Creative stiffing of taxpayers is a trademark of Newark Mayor Bob Diebold and it happened again when he announced his new policy under which city workers can retire and then become immediately rehired in the same job.
Thus may city employees claim a city salary along with retirement benefits, which are funded in large part by tax money.
Diebold's justification is that this employee will cost the city about $13,439 less per year, according to the Advocate report, considering a $7,318 reduction in salary, the rest in benefits. What hasn't been reported yet is the total increased cost to taxpayers under this practice. Apparently this isn't illegal, but in my opinion it should be so declared by Ohio legislation.
Diebold can carve another notch into his needy-greedy government stick - along with the one for the $10 auto tag tax and another for stiffing citizens for rides to the hospital in taxpayer-owned trucks manned by taxpayer-paid employees and another for his push for robot-issued traffic tickets and another for permitting the use of city vehicles in violation of the city vehicle policy.
Speaking of stiffing the public, all but four city council members voted to increase the Building Code Department fees in order to keep on the payroll workers in that department who are no longer needed. And why is that?
Good-Ol'-Boy-To-The-Core Irene Kennedy was quoted in the Advocate: “I think it is important to keep this skill set in place, at least to the end of the year.”
Right. It's someone else's money. And end of which year? And will the fees be reduced when construction picks up?
When the next election comes around, remember that. Also remember the names of the four council members who voted in favor of public - not government - interests: Marmie, Rhodes, Uible and Bubb.
Showing posts with label Rhodes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rhodes. Show all posts
Friday, January 9, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
More Newark politics as usual
Newark Mayor Bob Diebold is now proposing to eliminate one at-large councilman and require the other two to be residents of 1) east, and 2) west because, well, the 5th Ward is overloaded with at-large councilmen.
Such a move would tilt council in a way that Council President Guthrie could no longer function as a tie-breaker vote, thus burying an essential check on Newark government balance of power. It would also eliminate, as one of the mayor's personal bumps in the road, At-Large Councilman Rhodes.
Read the Advocate report here.
We do, indeed, need a professional city manager, not politics as usual.
Such a move would tilt council in a way that Council President Guthrie could no longer function as a tie-breaker vote, thus burying an essential check on Newark government balance of power. It would also eliminate, as one of the mayor's personal bumps in the road, At-Large Councilman Rhodes.
Read the Advocate report here.
We do, indeed, need a professional city manager, not politics as usual.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
All but three Council members voted responsibly on paving debt
Except for John Uible, Don Ellington, and Ed Houdeshell, Newark City Council turned in a responsible vote for Newark citizens when it decided not to borrow money to pave streets. Those same three were among the six council members who stuffed voters with the additional $10 tax to city residents' auto licenses for the purpose of paving city streets.
That tax was the brainchild of Mayor Diebold - along with the one about charging Newark citizens for rides to the hospital in city-owned equipment already paid for by taxes - who now wants to compound the costs to residents by borrowing money to pave streets.
That plan may not have been okayed by Council anyway, but an Advocate article by Amy Picard 7/17/08 perhaps sealed its fate by pointing to previous irresponsibility by city officials in paying off debt. Here's the link.
This issue of street paving has been on the front burner for many months. It seems we heard it in every argument about adding more fees/taxes to the cost of living in Newark.
Here it is, July 22nd and they still don't know where to get money for this, the most basic and consistent costs of keeping a city in order. The Advocate report - another good one by Amy - is here and it is recommended reading because certain of the Council members were shown to be truly responsible, as they were elected to be. Rick Henderson, Ryan Bubb, Shirley Stare, and David Rhodes all made good points in this report.
City mayors and Council members come and go, but debt to taxpayers lives on. Only the responsible among our elected officials seem to care, while the others continue to play the Game of Chicken with voters (will they remember what we did to them by the time I run for re-election?).
That tax was the brainchild of Mayor Diebold - along with the one about charging Newark citizens for rides to the hospital in city-owned equipment already paid for by taxes - who now wants to compound the costs to residents by borrowing money to pave streets.
