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?).
Showing posts with label Ellington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ellington. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
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, May 8, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Diebold is point man for government greed
In everything written about Mayor Diebold's thirst for more money from taxpayers, never has he said anything about getting it honestly - by asking taxpayers to vote to spend more on city government.
In fact, just the opposite. Most recently this has focused on whether the city should levy yet another fine for living in Newark by squeezing each auto owner annually for $10 more. It's the opposite because voters in November 2005 voted on this one and defeated it in a referendum vote 58-42.
The voting booths hadn't cooled after the referendum when Mayor Bain was plotting another attempt to end-run voters with it. Since then, this matter has been considered by Diebold and some others in city government as the delectable piece of cake that could be translated into more government and to hell with what voters want.
It not just the additional tax burden that's important here; it about stuffing voters who've already spoken on the matter. It's about this endless government greed, which Diebold has so willingly served as point man without yet paying the political price. Of course he was among councilmen to vote for the reinstatement of part of the same tax in September 2006. (See: Council rejects voters' directive on Tag Tax.) Only Doug Marmie and Don Ellington voted in favor of upholding citizens' wishes.
This is not about pot holes, it's about more government. As I said here earlier, "If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?"
It IS about more government because no matter what they say they'll use this money for in the immediate future, their promises will unenforceable anyway, and surely will last no longer than their own terms of office. (Consider what happened to promises made while the city pushed for the pot-of-gold at the end of an EMS ride to the hospital. See Riding to the hospital with your city employees; Bend over taxpayer...
Once the money gets thrown into the gigantic kitty full of tax proceeds nobody is going to know exactly where those dollars have gone; only that there will be 880 thousand more of them in the kitty. And this translates as: Newark is going to have more government and better-paid government employees.
It's about milking for the last dime and the for largest employee raise. Thanks to the persistent greed of Mayor Diebold and his continuing willingness to stuff voters - and thanks to the cooperation from Ways and Means Committee members Irene Kennedy and Ed Houdeshell - good ol' boys to the core - the tax grab plan will be considered by full council, because you see, it doesn't matter to Kennedy and Houdeshell what voters have said. They want you to bend over and stay there.
In fact, just the opposite. Most recently this has focused on whether the city should levy yet another fine for living in Newark by squeezing each auto owner annually for $10 more. It's the opposite because voters in November 2005 voted on this one and defeated it in a referendum vote 58-42.
The voting booths hadn't cooled after the referendum when Mayor Bain was plotting another attempt to end-run voters with it. Since then, this matter has been considered by Diebold and some others in city government as the delectable piece of cake that could be translated into more government and to hell with what voters want.
It not just the additional tax burden that's important here; it about stuffing voters who've already spoken on the matter. It's about this endless government greed, which Diebold has so willingly served as point man without yet paying the political price. Of course he was among councilmen to vote for the reinstatement of part of the same tax in September 2006. (See: Council rejects voters' directive on Tag Tax.) Only Doug Marmie and Don Ellington voted in favor of upholding citizens' wishes.
This is not about pot holes, it's about more government. As I said here earlier, "If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?"
It IS about more government because no matter what they say they'll use this money for in the immediate future, their promises will unenforceable anyway, and surely will last no longer than their own terms of office. (Consider what happened to promises made while the city pushed for the pot-of-gold at the end of an EMS ride to the hospital. See Riding to the hospital with your city employees; Bend over taxpayer...
Once the money gets thrown into the gigantic kitty full of tax proceeds nobody is going to know exactly where those dollars have gone; only that there will be 880 thousand more of them in the kitty. And this translates as: Newark is going to have more government and better-paid government employees.
It's about milking for the last dime and the for largest employee raise. Thanks to the persistent greed of Mayor Diebold and his continuing willingness to stuff voters - and thanks to the cooperation from Ways and Means Committee members Irene Kennedy and Ed Houdeshell - good ol' boys to the core - the tax grab plan will be considered by full council, because you see, it doesn't matter to Kennedy and Houdeshell what voters have said. They want you to bend over and stay there.
