It’s time to force a move

“Resident Lesa Best listed more than 20 properties at Monday’s Newark City Council Meeting that she has complained to the city’s property maintenance department about for three years without significant enforcement.
...
“This is your responsibility, but I ... just see a lot of excuses.”

[Copied from the 3/2/10 print edition of the Advocate. If it was on-line, I couldn’t find it.]

That encounter at City Hall should have gotten more attention because Lesa is aiming for the right target: non-enforcement of city ordinances, though she and others have brought it to the attention of Council in various ways for YEARS.

There is only one way to clean up this city and that is by using the laws that Council has already passed, as I wrote 2/12/10 (Get rid of trash by enforcing the laws)

It is the mayor’s legal responsibility to ensure that city laws are enforced, as specified in the City Charter. Forcing the mayor to do his job should be the next item on the agenda of Lesa, Council, and local media.

This has gone on long enough.

Where will government stop?

Today’s Advocate editorial on Council’s proposal to increase Newark’s bed tax by 3 percent is well-conceived and written, but it ignores the most important issue.

Beyond the Advocate’s concerns for Council’s need to determine beforehand how funds will be spent, how they will be accounted for, and who will be involved in those decisions, there should be concerns about the purpose and power of government.

Did citizens really bestow upon government the authority to screw around in private business profits for the benefit of self-proclaimed tourist attractions? More important, how do we stop these intrusive attitudes and practices?

Requiring a 3-percent hike in local hotel fares is one more example of Council sticking its nose into private affairs of certain businesses for the benefit of a few vocal “customers.”

Hotel owners and employees in Newark represent a miniscule number of voters, so reaching down from above and ordering a new tax on their profits is a shoo-in. More easy money for Big Brother - like the auto tag tax and the charge for emergency squad transportation.

And no real harm done, right? Except that nearby hotels without that new tax aren’t far away.

Support for tourist attractions should be generated from whatever attractiveness they can muster, not from more attempts at jiggering the marketplace with another tax-and-spend plan by Big Brother.

Where will government stop? It’s up to us to draw the line and the way to begin is to stop thinking of this meddling as a legitimate function of government.

Time for a trash confrontation

Lesa Best has done her best to get this city to use its power sanitize slumlords, their trashy tenants, and their crappy-looking, and often unhealthful properties. She has incessantly photographed and publicized this problem on the Internet and has presented her concerns to Newark City Council. She is an advocate of a cleaner, better Newark like none before her, that I know of.

Not just her interests are at stake, however. The community wants to have slumlords brought under control. Meanwhile, citizens are are paying city employees to do just that.

City employees, however, won’t do that. It’s not because the city doesn’t have the right ordinances in place, not because the city doesn’t have a good property maintenance code, not because the city doesn’t have administrators charged with enforcing these and other laws, not because the city doesn’t have a police department nor legal prosecutors, and not because it doesn’t have a mayor in charge of all this.

So why isn’t it working? Because the city has a mayor who has no grip, who has failed the city in his responsibility to enforce the city’s ordinances; who has not challenged slumlords with the enforcement tools he has. It’s that simple.

Not all of us who rent dwellings to tenants are slumlords. Some of us take care of our houses and our tenants. Some of us have as much pride in our rental properties’ appearance and safety and sanitation as we have for our own homes.

Lesa, after having embarrassed the city administration on its failure to confront slumlords hundreds of times in words and pictures, has convinced members of City Council’s Safety Committee that landlords and slumlords should be required to provide trash containers to tenants.

It will do no good and it will put an unnecessary and intrusive burden on landlords. If the mayor and his administration won’t enforce the Code and get their hands dirty handling slumlords, is the addition of this ill-conceived requirement is going to change that?

No, it won’t. What will change that is for the community to confront the mayor and his administrators and insist that the laws be enforced.