That plan may not have been okayed by Council anyway, but an Advocate article by Amy Picard 7/17/08 perhaps sealed its fate by pointing to previous irresponsibility by city officials in paying off debt. Here's the link.
This issue of street paving has been on the front burner for many months. It seems we heard it in every argument about adding more fees/taxes to the cost of living in Newark.
Here it is, July 22nd and they still don't know where to get money for this, the most basic and consistent costs of keeping a city in order. The Advocate report - another good one by Amy - is here and it is recommended reading because certain of the Council members were shown to be truly responsible, as they were elected to be. Rick Henderson, Ryan Bubb, Shirley Stare, and David Rhodes all made good points in this report.
City mayors and Council members come and go, but debt to taxpayers lives on. Only the responsible among our elected officials seem to care, while the others continue to play the Game of Chicken with voters (will they remember what we did to them by the time I run for re-election?).
Friday, May 16, 2008
Councilman Marmie: friend of citizens
Last week Newark City Council voted to stuff Newark City taxpayers by skimming off another $10 per auto license sale, even after taxpayers had voted overwhelmingly against such a tax. I wrote about it here.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
City council creates more with less
In a long overdue move, Newark City Council voted Tuesday to stop duplication of government services by agreeing to cooperate with, and become part of, a new Licking County Combined General Health District. It required some letting go of turf and power, a tough pill for city government.
But they did it. As new Councilman Ryan Bubb put it for the Advocate reporter, “I’d like the city to do more with less, and I believe we did that with the merging of the health departments. Simply put, there is less government without losing services."
Exactly, and hooray.
Voting in favor besides Bubb were Ellington, Marmie, Henderson, Rhodes, Uible, Kennedy, Houdeshell, and Floyd. That's all of them except Shirley Stare whose concern for city employees outweighed her concern for improved government services.
There has been uneasiness about distribution of power in makeup of the new county health board, as well as apprehension among city health department employees over who will get what and how much loss of turf and power the employee union might suffer when dust settles and jobs are divvied.
All of which is secondary to the overall significance - which is, as Bubb said, doing more with less government.
Council has made a good start. It's up to employees to put away selfish interests and make this thing work.
But they did it. As new Councilman Ryan Bubb put it for the Advocate reporter, “I’d like the city to do more with less, and I believe we did that with the merging of the health departments. Simply put, there is less government without losing services."
Exactly, and hooray.
Voting in favor besides Bubb were Ellington, Marmie, Henderson, Rhodes, Uible, Kennedy, Houdeshell, and Floyd. That's all of them except Shirley Stare whose concern for city employees outweighed her concern for improved government services.
There has been uneasiness about distribution of power in makeup of the new county health board, as well as apprehension among city health department employees over who will get what and how much loss of turf and power the employee union might suffer when dust settles and jobs are divvied.
All of which is secondary to the overall significance - which is, as Bubb said, doing more with less government.
Council has made a good start. It's up to employees to put away selfish interests and make this thing work.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
City council makes a good beginning in '08
City Council turned an important corner last night when it voted to restrict the perks of the city safety director. By a vote of 8-2 it struck from the new budget the provision that was to pay driving expenses between Newark and Grove City, in a city vehicle purchased by safety-levy tax money.
The expense money was written into the budget in such a way that Kathleen Barch could replenish it at will from other funds in the service department budget. In other words, an open check book.
Most interesting to me was who among council members would take issue with this during the council session, if anybody, and who would vote to remove it, if anybody, and who continue to be a good ol' boy to Ms. Barch, if anybody.
Here's the way it went on the score sheet and this is one of those "read this before the next election" issues:
David Rhodes, at-large councilman, moved to eliminate the perk, and every council member except Don Ellington and John Uible voted for doing so. Voting in favor were Bubb, Kennedy, Houdeshell, Stare, Henderson, Marmie, and Floyd. President of council, Marc Guthrie, had earlier expressed concern over the benefit.
Also encouraging is the fact that the Advocate reporter, Amy Picard, cornered the two who voted against the measure and made them explain themselves. Ellington justified his vote, in part, by trying to blame Mayor Diebold (he "should have discussed it with Barch"); Uible said, in part, that "perks such as transportation are necessary for the best talent."
