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.

Local Dems ignore truth, parrot Obama lies about Reagan and Buffett Rule

In recent speeches about his proposed Buffett Rule, President Barack Obama has invoked President Ronald Reagan three times in the hopes of convincing conservatives and Republicans to support his new tax.  As if that would help.

The Buffett Rule would set a minimum tax rate of 30% for anyone who earns $1 million or more in a year.

Obama said he'd change the name to the Reagan Rule if it meant gaining such support:

"I'm not the first president to call for this idea that everybody's got to do their fair share. Some years ago one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong.

So this president gave another speech where he said it was "crazy" – that's a quote – "that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multi-millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary."

That wild-eyed socialist, tax-hiking, class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

He thought that in America the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so.

I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we're calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility, everybody doing their part.

And if it'll help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan rule instead of the Buffett rule."

The only problem is that, like so many other historical references the President has made, he completely distorts the facts and truth of the matter, as Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner explains:

Yes, it’s true that on June 28, 1985, Reagan gave a speech to Bloom High School in Chicago Heights, Illinois about problems with the tax code in which he told an anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. But if you read the whole speech, it’s clear that Reagan was telling the story as part of his pitch for tax reform.


“Lower, flatter tax rates will give Americans more confidence in the future,” Reagan said that day. “It'll mean if you work overtime or get a raise or a promotion or if you have a small business and are able to turn a profit, more of that extra income will end up where it belongs -- in your wallets, not in Uncle Sam's pockets.”


So there are several key differences with Obama. To start, Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.


Reagan’s push for tax reform helped lead to landmark reform legislation the following year that broadened the tax base, consolidated the nation’s 14 brackets into just two and lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. This is actually pretty close to the framework that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., outlined in the House GOP budget and couldn’t be more far off from Obama’s Buffett Rule gimmick.

But the facts didn't stop local Democrats from jumping on the bandwagon.  Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz and Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak defended the President's call to tax the rich more.
 

The county treasurer stated even the late President Reagan believed the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Lucas County commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak stated the Buffett Rule ensures billionaires pay their fair share alongside the middle class. The comments come ahead of a U.S. Senate vote Monday on the president's proposal and was part of an organized statewide effort by the Obama re-election campaign.

As a treasurer, certainly Kapszukiewicz should understand the difference between income tax and capital gains taxes. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than payroll income - they are not comparable.

Anyone who gets a paycheck pays payroll taxes.  In Ohio, a person earning $1 million per year from a paycheck would actually pay 31.4% in federal income tax while that same person earning $15/hour would pay only 5% in federal income tax.

Using this payroll tax calculator, I found that a married person filing jointly with two exemptions and earning $1 million per year - or $19,250/week - would pay $6038.36 each week in federal income tax.  That's 31.4%

But that same married person filing jointly with two exemptions earning $31,200 per year - or $600/week - would pay $29.78 each week in federal income tax.  That's 5%.

Apparently Skeldon-Wozniak, who said, "It's not fair for the bus driver to pay 10% and the millionaires to pay nothing," hasn't got a clue what the tax rates are or what people actually pay.

Now, when these two individuals file their 1040s, they will be eligible for certain credits and deductions based upon their individual choices (charitable contributions), spending (unreimbursed business expenses and out-of-pocket medical costs).  Those deductions and credits (most available to both earners equally) will determine if they receive any of their paid taxes back as a refund - or if they owe more.  But the tax rate - the amount they must pay before they get their take-home pay - clearly shows that the millionaire would pay six times as much as the middle income earner.

What I didn't see in any of the news reports on the statements from the President and the parroting by our local Democrats is a question about the people who don't pay any federal taxes at all.

As this chart shows, "...“The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984."

So I sent an email to both Kapszukiewicz and Skeldon-Wozniak to ask them two simple questions:

Since nearly half of the nation does not pay anything at all in income tax, what is the 'fair share' of that group?

How much should those who are currently paying nothing at all be required to pay in order for them to pay a 'fair share'?

I will publish their responses if and when I receive them.

These are the facts.  Obama, Kapszukiewicz and Skeldon-Wozniak don't want to talk about the millions of people who don't pay anything, much less their own 'fair share.'  They just want to get more out of the people who are already paying.