NEXT: NEWARK’S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND WHY IT DOESN’T WORK

Alerts: Obama, Council rules, Mr. Kidd, Channel 19

Don’t ever believe President Obama isn’t giving the Newark Tea Party a serious read. Two days ago I wrote about Newark’s lack of jobs Newark Remains Unstimulated

Today’s Washington Post headline: “Obama to focus on job growth in Ohio.” Ta Da!

=====

Rules are for suckers - Right, City Council?
Ohio law requires three readings of proposed legislation, Newark by virtue of its “home rule” Charter requires but two. Many ordinances, however, are passed on the first reading because they are claimed to be “emergencies” though exactly what the “emergency” is normally remains murky at best. Never mind the Charter requires Council to “clearly specify the necessity of the emergency.”

Also, Council again played fast and loose with the public money entrusted to it when it awarded without competitive bidding a contract to Claggett & Sons to work on the company’s own property.

Competitive bidding for projects of $25,000 or more is required by the Charter, but this routinely is defined as unnecessary by the votes of six Council members. The Claggett project is estimated at $35,000-$50,000.

Claggett is a good landscaping contractor who has performed perfectly on a couple small jobs for me, and would be my choice for the next one. Likely the city won’t go wrong by awarding this job to Claggett. But we’ll never know because the rules don’t apply here.

This points to the need for tighter rules to ensure that expediency and convenience stop being overriding objectives of Council members and the Council president. Those tighter rules could be a project of a Charter Review if Council would provide for it.

Meantime, if any citizen should feel Council is abusing bidding requirements a complaint should be filed with Mary Taylor, Auditor of State.

=====

Keep your eye on Mr. Kidd
Ronnie Kidd, the Heath resident who led the charge against Reflex traffic cameras, hasn’t retired. For one thing, he was a key player in Mansfield’s decision to ignore Redflex’s pitch to install cameras in that city. Here’s how he described some of it in a note to me 1/20/10:

“Last night I drove to Mansfield for its Safety Committee meeting, Caucus and Council meeting. The 3rd reading of its camera ordinance was planned. Only one Mansfield resident was there to protest the cameras. The same Redflex rep that did the Zanesville presentation was there to give a slick and gruesome presentation. Including once when a Council member called me to the podium to ask me some questions, I managed to address the Council 4 times. Vote: 8-0 unanimous against the cameras.”

His group of citizens who helped with the traffic camera exile is still meeting. They hope to help citizens of Baytown TX and Arnold MO battle red light cameras. Also, they are expecting to influence decisions by local officials on the county dog pound, the Davis-Shai House and the Rt. 79 median in Heath.

I think this group isn’t far from announcing some sort of formal organization and picking up speed as a very influential force which politicians will rapidly come to respect.

=====

Webcasts & Channel 19
I was confused by the Advocate report on Council’s discussion of a camera for webcasting meetings on the city’s website. It was my sloppy reading, not the reporter’s fault. Maybe there were others too who didn’t get the difference between webcasting (something new being considered) and cablecasting (what’s already being done on Channel 19). The discussion involved, in part, the cost of a camera for webcasts. City officials were told the cost would be $2,800, but a resident brought an inexpensive digital video camera to demonstrate its adequacy and simplicity. Now let’s see if anyone listens to him.

Speaking of cablecasts on Channel 19, it seems to me that they are more professionally produced now than they have been for many years. Also, that Newark Schools’ Channel 19 has a lot more and a lot better programming in quality and subject matter.

Thing is, if you don’t know when Council meetings are to be shown, and if you don’t know when the other stuff is on, what good is it? Seems to me that the Advocate could easily list Channel 19 programming, if only on its web site.

It’s difficult to talk a deer to death

After talking about the need to solve Newark’s deer infestation for many months, city council seems ready to take decisive action. They are going to pass the buck(s).

Council’s service committee agreed to let full council vote on it. What they’re going to decide is whether or not to let the mayor develop a plan to solve this matter.

Assuming council votes affirmatively, further action will depend on the mayor’s willingness and ability to get a plan for deer eradication that will please everybody. In other words, nothing’s going to happen, but council can now blame the mayor. Spot on for Newark governors.

