Congressional District, House District, etc. Of the 80 pages, there are only five that contain wording: preface page, overview page, why John McCain is wrong for Ohio, Appendix A with the methodology and Appendix B with the McCain quote references.

The report never explains any specific policy that results in the job losses. In fact, the report does not even attempt to identify any reason why a particular company or industry laid off workers or closed. The closest they come to any analysis or explanation is a single bullet point on the overview that many of the jobs left the U.S., "moving to to countries such as China, Mexico,Taiwan, India, and Columbia, to name a few." But they don't identify any of those companies specifically.

In fact, a cursory review of the listing of lost jobs raises more questions than it answers when it comes to WHY those companies closed and WHY it is the fault of GOP economic policies.

For example, they cite the closing of the Farmer Jacks stores in Toledo in 2006. But those stores were closed as part of a larger company restructuring decision decision by Montvale, N.J.-based Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, according to a May 11, 2005 Blade report.

Also from the story:

"Shamie Singh of Maumee said the problem at Farmer Jack was their prices seemed high.

"If they had good prices I'm pretty sure they'd have had more customers. People will go elsewhere for better prices," said Ms. Singh, who also shops at Kroger and Meijer."

Obviously, there was more to this particular closing than presidential policies.

And then there is the listing of St. Anthony Villa, also in Toledo, which closed in 2001. This agency ran a chemical dependency program and a residential behavioral program that handled about 600 youth a year. They were closed by their parent company after receiving reduced funding from the United Way, though they stated that the loss of funding was not the reason for the closing. According to press reports at the time, there were not enough youth going through the programs.

Now, this would seem to be a good thing, that less youth are in need of chemical dependency programs, but not if you're the Ohio Democratic Party looking for another example to represent your claims.

Chrysler is another Toledo company on the list. Their layoffs had more to do with the American automotive market, their sale by Daimler, and their regular shutdowns than anything else. And then, with the increase in the price of gas and the decline of the SUV market, is it any wonder that they had longer than normal shutdowns on the Jeep lines?

General Mills is another large employer from Toledo listed in the report. They were purchased by International Multifoods in 2002 which sold the entity to J.M. Smucker in 2004. The job losses were a result of the sale and the consolidation within the new companies.

Other Toledo firms listed:

Craft House International - according to a story in the Toledo Blade at the time:

Craft House is best known for paint-by-number sets, but sells more than 300 activity toys, craft and hobby kits, and outdoor sport toys.

An industry expert said the action in Toledo could be linked to problems at several retail chains that carry the firm's craft products. Ames, Zany Brainy, and Jo Ann Fabrics & Crafts have experienced difficulties recently, said Michael Hartnett, publisher of Creative Leisure News in Tremont, Ill.

"The industry has been fairly flat and is going through difficult times," he said.

Jacobson's Department Store - closed after filing for bankruptcy. The Toledo store was one of the chain's worst performers and all the stores in Ohio were closed as part of their efforts to restructure their financing.

CVS Pharmacies - they were a victim of the 'drug store wars' when multiple drug store chains inundated the Toledo regional market in an effort to gain part of the $328 million spent annually at drug stores in the metro area (dollar amount from 2001). Some intersections in the city had a different drug store on every corner. According to the chain's spokesman at the time, these stores were all low-performing.

Convergys - a call center that was closed in 2003 as part of the company's world-wide restructuring, including consolidation of locations.

The reasons these companies closed had more to do with their industries or their own internal operations than with any presidential policy.

But that's not the purpose of the 'report.' The purpose is to provide quotes to be used by elected officials and reported in the media to promote Barack Obama over John McCain.

Their 'proof' of their choice - again, not surprising since they are the Democrat Party - is a single page that is supposed to document their positions.

On the "McCain wrong for Ohio" page, they cite his votes in favor of free trade, including NAFTA, though they fail to explain why McCain is wrong on a policy that was implemented by Democrat President Bill Clinton. They also criticize McCain's positions against many union-sponsored and promoted initiatives like minimum wage increases, prevailing wage requirements and extension of unemployment benefits.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise considering the differing platform and philosophical positions of the Democrat Party and the Republican nominee.

Something else they don't tell is how many jobs were created in Ohio during that same time frame. We all know that politicians love to take credit for jobs created by the private sector. But to include the number of jobs created might give you more information than they want you to know.

According to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the yearly average number of people employed in Ohio has risen steadily since 1992. Two years, 2002 and 2003, saw the numbers decline, but even then, the 2003 employment numbers were higher than any year between 1992 and 1998. By 2006, Ohio had more people employed than they did in any year going back to 1992.

Toledo's average employment numbers increase from 1992 to 1998, and hit their peak in 1999. Since 1999, the average number of people employed in Toledo has been in steady decline. In fact, from 2002 through 2007, Toledo has not even reached its previous low (in the time frame examined of 1992-2007) which was in 1992.

Interestingly, despite the state's decline in average employment in only two years, Lucas County and Toledo had 8 years in which their employment declined. So the question that should be asked is this: what is different between Toledo/Lucas County and the rest of the state? Does it have anything to do with the Democrat leadership that has held almost all elective offices in the city and county since that time? Or is it really 'all Bush's fault'?