And they stupidly think that taking quotes from Ronald Reagan out of context and trying to distort Reagan's clear record in support of lower, flatter tax rates will somehow help them accomplish that goal?

Who is advising these people?!?

Sadly, this again demonstrates what we already know:  that our local elected officials care more about politics than anything else. 

The scary part is that Kapszukiewicz is part of the Obama for America Truth Team.  Perhaps he and Skeldon-Wozniak should learn the truth instead of just repeating false political rhetoric.

'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.

'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...

And now the politicians will fall in line

The Blade has spoken: don't demolish the United Way building. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner has dutifuly picked up the cry. It was only a matter of time before Commissioner Ben Konop solidified his 'golden boy' status by joining the chorus.

Sadly, instead of laughing at their colleague's pandering, fellow Commissioners Tina Skeldon Wozniak and Pete Gerken have nodded their heads thoughtfully and said it's an idea worth exploring.

So let's take a look at the logic Konop has employed.

The Lucas County Jobs and Family Services building was purchased by the county using bonds and will be paid off in 2010. The County will own the building free and clear and the money previously used to pay for the purchase will now be available for other structures, other general fund obligations (like recent wages increase to employees, to offset sales tax losses or for the new arena), or could be put toward upgrading and maintaining the building.

Sounds like a good thing, right? Wrong.

Now that the County will own the building, Konop wants to purchase another one, requiring the county to issue more bonds and continue to divert general fund dollars for capital purchases.

Ah, but Maggie, you say, they can sell that JFS building and use the proceeds to purchase the new one.

Again, no.

Logic would dictate that you first take a look at the appraised values of the building when even remotely considering such an option. The current appraised value of the JFS building is $1,601,500. The current appraised value of the United Way building is $5,050,100. In today's market, neither buildings are likely to generate that much in a sale, and both buildings would need 'improvements.' But any common sense thinking would tell you that it's not logical for the County to expect to purchase the UW structure for less than what they would get from the sale of the JFS building.

This is the first factor which should make anyone hearing the idea just shake their head in amazement. But, there's more.

The United Way building needs about $10 million in upgrades, renovations and ADA compliance. The County had a complete ADA evaluation done several years ago and has been doing the necessary improvements to ensure that all County buildings are compliant. The JFS building was upgraded several years ago and meets the ADA requirements. Why would Konop suggest going into a building that requires $10 million worth of improvements just to make it usable, in addition to leaving a building they've just made sure was ADA compliant?

Again, the logic of this situation should mean the discussion would be over. But Konop has an excuse for his idea: "That [Monroe Street] building is not a well-functioning building," Mr. Konop said. "It's extremely inefficient, it's dilapidated."

Yes, the JFS building has some issues. It's been heavily used for a significant number of years by the staff (around 400 people now but as high as over 700 when I first became a commissioner) and, especially, the customers (hundreds of people and families per day). It has sufficient parking for staff and clients and is easy to get to. It's had capital investments over the last six years or so, to re-do the lobby area and make other improvements. The money being used to pay the bonds for the building will, in 2010, be available for making other improvements as necessary - if the county plans appropriately. (Knowing the director of facilities, I'm confident such planning will take place.) But even with these issues, it's still in much better condition than the UW building, and I know because I've read the UW analysis - wonder if Konop has bothered to do so?

Then there is the internal layout of the UW building. When JFS remodeled the lobby, they made sure it was an open and inviting place with plenty of seating. They moved some services to the first floor in order to facilitate prompt service to clients without requiring them to go elsewhere in the building. Anyone who's been inside the UW building would instantly recognize the significant obstacles to be overcome in order to modify that lobby to meet the needs of JFS and its clients. I cannot even imagine the cost of retrofitting that lobby to the needs of JFS - but, considering the structural supports (columns and walls), it must be expensive.

The UW building was designed to accommodate multiple independent organizations and is structured like a multi-use office building. Its structure does not, nor was it designed to, serve the needs of a single agency. To modify its five floors would also be expensive. And those modifications would be on top of the $10 million cost of improvements already identified.

Is this yet enough to make you reject the idea of moving JFS into the UW building? It should be - but it's not for Konop.