On 9/14/09 I wrote Kill the deer humanely, explaining that there is a way to kill deer without the suffering caused by bow hunting. If you don’t think bow hunting causes suffering, take a look at this video in which a veterinarian tells specifically how a deer suffers once hit by an arrow.

Nobody in their right mind wants to cause these animals that kind of death. And if the mayor and council think anybody but bow hunters are going to get their jollies watching such a slaughter, I got news for them.

The Advocate editorialized for bow hunting on 9/13/09, and Councilman Doug Marmie has declared he’ll see to it that firearms are outlawed in the city’s war on deer.

But here’s what I wrote before: “gunning deer is way less cruel and a lot safer if done by professionals ...” Then I gave contact information for a company in Pennsylvania that specializes in deer-herd control, along with links explaining that professional sharpshooters are trained, careful, and knowledgeable; the kind of ammo used, and a bit about how the low-powered bullets are contained for everyone’s safety. Read it here.

Yesterday, I called Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. of Fort Hill PA and talked with Bryon Shissler. He told me that the company works in harmony with state officials and laws; that the company is available to come here and explain its services to the community; that it assesses deer-herd conditions (including habitat in and around the city); that it recommends what has to be done to control them; and that it defines goals and ensures they are met. He said that various types of consumers are willing to pay for the processing of meat.

I am convinced that the people of this area would prefer to see a bit of their tax money used to eradicate these critters by trained, professional and expert deer-herd managers.

The alternative is to wait for the mayor to solve the deer problem that’s been a problem ever since before he took office. It’s possible that his solution will be (since it’s so difficult to talk a deer to death) to wait for all the deer to die of old age.

In defense of the city law director

In an earlier comment to “Rhonda4thWard’s page” blog entry entitled “When a lie breaks the law,” I suggested that the Advocate should be interested in “the rationale of the city law director in defining this (letter of resignation by Judith Carr) as outside the realm of public records.”

Law Director Doug Sassen responded to that comment to me directly by e-mail but, because of the word limit on Advocate comments, I have to make this a separate blog entry. This is what he said regarding that matter:

“...I should clarify for you that I have never defined Ms. Carr’s resignation letter as being “outside the realm of public records.” If, in fact, the letter was written and if, in fact, the Mayor received the letter, at that point the letter became a public record. As such, it should not be destroyed unless such destruction was in conformity with an approved RC-3 Retention Schedule.

“I have never seen such a letter. I do not know if the Mayor ever received such a letter. Nor do I know if the letter still exists. Knowing these facts is critical to determining what, if any, violations may have occurred.

“If the Mayor has made conflicting statements to people about the resignation or anything else, that is for him to justify. Rest assured, however, I will not “spin” the facts in any direction. At the same time, I will not jump to conclusions until the facts are known. And simply stating something to be a fact does not, in and of itself, make it so.

“I tell you this only because I think we have developed an understanding on such issues and I respect your opinion and would not want any mis-information to influence that understanding.”

Law Director Sassen also mentioned to me that he released to Council and to the Advocate the final paragraph of the Crites Report to Council on the city Building Code Department (reported by the Advocate on 6/19/09). This is what it says:

“For the reasons set forth above in the Law and Application section, the conflict of interest allegations involving Greg Keeler should be referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission for their review and consideration.”

The reason Mr. Sassen held it back was “...until such time as the Administration decided upon a response to the report both internally and pursuant to paragraph six, I felt it was inappropriate to release this paragraph pursuant to the on-going investigation exemption to public records disclosure.”

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.

Only in government: Paying unneeded employees

There are only three things wrong with the proposal to cut jobs in the city building code department - it didn’t happen when it should have, it hasn’t happened yet, it may not happen until November.

Nobody wants to see more people loose jobs, but for too long city taxpayers have been paying wages for what are essentially unemployed employees. The job cuts should have been made when individuals’ services were no longer used. This is what would have happened in the real world where where justification for paychecks is required; only in government could it be otherwise.