I'm currently awaiting the job creation figures from ODJFS and will include them upon receipt.

CONCLUSION: This 'report' is nothing but a compilation of unrelated factors presented by a partisan organization in an attempt to generate news/media coverage that is beneficial to their candidate and detrimental to their opponent. The question is, will the media - and the public - fall for it?

More missing pieces in news articles on the Arena

On Monday's Eye On Toledo, I documented a report prepared for the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission (OCFC) on the arena financing. I also did a blog post detailing how the report says the county plans to use public funds for the arena.

I'm glad the paper has caught up to me on the issue, but have to question the omission of key information.

They write:

"The county commissioners have said the project will be paid for by its own revenue and the increased hotel-motel tax.

But the report says the county should have done more to document funding for the arena. To release $7.7 million in state funds, the commission wants:

•More documentation of funding sources.

•An executed lease agreement with Toledo Arena Sports.

•A signed agreement with an Arena League Football team.

•Documentation of expected revenue from nearby parking."

Here's the actual language from the report, starting on page 28:

Based on all of the analysis outlined above, the Consultant recommends the following conditionso f approval of State funding for the Project:

􀂃 Demonstration by the County of full funding for the Project through the identified sources. Full funding would include:
• The sale of the planned taxable and tax-exempt general obligation bonds at interest rates equal to or lower than those included in the provided project documentation;
• Verification of the anticipated investment income;
• Documentation of the receipt of the anticipated hotel tax equity
• Executed luxury suite leases under the Founders Program; and
• A commitment from the County to allocate $12.0 million in capital funds.
􀂃 Execution of outstanding legal agreements, including the Facility lease with TASI and the management agreement with SMG with terms equivalent to or better than those included in the draft materials.
􀂃 Acquisition of an af2 franchise or revised operating projections that consider the operation of the arena by SMG with only an ECHL team as a sports tenant.
􀂃 Documentation of formal agreements that ensure the collection of parking revenues from 1,000 spaces by the Facility.

Why would they write of the commissioners' contention that only hotel/motel tax and revenue from the arena will be used for the project and then omit the criteria relating to the Capital Improvement Fund dollars?

They do mention the $12 million later in the story, with the explanation that those CIP funds will be repaid from the loans. If that were clear in the information submitted to the OCFC, why would it be a separate requirement? Wouldn't that be covered under the requirement for the issuance of the bonds?

The Blade article says:

"The report also implies the county will be using general operating fund dollars to finance the project, but county officials strongly deny they plan to dip into that fund."

However, the actual wording from the report's page 11 states (not 'implies'):

It is also important to note that the Project Sponsor intends to utilize other sources of funds, completely unrelated to the financial performance of the Facility or its tenants, to service bond obligations. Components of the financing plan include General Obligation Bonds secured by Hotel / Motel Tax revenues (see Section C.3, below) and annual County commitments from the general fund. (emphasis added)

Tom Chema, a consultant to the commissioners for the arena, was interviewed by Fred Lefebvre about this, but never really answered the question - first saying the reference to the general fund was the hotel-motel tax and then saying it was the capital dollars. However, those are three separate funds: general, hotel-motel tax receipts, and capital improvements, and Chema knows that. I'm certain that both the report authors and the OCFC understand the distinction between the separate public account funds, which is why the items are identified separately in the report.

This is a question that must be answered: why did the the county tell the OCFC that they intend to make annual contributions from the general fund to help supplement the financing if they have promised the arena must pay for itself???

What will it take to get the paper to ask this question and actually dig to be sure they're getting a truthful answer and not just a 'you'll have to trust me' response?

"County officials said they've complied with many of the requests. Since the report was issued, the county has borrowed $90 million in "bond anticipation notes," or brief, one-year loans with small interest rates."

Issuing notes in anticipation of bonds is not the same as issuing bonds. While the action of issuing the notes is probably best in this market, as it will allow the county to hold off on the permanent bonds to see if they can get a better interest rate, the county cannot say that they've met the threshhold requirement of the OCFC. The issue of uncertainty exists until the permanent bonds are actually issued, the interest rate set and the ability of the county to meet the debt obligation is proven to the OCFC.

All along, I've said that there are numerous fiscal questions that need to be answered and serious financial risks that must be considered. Commissioner Pete Gerken is fond of saying that you have to take risks if you want the rewards (though I question the responsibility of taking such risks with money that is not your own...). The problem here is that we've begun the project without calculating the risks and sharing those risks with the public so they could make an informed decision. As the OCFC report says, Lucas County is at a greater risk because we began the project without having the funding in place, leaving the only option, should any funding stream not be met, of dipping into the public's general fund dollars to make up the difference.

Lucas County citizens may have supported that risk - if they'd known about. But in this political environment, you're not supposed to ask such questions and demand such accountability - you're just supposed to accept that you don't 'need anything other than their word' and then dutifully fork over the dough when the time comes.