Of course, no argument would be complete without the nebulous 'economic development' claim. According to Konop, moving the JFS employees would generate a broader economic impact in downtown.

Yes, you read that correctly. Moving those employees less than three miles into the heart of downtown, instead of leaving them on the edge of downtown is economic development. Now just how that constitutes economic development is unclear - but that's pretty standard for Konop's economic development ideas.

Maybe he believes that workers at JFS would go out to eat more if they were downtown? Of course, they can eat downtown rather easily from their current location - and many of the downtown eateries will deliver to the JFS location. How this constitutes economic development isn't explained - nor is it even questioned by the paper's reporter. (Of course, if questioned about it, there might not be a good answer - better to just let the comment stand without follow-up.)

Konop also points out that JFS staff are often in Government Center and having them closer would 'improve the county's efficiency.' The current JFS building has video conferencing ability and, as far as I know, they still have telephones and computers. If Konop really want to improve efficiency, the commissioners could stop making JFS staff come down in person and start taking advantage of the technology that's available. After all, it isn't as if Konop hasn't been promoting emerging technologies and 'new age' jobs...

These are the issues, clearly identifiable and certainly known to the commissioners. So why would Konop suggest such a ridiculous idea? Either he hasn't got a clue - or he doesn't care about the logic of the idea and is more intent on pandering to the wishes of the publisher of The Blade.

You decide.

Does Lucas County need a 'sweatshop apparel' policy?

According to today's paper, our commissioners have nothing better to do than to outlaw the purchase of products made in sweatshop conditions with taxpayer money.

Is the County actually purchasing products made under such conditions? Well, they don't know for sure.

Lucas County spent $40,000 on prisoner uniforms, socks, and slippers in the last five years, much of it bought from contractors suspected of using sweatshop labor, Mr. Konop said.

Don't you think you'd find out for sure if you were so concerned with the possibility?

Corrections Administrator Jim O'Neal said he hadn't heard any concerns about the labor practices of the jail's contractors until plans for Mr. Konop's policy were brought to his attention.

He said he's concerned about a possible increase in the cost of corrections system apparel.

"As long as we can find another supplier, and as long as [the commissioners] give us the funds to pay the extra cost, it will have no impact on us," Mr. O'Neal said.

"Ultimately, the effect will be on the county budget," he said.

But the actual cost of the goods won't be the only cost taxpayers will incur:

As a member of the consortium, the county eventually would have to pay 1 percent of its annual apparel budget to the coalition for its enforcement costs.

Although Mr. Konop said he didn't know exactly how much the county would need to spend in future years, he estimated that the enforcement payment wouldn't amount to more than a few hundred dollars a year.

Konop doesn't know ... don't you think he should? Isn't it prudent to know how much a new policy is going to cost the taxpayers before you even suggest it?

There are a lot of problems with this policy, but here's the biggest one:

Under Ohio law, counties have limited authority. If state law says a county must do something, it must. If state law says a county may do something, there is an ability for a county to decide yes or no. If state law is silent on an issue, counties have no authority and are prohibited from acting. This is because counties are, technically, an arm of state government and not subject to 'home rule authority' like cities and villages in Ohio.

Because of this limited authority, counties cannot embark upon 'set-aside' policies for minority contractors, they cannot order the dog warden to address feral cats and they can't create laws. Additionally, the bidding and procurement process is clearly defined and doesn't allow for 'social engineering' as a criteria.

With this mind, I sent an email to John Borell, an assistant county prosecutor in the civil division who often handles commissioner issues, to ask where in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) the commissioners get the authority for such a prohibition.

I presume, perhaps mistakenly, that if they are to the point of introducing such a resolution and saying publicly that they support it, they've already checked to be sure they have the legal authority to do it. And that legal authority will be clearly identified in the ORC.

When I was a commissioner, I got tired of asking where, in the ORC, we got the authority for many things and asked that our resolutions include the applicable ORC reference. If the commissioners put their agenda on line more than one day prior to the meeting, I'd be able to check to see if this resolution had such a citation. However, in checking resolutions over the past several months, it appears this line is often left blank. So even if the resolution is listed on the agenda when it is finally published, it may not include the ORC reference, so I sent the email to Mr. Borell.