This is a good time to review a bit of the history of keeping unemployed city workers employed, as I wrote about it 1/9/09 Bend over Bunky, here comes Mayor Diebold again.

Well, here it is, almost exactly six months later, and a few guardians of the public’s city purse appear at last to be admitting the folly of paying the unemployed for being unemployed.

But wait. Even if the shucking off of unneeded employees is approved by Council, apparently it will not happen until November, which is the present plan, according to the Advocate report.

Solve Newark’s trash problems by enforcing the law

If hot air from politicians could solve problems, Newark’s trash would have long ago melted and our city would by now be pristine.

It matters not, however, that politicians have blown hot air at this problem since the days of Mayor Bain. So far, nothing has changed; trash lines the streets of Newark in many, if not most, parts of town; residents freely use sidewalks and curbsides to store unconfined junk and litter without regard for how it looks and smells, or whether it emits germs and vermin, nor into which neighbors’ yards it blows.

And hot air is all we get from these helpless public employees whose solution is not the least hidden in city ordinances. As I wrote 8/29/08 There is a solution for curbside trash. It’s called police work - enforcement of city laws by the mayor, the safety director and the policemen.

The most recent report by the Advocate that I’ve seen was 2/8/09 Property owners could feel trash burden in which this group called “trash talkers,” (defined in the article as “a group of concerned citizens along with local trash companies”) assigned by the “city administration” to make recommendations to council. Surprise! These folks are STILL hashing the idea of limiting the way and the areas specific trash haulers could do business. That, plus burdening landlords with trash bills for renters, which would be another brilliant intrusion on the conduct of private business. That’s only about an inch away from requiring every homeowner to buy trash services whether they need it or not. Trash is a favorite avenue by which Newark yearns to intrude on private affairs.

This is just more of a rich tradition of foolish, bureaucratic ideas to solve a problem which has years ago been solved. I have written about them 5/1/08 Trash is fertilizer for Newark government and 5/7/08 Let’s license newspapers and 12/5/08 Are trash dumping centers feasible?

Here it is, 3/9/09, and these people still haven’t figured it out. It goes right back to my solution of more than a year ago which is the solution put in place long ago by Newark City Council. That solution is evident and obvious where it’s dealt with in Newark City Ordinances.

Look at 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1) What you will find is that Newark’s laws already prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.

And what that means, clearly and simply: laws are not being enforced by the people we pay to enforce them.

This city needs a mayor and a safety director who will order officers to get out of their cruisers and solve the trash proliferation by enforcing city ordinances. How simple can it get?

Political parties rule at City Hall

The proposal to eliminate the city treasurer's health insurance (and thereby put that job in conformity with the city policy of not paying insurance premiums for part-time employees) was defeated in a straight party-line showdown during last night's council meeting. The six Republicans voted against it and thereby demonstrated - again - why Newark citizens should insist on non-partisan elections for city offices. Political parties and who's running for which offices should have nothing to do with a vote on enforcing city policy - but they very clearly did.

Leaf pickup solution (again)

Nobody paid any attention to me when I wrote the perfect solution for Newark's leaf-pickup problem July 19, 2006. Neither will they this time, but here it is again ...

Leaves are a natural occurrence and once everyone perceives that, there will be no more leaf brouhaha in the city of Newark or anywhere else. The work and public expense associated with the annual gathering of leaves will be reduced because the city will not be required to go around and mop up after citizens and taxpayers will benefit.

Among the most recent major non-problems for which the city offered a new and better solution is the bagging of leaves in biodegradable paper sacks. This way city workers wouldn't be required to open the thousands of plastic bags traditionally used. They'd throw them on the compost pile.

Trouble with that idea is that some folks are already bitching about the cost and the work and already the city is starting to back-peddle and to consider alternatives to its alternative and exceptions for certain of the bitchers.