Further, the mayor did not speak against the council decision and that's a very good thing.
From out here where citizens sit, the score card looks great for 08. Council started by turning a corner. It has done what's right for taxpayers, rather than spend more tax money on employee perks. And the Advocate nailed it with a good report.
The expense money was written into the budget in such a way that Kathleen Barch could replenish it at will from other funds in the service department budget. In other words, an open check book.
Most interesting to me was who among council members would take issue with this during the council session, if anybody, and who would vote to remove it, if anybody, and who continue to be a good ol' boy to Ms. Barch, if anybody.
Here's the way it went on the score sheet and this is one of those "read this before the next election" issues:
David Rhodes, at-large councilman, moved to eliminate the perk, and every council member except Don Ellington and John Uible voted for doing so. Voting in favor were Bubb, Kennedy, Houdeshell, Stare, Henderson, Marmie, and Floyd. President of council, Marc Guthrie, had earlier expressed concern over the benefit.
Also encouraging is the fact that the Advocate reporter, Amy Picard, cornered the two who voted against the measure and made them explain themselves. Ellington justified his vote, in part, by trying to blame Mayor Diebold (he "should have discussed it with Barch"); Uible said, in part, that "perks such as transportation are necessary for the best talent."
Further, the mayor did not speak against the council decision and that's a very good thing.
From out here where citizens sit, the score card looks great for 08. Council started by turning a corner. It has done what's right for taxpayers, rather than spend more tax money on employee perks. And the Advocate nailed it with a good report.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sweetheart deal: a car for Kathy, courtesy the mayor with blessings of the Advocate
During all the time Kathleen Barch has been employed by the City of Newark as safety director, never have I had, nor have I heard a bad word about her performance. She has a professional demeanor, is articulate, rational, congenial, has a good appearance and, by all accounts I've heard, she is a good leader and a valuable asset to Newark City government. She would probably make an excellent mayor.
Young mayor Bob Diebold wanted someone else as safety director and has appointed Kathleen as service director, a good move. But here's the rub: Kathleen lives in Grove City and during old mayor Bain's tenure she commuted in a city car purchased with safety-levy funds. This is a practice of which young mayor Diebold was critical when he was a councilman and mayoral candidate, so it's said.
Well, guess what? Under young mayor Diebold (who has for practical purposes already taken the reins), that car - the one purchased with safety levy money - has been transferred "as an asset" to the city service department within recent days.
Not only is Kathleen permitted to drive the city car - the one purchased with safety levy money - back and forth to Grove City, but she's also getting free insurance, $1,000 for maintenance, and $1,000 for gas. Because she has full authority to transfer funds, when that $1,000 runs out, she will be able to slide more money over from some other service department account. It's a perk said to be valued at $10-$12,000.
Maybe that's what citizen-taxpayers would want, but I doubt it.
And I'm sure they wouldn't welcome the knowledge that the Advocate didn't report it. The Advocate, or maybe just the Advocate reporter, Kent Mallett, who wrote a glowing article on the city finance committee's approval of the new budget, maybe likes Kathleen and young mayor Diebold too much. Why stir a fuss among friends, right?
Well, try truth in government and truth in reporting, for beginners.
Mallett described how efficiently Newark City Council Finance Committee zipped through its approval of next year's budget. He told how the $94.2-million expenditure of our tax dollars took committee members only 15 minutes for which to give unanimous approval, and that council is expected to bless it Jan. 8.
The unreported auto perk has been, so far, a sweetheart deal between young mayor Diebold, finance committee members (Doug Marmie, chair; Don Ellington, Carol A. Floyd, Irene Kennedy, Ed Houdeshell (substituting for David R. Rhodes) and with the blessings of the Advocate.
It is not a sweetheart deal for mega-milked city taxpayers, not a sweetheart deal for citizens who might have hoped for an honest, above-board new city administration, not a sweetheart deal for folks relying on city council to work from the top of the deck, and not a sweetheart deal for folks who think they're buying an honest news report when they shell out money for the Advocate.