I'll keep you posted as to the answer, when received. In the meantime, share your thoughts with the commissioners:

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

Is new tax to blame for dip in hotel occupancy rates?

According to today's Blade, hotel occupancy rates in Lucas County declined last year.

"Smith Travel Research Inc., a private firm in Hendersonville, Tenn., that tracks hotels in major cities nationwide, estimates that six hotels have opened in Lucas, Wood, and Fulton counties since 2002. That doesn’t include the new batch, at least two of which are already operating.

On an average night, about half of hotel rooms in Lucas, Wood, and Fulton counties are filled. But occupancy rates slipped last year to 53 percent from 55 percent in 2006, the Tennessee firm said. The decline was the first in four years.

Through Feb. 29, occupancy was 40 percent, down 4 percent from 2007. Winter months are typically not strong for local hoteliers, however."

In 2007, the Lucas County Commissioners increased the hotel/motel tax two percentage points, bringing Lucas County to a combined tax rate of 16.75%, which makes this tax the fourth highest in the country. Contrast that with Perrysburg, in Wood County and only 10 minutes from downtown Toledo, which has a tax rate of 9.5%.

Our additional 2% tax is supposed to generate $43 million - enough to pay for bonds to fund half of the original projected $82 million cost of the new arena. (The currently projected cost of the arena is now around the $100 million mark with no identified additional sources of funding.)

In August of 2006, I examined the recommended sources of funding for the arena, including the impact of an additional 2% on the hotel/motel tax. I wrote:

"I don't know that Lucas County can afford to increase our taxes (especially ones paid by visitors) and not have any negative consequences of doing so. ... So even if Lucas County does increase the lodging tax, we need to balance the projected increases from the increased tax against the estimated reduction in room rentals likely to occur from an increased price.

And the whole purpose of a lodging tax is to help put "heads in beds." I've not seen anything in the report to indicate that such a tax will actually put more "heads in beds.""

While there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the additional tax is the sole cause of the decline, I cannot help but believe it is a factor. Combined with the increased gas prices, increases in other costs and general concern about the economy, those who do travel are more aware of ancillary fees and taxes associated with various prices they pay. Saving 7.25% per night on your hotel bill makes a difference and there will be some (maybe many) who will choose a location in Perrysburg in order to achieve such savings.

While the County's hotel/motel tax brought in $5.1 million last year, that was the total amount collected, less than $1 million of which was dedicated to the arena costs. The additional 2% needs to generate more than $1.4 million each year in order to cover the principle for the arena bonds - and that doesn't include the interest on those bonds. In the only arena budget made public, no accommodation was made for what has obviously happened: an increase in price reduced consumption, calling into question the ability of the tax to fund the planned costs.

In October, 2007, Commissioner Pete Gerken said, "I don't want to get tied down with a specific price and wind up getting shortchanged. We know what our base budget is, so as we go beyond that, the arena has to pay for itself."

In the same article, The Blade reported:

"The commissioners are banking on a 2 percent bump in the county's hotel-motel tax to generate between $45 million and $50 million and act as the only contribution of taxpayer dollars to the project. The rest of the arena is to be paid through revenue streams created by naming rights, suite sales, and corporate sponsorship."

(Please note that the amount the hotel/motel tax is supposed to generate has somehow increased from $43 million to somewhere between $45-50 million. What accounts for this increase?)

Commissioner Ben Konop said, "We have a plan in place with the hotel-motel tax, and it is generating a steady flow of revenue. But I'm only in favor of increasing the price if it can be proven to me that the added expenses can be paid for with added revenues."

Two commissioners are on record, in this article and in other media, as saying that the arena has to pay for itself. But the construction is ongoing with over $30 million in contracts already issued. The original financing plan had many challenges in terms of actually achieving the targeted revenue amounts. The price has gone up around $20-25 million and there has been no explanation of where the commissioners will find the extra funds.

I again call on our Lucas County Commissioners to share with the public the revised budget and funding/financing plan for this new arena.

If you agree, write them an email or give them a call and ask them where the financing plan for the arena is and where, exactly, they plan to get the money to cover the increased costs of this project.