What needs to be done is to announce that people who own trees also own the leaves - for better or worse - to the bloody end. Meaning that folks can either leave the leaves on the ground and learn to see the beauty therein, or they can mulch them. Leaves are not a government responsibility, so tell people to quit raking them into the streets. Mulching is cheap and easy and it's a solution I've used for many years.

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.

Newark leaders looking for a smarter way to do business

What qualification do you need to become a professional manager of Newark's affairs? That single qualification would be the ability to draw votes, though Newark's affairs include the collection and expenditure of millions of dollars and the supervision of many employes, most of them doing very specialized jobs.

This could soon change, thanks to agreement among Newark leaders to study a proposal for the city-manager form of government.

Our present managers include the mayor and the members of city council. They come off the street with widely varied backgrounds but no experience in city management. They are given on-the-job training, all the while taking guidance from political parties, campaign contributors and schmoozing everybody else for next election.

These managers don't get paid much and they work long hours. Thanks to critics like me, their jobs are frequently frustrating and unrewarding. How such jobs attract any candidates - let alone any good candidates - is a mystery.

Compare that to the use of a professional municipal manager. Such a person would know how to run public affairs by virtue of education and experience. Just as important, a manager is insulated from political parties and campaign-contributor influence.

I've pleaded the case for this kind of government before: (5/5/08 Let's spend $54,000 to find out why we spent it) and (5/9/08 Yes, we do need a city manager) for instance.

Yesterday's Advocate report Newark leaders to study city manager form of government came as a welcomed surprise. The promise is only to study the proposal for a city manager, but that proposal has been well-conceived and put on firm foundation. It has the backing of the mayor, two former mayors, the president of council, and council members.

It is the smart way to introduce the proposal to citizens and to study its pros and cons. It is a declaration that Newark's city government is looking for better ways to do business. If it never gets any farther than that, congratulations are still in order.

Just walk faster, Sherry

The case of Newark street lights vs. Sherry Gaston has long since reached the point of ridiculous. In case you haven't tuned into the televised meetings of Newark City Council and haven't been amused, then bored to tears, then totally put off by the antics of this woman, here's her gripe:

She apparently has to walk in compound-low-gear because she has only one leg and claims she can't get across Newark's crosswalks without more time than that for which the lights are set. So, for the past several council meetings, Sherry has delivered a sermon on this subject. She wants the crosswalk lights timed longer for her personal benefit.

She basks in her televised spotlight and exudes sweet-elderly sayings and readings and hyperbole by the bucket-full and for what seems to be the hour-full.

No matter what negative things I will ever say about Council, I will never say its members aren't patient to the point of exhaustion. They've listened to this woman's speeches without interruption and without complaint, as have members of city administration. I feel their helplessness and I sympathize.

After all, what do you tell an old woman with one leg who bitches about fear of crosswalks?

What would you tell her if she were asking you (and you had the power to) delay motorists and screw up the flow of downtown traffic for her own personal benefit?

Well, I'm an old fart too, and here's what I'd tell her: No.

No, we are not going to screw up the traffic flow of a city, because for the first time in decades it's finally working and everyone but you is happy with it.

So no, Sherry, ain't happening.

You will have to end your TV guest spots at Council meetings. Stop the drama and the harassment and the games. Use your time, instead, to practice walking faster. Or, if you prefer, get a wheelchair. Motorized or not. Spend Monday evenings learning to drive the thing instead of learning to be a starlet on Channel 19. Citizens will applaud, I promise.

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.

Newark School administrators: You don't have to trick us with an August vote

It must seem to regular readers of these Observations that I am dead-set against any new tax. I am not. I am dead-set against the chicanery used by government and schools to get income by tricking voters or otherwise denying them the right to vote on tax matters.

Classic case of this was the sales-tax increase by County Commissioners Tim Bubb and Doug Smith. They simply refused to hear voters asking to have a voice in the matter.

City officials regularly ignore the wishes of the majority in order to avoid the majority opinion on tax issues, most recently the decision by council to skim off another $10 per auto license plate sale, in spite of the fact that voters earlier had sent a clear message of their disapproval.