Young mayor Bob Diebold wanted someone else as safety director and has appointed Kathleen as service director, a good move. But here's the rub: Kathleen lives in Grove City and during old mayor Bain's tenure she commuted in a city car purchased with safety-levy funds. This is a practice of which young mayor Diebold was critical when he was a councilman and mayoral candidate, so it's said.
Well, guess what? Under young mayor Diebold (who has for practical purposes already taken the reins), that car - the one purchased with safety levy money - has been transferred "as an asset" to the city service department within recent days.
Not only is Kathleen permitted to drive the city car - the one purchased with safety levy money - back and forth to Grove City, but she's also getting free insurance, $1,000 for maintenance, and $1,000 for gas. Because she has full authority to transfer funds, when that $1,000 runs out, she will be able to slide more money over from some other service department account. It's a perk said to be valued at $10-$12,000.
Maybe that's what citizen-taxpayers would want, but I doubt it.
And I'm sure they wouldn't welcome the knowledge that the Advocate didn't report it. The Advocate, or maybe just the Advocate reporter, Kent Mallett, who wrote a glowing article on the city finance committee's approval of the new budget, maybe likes Kathleen and young mayor Diebold too much. Why stir a fuss among friends, right?
Well, try truth in government and truth in reporting, for beginners.
Mallett described how efficiently Newark City Council Finance Committee zipped through its approval of next year's budget. He told how the $94.2-million expenditure of our tax dollars took committee members only 15 minutes for which to give unanimous approval, and that council is expected to bless it Jan. 8.
The unreported auto perk has been, so far, a sweetheart deal between young mayor Diebold, finance committee members (Doug Marmie, chair; Don Ellington, Carol A. Floyd, Irene Kennedy, Ed Houdeshell (substituting for David R. Rhodes) and with the blessings of the Advocate.
It is not a sweetheart deal for mega-milked city taxpayers, not a sweetheart deal for citizens who might have hoped for an honest, above-board new city administration, not a sweetheart deal for folks relying on city council to work from the top of the deck, and not a sweetheart deal for folks who think they're buying an honest news report when they shell out money for the Advocate.
Monday, November 5, 2007
One citizen's perspective on the 11/6/07 ballot
Newark City Schools- Additional levy of 4.5 mills. No. Squeeze the fat and live with it, as I am doing as a private citizen trying to pay my own expenses. Schools' unwillingness to limit spending while placing the penalty for that on property owners is both irresponsible and foolish. The longer it goes on the more ill will schools are making for themselves.
City Charter Amendment - No. This issue would fine tune the way in which council presidents' and council members' vacancies are filled, which would be okay. But it also increases from $20,000 to $25,000 the minimum at which competitive bidding is required. Competitive bidding causes our government employees more work, but gee whiz, competitive bidding saves tax dollars. Government bidding process should kick in at $5,000, not at $25,000 as this amendment would have it.
Municipal Court Clerk - Marcia Phelps. As a public servant Marcia gets an A+ for trying to do things right. And of the three county commissioners, she is the only one I would hate to see leave. But Marcia wants the clerk's job and she's earned it.
Newark Mayor - Diebold because, well, for two reasons.
Newark City Council President - Marc Guthrie because Marc has done an excellent job leading oftentimes difficult compatriots. He's smart, experienced, non-partisan, and most of all he's honest and open. He's come down on what I consider to be the wrong side of a few issues, but stuff happens, and maybe we can educate him. Anyway, Marc has the mark of a good future mayor.
Council At Large - Frank Stare and Ryan Bubb. Frank because he was a good mayor and he would be a good councilman. Anyway, if he is convicted on the soliciting charge and has to leave council his election would nevertheless be good news for non-partisan politics. (I wrote about that possibility here.) Ryan because he's not Irene Kennedy or David Rhodes, but you have three choices, so flip a coin.