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

And if you're a bit cynical about the commissioners keeping their promise not to use other tax dollars for this project, you can enter my Arena Contest and predict when you think they'll tell us that more tax dollars are necessary.

Hypocrisy over gas rate hike

Lucas County Commissioners Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak, along with Toledo City Councilman George Sarantou, are upset about the proposed increase for Columbia Gas, even though the rate plan hasn't yet been submitted to the PUCO.

The estimated increase for maintenance and capital projects is $68 per year - "an average jump of about $5.64 per month for customers starting as early as Nov. 1" according to The Blade article.

You can hear for yourself from this WSPD sound clip that Comm. Wozniak thinks this is too much and a huge impact on families.

Strangely enough, these three elected officials had no problem with the huge increase in property tax levies that were on the ballot last November. Had all the levies passed, the owner of a $100,000 home would have seen their taxes go up about $50. With the election outcome, the amount was about $45.

For an even closer example, the garbage tax that Toledo City Council imposed upon us last year is $5.50 per month - $66 per year.

I don't recall any outrage over that amount - or even any concern - about how this similar amount might impact families who are struggling. Where were the press conferences and the demands that the service providers (the city or the public agencies) reduce their costs prior to imposing higher fees? Where was the press conference saying these costs are just 'too high' for the families in the area? Where was the concern for businesses?

It was non-existent. And that's the problem.

When it comes to government or public agencies, these individuals have no problem with taking more of your money. And, unlike Columbia Gas, you have absolutely no control over what government charges you. At least with Columbia Gas you can reduce your usage by turning down your thermostat, better insulating your home, or switching to more energy efficient appliances, etc. Even if you voted against all the tax levies, only COSI failed and you're paying more whether you want to or not.

As for the garbage tax, you can't opt-out of participation in city pick up and you'd still have to pay the fee if you did. And the garbage tax was only supposed to be temporary (yeah - right!), but is included for another full year in the 2008 proposed budget. At least we got to vote on the levies - we were given no such option on the garbage tax.

The problem is the hypocrisy of the elected officials. You cannot pretend to be outraged over increased costs on one hand when you've either supported or failed to oppose similar increases in costs on the other. If you're truly concerned about rising costs for families in the county, you'd oppose ALL increases - and especially when they come from government.

Another story behind the story at the LCIC

Yesterday, Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop introduced a resolution to remove the Lucas County Improvement Corporation as the county's designated economic development agency.

The resolution was introduced during the morning meeting and failed to pass by a vote of 1-1 with Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak absent. Commissioner Pete Gerken was the no vote.

Konop introduced the resolution again during the BCC afternoon meeting and it again failed 2-1 with Wozniak voting to keep the designation.

There are numerous press reports about what happened, (WSPD news story with audio, Blade article, 13ABC story) but they can't give you the story behind the story and place the actions in context with their space or time constraints.

Konop's explanation for his action was because the agency was 'unresponsive' to his requests for information about their economic development efforts. But that's not exactly truthful.

Last week, Konop asked for a detailed report from staff on current projects, time allotted to each project, and potential for capital investment, job growth or retention.

Jeannie Hylant, chairman of the LCIC board, asked that the request be delayed given that the agency was shorthanded and some staff members were out sick. She indicated that this request should and would be done after the new board members were in place, probably as part of the orientation for the new members.

Interestingly, the request from Konop did not follow established procedures. Konop asked for the information directly from staff rather than go through the executive committee. It's unknown why he didn't follow procedures when asking for information, but he has continually ignored the fact that the LCIC employees work for a 26-member board - and not exclusively for him. And this is not the first time that he's had an issue with the decisions of the board's executive committee and taken it out on staff. (Background in chronological order here, here, here, and here.)

However, not content with being told no, he spent time over the holiday weekend calling, emailing - and having his assistant call - the several economic development specialists - demanding that they appear in his office Tuesday morning at 8:45 in order to provide him with the detailed information.

Two staff members did appear as summoned with a third one declining to attend due to a scheduled meeting with a client.