No sooner did taxpayers get that jammed into their orifice than the Newark School District board sends notice it might attempt to end-run voters in an August repeat of the failed tax-levy request, thinking that the majority of what few voters might show up for such an election will be parents and teachers, thus giving the majority of people who will have to pay for it yet another shafting.

This special election could cost the school district as much as $40,000 to produce, according to the Advocate report. That same $40,000 used for the good of the people would provide many miles of school bussing the district claimed it can't afford.

For people who are supposed to be smart enough to oversee the community's main educational factory, they don't have much going for them.

Worse, they see their constituency as one dumb, numb, mass of people too helpless and worthless to defend against another stuffing by the school board intelligentsia. That is the theory on which consideration of an August tax vote is predicated.

The news for these "public servants" is that there are many folks just like me, thousands maybe.

And what we expect from you is for you to convince us of a two things before you come to us for more money.

First is that you are wisely spending the money you have, that you are not wasting it on high-priced and useless administrators and employee wages and benefits that are out of line with what other people make;

and second that after you have cleaned house and eliminated all the useless people and programs you have acquired over the years that you need more of our money to educate (not entertain and not babysit) our children.

When you get that done, you won't have to try to trick us with an August vote.

Guthrie draws a line in the sand for Mayor Diebold

Congratulations to Marc Guthrie, president of Newark City Council, for confronting Mayor Bob Diebold - in a public meeting - about deception in communicating with council members.

It took courage and dedication to principles of honest government - and it was a welcome break from tradition - to say these things for the public to hear.

The deceptions named by Guthrie - regarding employee evaluations and misstatements about the status of a certain city employee position - weren't in themselves as important over the long haul as was this sort of public reprimand from City Council. It served as an announcement that this mayor isn't going to get away with behind-the-doors polishing on his version of the truth.

This, I believe, is part of what caught up with the previous mayor. Mr. Diebold is only in the first year as successor to that administration so he should be grateful to Guthrie for drawing a line in the sand this far ahead of the next election.

It could do the Diebold administration a world of good. Or maybe not.

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.

Let's license newspapers

The Advocate likes the proposal for having city bureaucrats pick certain trash-hauling companies and the area(s) where they could do business. Yesterday's editorial Trash collection ideas are not a waste proclaimed that "at first glance, there are a lot of benefits."

The Advocate appears to be ready to hand over yet another freedom to the Magic Nanny. Such a change would take us one step closer to the licensing of other types of businesses - say, um, newspapers.

If we sink to government-supervised trash collection, the stretch to Magic-Nanny-governed newspapers is closer.

Local bureaucrats could authorize the Columbus Dispatch to report news and sell ads in the western part of Licking County to center of Granville. The Advocate could do business from that line to Hanover, where the Zanesville Times Recorder would begin its territory. The Advocate could report news and sell ads as far north as Van Atta and south to Hebron, where the Mount Vernon News and the Buckeye Lake Beacon would take over.

Bureaucrats could set the price of all these newspapers while mandating delivery times and ad rates. The Nanny could require every household to subscribe by simply folding the fee into local water bills. Readers could purchase only their assigned newspaper, no matter how bad it is - and however terrible, you could count on it getting worse when government takes charge. Never mind that, government would set it up so each news "provider" would profit. A lot.

Added to the cost of the newspaper would be the expense of supporting another layer of government bureaucracy with its legions of license-issuers and enforcers, so the price - but not the value - would have to increase, though government would take great pains to hide that fact.

As an added benefit to citizens of Newark in general and the Diebold regime in particular, Gannett's contract would require this company to move its printing operation out of Newark to save wear on city streets; no more big trucks hauling newsprint in and USA Todays out. The damage by trash trucks to city streets might not be as great as Gannett's semis, a consideration which so far seems to have escaped Advocate editorialists - along with advantages of a free and competitive marketplace.