Does Newark Council have to stay in public view?

That’s the question behind the balloon sent up in today’s Advocate from Newark Ways and Means Committee. “Without additional funding, the future of televised Newark City Council meetings is uncertain,” the balloon said.

What city council is asking is: Do we have to remain in public view, or will citizens allow us to return to the shadows?

While council could easily provide television coverage of its meetings for very little investment, it continues to make it sound like a big challenge because it still searches for an out.

I wrote about the need for televised meetings many times before it happened. June 21, 2007 I wrote “Council ignores chance for opening government to citizens.” If you go there, you’ll also find links from 5/14/07 and 4/19/07 that give more background.

You’ll also find an off-putting statement by Councilman Uible about the prospect of Council’s coming into the sunshine, along with a statement from then-Council President Marc Guthrie urging Council to step out of the shadows with televised meetings.

Bend over Bunky, here comes Mayor Diebold again

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.

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?).

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.

City Council votes 6-3 to stuff voters again

Newark voters got stuffed again by the Needy Magic Nanny, this time for a $10 bill with every auto license they ever have to buy in Newark for the rest of their lives.

By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.

By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.

Isn't that right, 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)?

And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.

Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).

About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?

In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.

Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.

Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.

By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.

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.

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.

We need action, not political hype about the Sunshine Law

Whether or not the state Sunshine Law was violated by certain Newark City Council members is the subject of an Advocate report, "Meeting might have violated Sunshine Law," that said: "The February 2006 meeting at Kraner's New Albany office included David Rhodes, Doug Marmie and John Uible, who were and remain members of council's five-person Economic Development Committee. They also are chairmen of the Finance, Capital Improvements and Economic Development committees."

and ..

"Uible (said) the meeting was informational but Kraner briefly touched on some key issues for the future.

"I think he just mentioned he would want to talk to us about annexation of some of that land, particularly in the Newark School District, but we didn't talk a lot about that," Uible said. "He wanted to see if we would be supportive of this. He didn't want City Council opposing (what Kraner and administration wanted)."

The Advocate followed with an editorial "City's view of Sunshine Laws is a bit cloudy" which said "The city's law director disagrees but we believe a meeting between members of a Newark City Council committee and developer Bill Kraner was a clear violation of at least the spirit, and likely the letter, of the state's Sunshine Laws."

The city law director, Doug Sassen, responded to that with a guest column entitled: "Sunshine Law is taken seriously and applied liberally in Newark"

Mr. Sassen defended his inactivity regarding the meeting in question with this statement: "In the case of the February 2006 meeting with developer Williams Kraner referenced in the editorial, it is important to note that the law director's office, and presumably the Advocate as well, was not aware of the meeting until the summer of 2007, well more than one year later. As a result, the actual facts of what occurred at that meeting remain uncertain, hence the opportunity for reasonable minds to differ as to whether a violation of the Sunshine Law might have occurred.

"The editorial noted, 'majorities of any committee cannot gather for discussion of city business.' Because the facts are unclear, did we know then, and do we know now, whether 'city business' was 'discussed'?"

It is informative that Mr. Sassen never mentions in his rebuttal whether he actually asked anybody about the facts of this case. If he did, and if he got stonewalled, this would be significant. If he didn't ask anybody, then this is even more significant.

Mr. Sassen said, "... we are making every effort to ensure full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Sunshine Law by all members of City Council and the Administration." He never said what's changed, or going to change.

Mr. Sassen does, however, take great pains to make it seem as though he is partnering with Marc Guthrie in pursuit of open government. He says, for instance, "Marc and I work well together and have taken an aggressive, unified approach to safeguarding the right of public access to all public meetings." This is the first time I'd heard of such a partnership, and I would be interested in reading exactly what Mr. Sassen's contributions have been to such a partnership.

The New Albany thing is not going to go away by blowing smoke at it. Citizens want to know exactly what questions about this meeting were asked of whom. Citizens want to know why it seems impossible to get that information. Citizens want to know what's going to happen if the same thing occurs in the future. Citizens want to know what the law director intends to do about e-mailed cyber meetings.

More political hype doesn't get it. Citizens need the law director's specific plan for how he is going to ensure compliance with the Sunshine Law.

Council ignores chance for opening government to citizens

If you've followed along here on the subject of televised Newark City Council meetings and why there aren't any, you already know that it's simply because council members and the mayor don't want them.

At last the public knows why. The matter came up in the June 4, 2007 council meeting and Mr. Uible explained: "The idea of televising council meetings is not a good idea simply because our meetings are too long and I’m afraid televising these meetings might be a little be self-serving. I would not be in support of that plus I think it would be difficult to find someone who wants to pay for it."

Thus does Mr. Uible demonstrate the depth of his desire to have the public more widely informed about who says what during public meetings in which the public's business is being conducted and the public's money is being spent.

As for long meetings, he should be presenting a resolution to have council members' chairs removed from council chambers, which would certainly save everyone's time.

To review, go to Council members avoid public scrutiny - May 14, 2007. and Newark City Council election promises blown off - April 19, 2007. Council has been reminded that its contract with Time-Warner provides for the public-access channels, and members were given the name and the telephone number of the Time-Warner technocrat who is supposed to know everything about such matters.

Marc Guthrie, council president,went on record during the June 4 meeting with this:

"Regarding televising council meetings, I believe these meetings should be televised. Most council meetings of cities our size are televised so citizens can watch the meetings and I don’t think our previously televised meetings were any longer than the ones we are having now, I’m very much in favor of these meetings moving along as quickly as possible but also believe the peoples’ right to watch the public business and will continue to support an effort to get these things on television and encourage the administration to talk with Time Warner and try to get public access to these meetings as soon as possible."

As far as I know, Guthrie is and always has been for open government, for letting the public see what's happening. But one council representative isn't enough.

Members of city council have given their answers to the question of open government by doing nothing to make it happen.