Council Seventh Ward - Carol Floyd. I know her as good people from her days as a teacher. Let's see if she can rise above the political crap and the good ol' boys of City Council and aggressively represent the Seventh Ward. Her opponent, Ronald Mitchell Sr., has been impressive in his campaign statements so I think for the first time in many years the Seventh Ward is going to have good representation, no matter which candidate wins.
City Charter Amendment - No. This issue would fine tune the way in which council presidents' and council members' vacancies are filled, which would be okay. But it also increases from $20,000 to $25,000 the minimum at which competitive bidding is required. Competitive bidding causes our government employees more work, but gee whiz, competitive bidding saves tax dollars. Government bidding process should kick in at $5,000, not at $25,000 as this amendment would have it.
Municipal Court Clerk - Marcia Phelps. As a public servant Marcia gets an A+ for trying to do things right. And of the three county commissioners, she is the only one I would hate to see leave. But Marcia wants the clerk's job and she's earned it.
Newark Mayor - Diebold because, well, for two reasons.
Newark City Council President - Marc Guthrie because Marc has done an excellent job leading oftentimes difficult compatriots. He's smart, experienced, non-partisan, and most of all he's honest and open. He's come down on what I consider to be the wrong side of a few issues, but stuff happens, and maybe we can educate him. Anyway, Marc has the mark of a good future mayor.
Council At Large - Frank Stare and Ryan Bubb. Frank because he was a good mayor and he would be a good councilman. Anyway, if he is convicted on the soliciting charge and has to leave council his election would nevertheless be good news for non-partisan politics. (I wrote about that possibility here.) Ryan because he's not Irene Kennedy or David Rhodes, but you have three choices, so flip a coin.
Council Seventh Ward - Carol Floyd. I know her as good people from her days as a teacher. Let's see if she can rise above the political crap and the good ol' boys of City Council and aggressively represent the Seventh Ward. Her opponent, Ronald Mitchell Sr., has been impressive in his campaign statements so I think for the first time in many years the Seventh Ward is going to have good representation, no matter which candidate wins.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Council votes for a new round of employee raises
The words Newark citizens needed to hear from their government came from Rick Henderson during Monday's city council meeting: "I'm here to support the citizens and not the management." Hooray for Rick.
And hooray for Doug Marmie and Dave Rhodes who voted against jacking up the police chief's pay in an effort to prevent a new round of pay increases for city workers.
As explained by Kent Mallett in the Advocate's report Wednesday (5/30/07):
"Rhodes said an increase in the police chief's salary means an identical increase in the fire chief's salary because they always have been equal. Those raises then increase the disparity between the chiefs and their bosses, the safety director and the mayor, along with department directors."
The idea of paying more for the chief came about because the city is replacing Darrel Pennington, who retired May 4. Newark is being told, in effect, that city administrators couldn't find a new chief to work for the going rate, but the three nay-voting councilmen disagreed.
Mayor Bain claims higher pay is no problem because "the budget is stabilized." That stabilization came at the expense of higher fees and the double charging citizens for emergency squad services. He can call it "stabilizing" if he wants. Taxpayers might have more nasty names.
Whatever, the rest of city council - including mayoral candidate Bob Diebold - agreed with the Mayor and the Safety Director and voted for the new round of employee raises. And in a few years, when the EMS bonanza is swallowed by ever-greater employee demands and political payoffs by council and administrators, your city will be scrounging for new taxes and higher fees.
And hooray for Doug Marmie and Dave Rhodes who voted against jacking up the police chief's pay in an effort to prevent a new round of pay increases for city workers.
As explained by Kent Mallett in the Advocate's report Wednesday (5/30/07):
"Rhodes said an increase in the police chief's salary means an identical increase in the fire chief's salary because they always have been equal. Those raises then increase the disparity between the chiefs and their bosses, the safety director and the mayor, along with department directors."
The idea of paying more for the chief came about because the city is replacing Darrel Pennington, who retired May 4. Newark is being told, in effect, that city administrators couldn't find a new chief to work for the going rate, but the three nay-voting councilmen disagreed.
Mayor Bain claims higher pay is no problem because "the budget is stabilized." That stabilization came at the expense of higher fees and the double charging citizens for emergency squad services. He can call it "stabilizing" if he wants. Taxpayers might have more nasty names.