So, for Konop to say that staff 'unresponsive' isn't true. They did, in fact, attend his scheduled meeting, putting themselves into a position of conflict between board member Konop and their boss, board president Hylant. Konop obviously has little regard for the staff of the LCIC that he would put them in such a position - and that says an awful lot about Konop.

No matter how you look at it, Konop was not stonewalled, as he's claimed, so that should be discarded as a reason for wanting to abandon the LCIC.

Further, he says that the agency is rudderless. Um...perhaps Konop has forgotten that he is the reason the agency is without an executive director? And, he's the one who's in charge of the search committee for the new director which he said was going to take only 90 days - but then extended to four months.

And how is that search going, Ben? You handpicked your search committee and then Oregon Mayor Marge Brown (also a member of the LCIC board), with the support of the executive committee, added some experienced economic development professionals to the group of academics and politically correct members.

So how many times have you met? What actions have you taken toward the search? Did you work up a job description? Have you posted the vacancy in any local or national publications? Have you had any conversations with potential directors? Do you think your public comments about disbanding this agency might have any negative impact on your ability to find someone to take the job?

Oh - that's right...you want to hire a firm to do this for you. In fact, you and your fellow commissioners gave the LCIC (that's YOU, by the way) two weeks in which to hire a director. Their failure to do so would mean that the Commissioners would hire and direct a search firm and then install a director.

Now, where the BCC gets the authority to expend county monies in order to conduct a search for a non-profit agency and then dictate the hiring of the found individual is beyond me. Having been a Commissioner I can confidently say that the Commissioners have no such authority - though they could give money to the LCIC for the LCIC to expend for this purpose - but that would mean that the LCIC executive committee would do as Konop wanted. And in the past they've proven to be reluctant to ask 'how high' when Konop has demanded that they jump.

No - the real reason Konop wants to remove the economic development designation from the LCIC is because it's finally dawning upon him that he can't control it. As one of 26 board members, he has little individual authority over the agency. Since Wozniak and Gerken voted to keep Gerken as the commissioner representative on the LCIC executive committee (which has all decision-making authority for the agency), Konop can ask the committee for things, but cannot dictate actions.

Further, he's realizing that many of his requests are unreasonable or not well-thought out. He wanted to schedule a tour of various businesses by some Chinese businessmen - but concerns about what they might do with access to certain proprietary processes and information was brushed aside by Konop, but not by the executive committee - and rightly so.

In a childish manner, as Konop fails to get his way, he takes his disputes public throwing what could be described as a temper tantrum about his perceived slights. He's doing this in the guise of trying to spur economic development within the county. But his efforts are having the opposite effect.

Business leaders and other economic development agencies have encouraged him to be a bit more diplomatic about publicly bashing his own economic development agency - especially when his dispute is with the board members and his fellow commissioners and NOT with the agency staff who are only following directions.

Further, his criticisms of an entity that's only been up and running for about a year and a half are considered by many to be pre-mature. To go from nothing to a functioning agency with staff, offices, and all the other things necessary to a new organization - in addition to the work they've done helping several local companies and establishing a model for K-16 workforce development would, in most circles, be reason for praise.

But if you're a board member whose individual initiatives have not been embraced (and maybe for good reason), you use your public office to try and destroy what you cannot control.

What many people might not know is how precarious the negotiations with Schindler Elevator, in Springfield Township, were during all of Konop's shenanigans. Ousted LCIC director Shawn Ferguson was the driving force behind their decision to stay and expand in Lucas County rather than move to another location. Konop's statements, and his demand that Ferguson had to go, almost cost the county this expansion. It was in spite of Konop - and due to the efforts of the other LCIC board members - that this planned expansion is going to take place.

I can only imagine what other companies think of these actions - or how such goings-on might drive them elsewhere in their search for expanded or new facilities.

When the LCIC was first re-organized, I had numerous and serious objections to the structure, the funding and other technical aspects. I still have those concerns and believe the bylaws of the organization and the structure could be improved. But like Wozniak and Gerken, I believe that a regional approach to economic development is the best way to go. Further, there are numerous ways to go about initiating such changes. And while there are probably many right ways to change the agency, the wrong way is the way that Konop has embraced - tearing down an organization because he cannot control it and setting coordinated economic development back decades in the process.

And that's the story behind the story.