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.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Why I'm voting for Diebold for mayor
The Advocate endorsement of Mayor Bain for re-election included mention of some of his accomplishments:
-- pushing for the storm water utility (which is costing residents 12 percent higher sewer rates);
-- pushing for the ethanol plant (the profits from which would have gone to India and the stink from which would go to nearby residents)(and don't forget Bain received $1,000 in political donations from representatives of a firm connected with the effort to build that plant); and
-- for helping "give Newark a chance to land a world-class professional soccer facility" (which is a plan to convince Newark taxpayers to support the idea that thousands of folks would come here to see a team practice the world's most dull sport ever).
I'm sure it was oversight not to mention that it was Mayor Bain who touted the idea of putting the $15 auto tag fee back on the ballot immediately after citizens rejected the idea at polls by 58-42 percent - and who eventually convinced council (except for Ellington and Marmie) to stuff voters by legislating an auto tag fee of $5 anyway. Read this.
It also slipped by the Advocate that Mr. Bain has Kaye Hartman, cemetery superintendent, in the cross hairs and if he wins, likely Kaye will go.
Oh. Also it was His Honor who said "I have a right to sell water and sewer to anyone outside the city at any time."
Nor did the Advocate choose to mention the Mayor/Council scam that now causes taxpayers to pay dearly for a ride to the hospital in the care of city employees and in city trucks for whom and for which taxpayers have already paid, but which now brings into city coffers $1 million a year to what has been proudly referred to by His Honor as "stabilizing the budget." Maybe this is moot as an election point, however, because Bain's opponent, Bob Diebold gets more credit for keeping this scam heading through council than anybody. You should read my essay on this.
What the Advocate might have mentioned, but didn't: Mayor Bain had a hand in getting the traffic snarl around Courthouse Square unsnarled. At least it happened just after he took office. This, as far as I know, has been his greatest accomplishment.
Unfortunately, Bain's opponent in the race for Newark's mayor is just another Bain with a different surface. The race between Bain and Diebold is a choice between different flavors of the same old bullshit.
Still, I'm going to vote for Diebold for two reasons:
1) He can't be worse than Bain and any change is going to be a relief of sorts.
2) Diebold has a really great sister, Chris.
-- pushing for the storm water utility (which is costing residents 12 percent higher sewer rates);
-- pushing for the ethanol plant (the profits from which would have gone to India and the stink from which would go to nearby residents)(and don't forget Bain received $1,000 in political donations from representatives of a firm connected with the effort to build that plant); and
-- for helping "give Newark a chance to land a world-class professional soccer facility" (which is a plan to convince Newark taxpayers to support the idea that thousands of folks would come here to see a team practice the world's most dull sport ever).
I'm sure it was oversight not to mention that it was Mayor Bain who touted the idea of putting the $15 auto tag fee back on the ballot immediately after citizens rejected the idea at polls by 58-42 percent - and who eventually convinced council (except for Ellington and Marmie) to stuff voters by legislating an auto tag fee of $5 anyway. Read this.
It also slipped by the Advocate that Mr. Bain has Kaye Hartman, cemetery superintendent, in the cross hairs and if he wins, likely Kaye will go.
Oh. Also it was His Honor who said "I have a right to sell water and sewer to anyone outside the city at any time."
Nor did the Advocate choose to mention the Mayor/Council scam that now causes taxpayers to pay dearly for a ride to the hospital in the care of city employees and in city trucks for whom and for which taxpayers have already paid, but which now brings into city coffers $1 million a year to what has been proudly referred to by His Honor as "stabilizing the budget." Maybe this is moot as an election point, however, because Bain's opponent, Bob Diebold gets more credit for keeping this scam heading through council than anybody. You should read my essay on this.
What the Advocate might have mentioned, but didn't: Mayor Bain had a hand in getting the traffic snarl around Courthouse Square unsnarled. At least it happened just after he took office. This, as far as I know, has been his greatest accomplishment.
Unfortunately, Bain's opponent in the race for Newark's mayor is just another Bain with a different surface. The race between Bain and Diebold is a choice between different flavors of the same old bullshit.
Still, I'm going to vote for Diebold for two reasons:
1) He can't be worse than Bain and any change is going to be a relief of sorts.
2) Diebold has a really great sister, Chris.
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)