Whatever, the rest of city council - including mayoral candidate Bob Diebold - agreed with the Mayor and the Safety Director and voted for the new round of employee raises. And in a few years, when the EMS bonanza is swallowed by ever-greater employee demands and political payoffs by council and administrators, your city will be scrounging for new taxes and higher fees.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Damn you, city treasurer, for wanting efficient government
Newark is talking outsourcing of jobs in the tax department in order to save money. The employee union is whining as would be expected.
What is not expected are the objections to a money-saving plan from Marc Guthrie, council president, and Bob Diebold, councilman at large and mayoral candidate.
Diebold, I'm convinced, will make a great successor to Mayor Bain because he thinks in fragments. Here's his line of thought on this matter as quoted by the Advocate:
“I want to see all the information,” Diebold said. “I’m leery because you always hear the up side and you learn the down side the hard way. Originally, I thought it was going to save $500,000. Now it’s $280,000. What about honest and fair labor negotiations? There’s a value to that. Do they trust us?”
Yes. No. Maybe. Huh?
Guthrie is easier to understand. He's openly threatening the city treasurer for trying to save money:
“If we can't collect our own taxes and adequately pursue delinquents, it raises a question as to why we need the position of city treasurer,” Guthrie said. “Everything seems to be done in the name of cost savings, with little or no regard for the human factor and community impact."
When did it get to be so painful to SAVE tax money? Council surely has no trouble in finding ways to spend it - mostly, I think, on salaries and bennies for the union members working in the Safety Department. It's long past time - and many millions of dollars past time - when city government should have stopped sucking up to unions.
I would be the last to criticize the work in the Tax Department - though I dislike sending money to them - because generally they have been polite and helpful.
The reason I dislike sending money to the city is because most of it goes into the pockets of over-paid employees. So it's time to change that, but gee whiz - damn anybody who tries.
I say that Guthrie and Diebold are dead wrong, whether they are posturing for the sake of employee good will (meaning votes) or if they are really serious. They need to get a grip.
And I say hooray for Bob Lehman, the city treasurer, for trying to bring a bit of efficiency to government for a change, and hooray to David Rhodes, Rick Henderson, Don Ellington and Doug Marmie for listening.
What is not expected are the objections to a money-saving plan from Marc Guthrie, council president, and Bob Diebold, councilman at large and mayoral candidate.
Diebold, I'm convinced, will make a great successor to Mayor Bain because he thinks in fragments. Here's his line of thought on this matter as quoted by the Advocate:
“I want to see all the information,” Diebold said. “I’m leery because you always hear the up side and you learn the down side the hard way. Originally, I thought it was going to save $500,000. Now it’s $280,000. What about honest and fair labor negotiations? There’s a value to that. Do they trust us?”
Yes. No. Maybe. Huh?
Guthrie is easier to understand. He's openly threatening the city treasurer for trying to save money:
“If we can't collect our own taxes and adequately pursue delinquents, it raises a question as to why we need the position of city treasurer,” Guthrie said. “Everything seems to be done in the name of cost savings, with little or no regard for the human factor and community impact."
When did it get to be so painful to SAVE tax money? Council surely has no trouble in finding ways to spend it - mostly, I think, on salaries and bennies for the union members working in the Safety Department. It's long past time - and many millions of dollars past time - when city government should have stopped sucking up to unions.
I would be the last to criticize the work in the Tax Department - though I dislike sending money to them - because generally they have been polite and helpful.
The reason I dislike sending money to the city is because most of it goes into the pockets of over-paid employees. So it's time to change that, but gee whiz - damn anybody who tries.
I say that Guthrie and Diebold are dead wrong, whether they are posturing for the sake of employee good will (meaning votes) or if they are really serious. They need to get a grip.
And I say hooray for Bob Lehman, the city treasurer, for trying to bring a bit of efficiency to government for a change, and hooray to David Rhodes, Rick Henderson, Don Ellington and Doug Marmie for listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
