C-TEC - The buck stops nowhere

The evaporation of public money entrusted to the care of C-TEC’s school board and administrators has been well-documented by the Advocate and discussed at length in blogs and comments. Those I’ve written, plus links to news reports, can be found at this link.

Bob Handelman, president of the school board, denied responsibility when asked by the Advocate about the school board’s role. This school board president - with whom the uppermost resonsibiltiy lies - believes himself, other board members, and administrators blameless for any of this. The buck, for them, apparently stops nowhere.

As reported by the Advocate 4/27/10, “board president Bob Handelman, a Newark school board member, joined the second session to defend the board's handling of the expansion, arguing C-TEC was guilty of nothing more than accepting bad professional advice. He's told us there's no evidence anyone in C-TEC acted in bad faith and there was no need to investigate what went wrong, nor any need for apologies.”

The fact is, Bob Handelman and everyone involved in C-TEC’s recent and present administrative blundering owes this community four things: 1) an apology for irresponsible management of public money; 2) an explanation of how things went so wrong in the decision-making processes and by whom these decisions were made; 3) resignations of those responsible; and 4) new administrative policies to prevent recurrences.

If C-TEC leaders think denial is their salvation, they are truly underestimating the intelligence of parents and taxpayers. To claim innocence - rather than to claim responsibility - rather than claim a firm resolve to do better - demonstrates delusion that won’t be forgotten.

Who should pay for user “needs?”

Users of Mental Health services, users of the county library, users of county parks, users of C-TEC facilities and users of several other public facilities in Licking County are unashamedly asking for more dole from property owners this election. Meanwhile Newark Catholic Schools have raised from their users more than $1 million for their users’ needs.

Would local property owners like to see improvements to all the community’s schools, agencies, and institutions? We certainly would. And we would like to see them - as with Newark Catholic - lean on their users, not property owners for support. The idea that property owners should - and can afford - to pay the expenses of everyone who “needs” more and more is an idea that is no longer based in reality.

I predict that few of tomorrow’s property-tax requests will pass. If not, maybe it will inspire a new perspective on who should be paying for the “needs” of users of public services

Public contracts are public business

The Advocate article 3/7/10 regarding uniform allowances for city employees should be an eye-opener for taxpayers who seem unable to connect the dots between public employee unions and the never-ending squeeze on the public purse. These dots might also connect city employees’ taxpayer-provided electronic amusements to the possibility that Newark may no longer be able to afford a dog warden.

Citizen-taxpayers need to know the details of public-employee contracts: city, county workers, sheriff department, school employees and administrators.

I hope the Advocate will post these public-employee contracts in its data base. That would enable taxpayers to decide if they’re getting their money’s worth and whether elected officials are guarding the till or giving it away. Public contracts are public business.

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.

Newark remains unstimulated

Federal “stimulus” dollars were supposed to create jobs as a means of undoing the damage to our economy by Wall Street sharpies, bankers, unregulated monopoly businesses of all stripes, and by government. But in Newark we are far from stimulated. In fact, as one commentator said, the people of Newark are selling hamburgers to each other for survival.

A tedious and uncertain trip through the federal stimulus brag sheet on the web reveals that two jobs have been created for the private sector locally. The rest of the $27,494,419 total in grants for zip code 43055 has created 26.58 additional jobs (on paper), all of them apparently are government jobs if indeed any were created.

A lot of that money went to schools and a lot to construction projects - projects the government would have to take care of anyway. So government feeds itself more of our tax dollars - as usual - as a way to stimulate our economy.

The two local jobs created (on paper at least) from a $171,787 grant went to Newark Townehomes, 11 Daugherty Circle in Newark. This is a HUD property I was told, and I think it’s owned by a corporation in Columbus, but I couldn’t substantiate that because whoever answered the phone wasn’t too talkative.

So there you have two jobs in the private sector for Newark out of all the billions nationally for bankers, stock brokers, auto manufacturers, auto dealerships and governments.

If you did not receive one of the two jobs and were are not already working for government or a school your financial outlook is probably like mine: It hasn’t been this bad for decades. Meanwhile, the greed of companies like Time-Warner Cable, property tax collectors, oil companies and other monopolies, seems boundless.

Before his election, Obama & Company were on Ohio like flies on manure. Now he keeps in contact, with me at least, by sending incessant e-mails asking for donations for this Democrat project or that. There’s a red button to use for donating.

I’d really like to donate Mr. Obama and the Democrats a hamburger as a symbol of the two new jobs we’ve received in Newark.

Unfortunately, there’s no red button for hamburgers - and I couldn’t afford it anyway.

More Magic Nanny trash

Mayor Bob Diebold would like us to believe he can create public wealth at no charge to citizens. Just give him whatever he asks in the category of individual rights and he’ll take care of us. Behold: Newark Ohio’s very own Magic Nanny.

It is not surprising therefore that he has again presented for approval one of his pet projects: a monopolized trash-hauling system licensed by the city. Each time in the past citizens have overwhelmingly opposed this idea. But, like a teenager growing pimples, Diebold keeps it always just under the surface or on top and neither rational thought nor explanation works as defense.

Diebold’s determination to limit free enterprise among trash haulers has been now framed as “win-win” in the 1/11/10 Advocate report. This is because, Diebold says, “The city could charge an administration fee to manage the trash contract and fund the property maintenance department, and residents still would save money.”

Here’s what I wrote about citizen reaction on 5/1/08:

In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.

Nothing has changed since then, but the Advocate reporter bought it, since no balance was offered. Apparently the Advocate reporter does not know the history of Magic Nanny Diebold’s promises for great things to come of his other “money-making” schemes for which citizens pay dearly.

Take, for one, “billing of insurance companies” for rides to the hospital in city trucks manned by city employees, a shell game he pushed time and time again until it became reality while he was still a councilman. This won’t cost citizens anything, only insurance companies, he said in his sales pitch. This turned out to be a multi-million-dollar scam which is costing - and will cost - citizens dearly forevermore, most likely. Read the shake-out of it here: Riding to the hospital with your city employees: Bend over taxpayer ...

Consider another of Magic Nanny Diebold’s miracle solutions for the ever-short-on-cash Newark Ohio. This was the rise in cost of driving by $10 per vehicle per year, tacked to the purchase of auto licenses. This was sold as the absolute only way we could ever maintain our streets decently. I suspect that most of this (by switching lanes in the underground labyrinths of the treasury) went to our employees because there is no noticeable improvement in street repair or maintenance and much whining about having no money for much of anything and least of all those projects important to Newark taxpayers.

So now this same mayor - whose term can’t be over soon enough - would have us believe that the city would be richer - and the prices to residents would be lower - if the Magic Nanny were permitted to select and license for all citizens a single trash hauler.

If Diebold’s plan gets implemented, here’s a prediction. I predict that citizens will have absolutely no meaningful input regarding which of the haulers is given a Newark monopoly. I predict that the contract will be awarded to the company - Big O Refuse - that is managed locally by the son of Newark Councilman Don Ellington. Not that there’s anything wrong with that company, and I’m not accusing anybody of anything illegal but, if I were betting, that would be my pick.

For a review of the performance of Bob Diebold, and how the Magic Nanny rides roughshod over citizens go to this link Then go to it again before you vote for a mayor.

NCS employees, we don’t care about your convenience

Newark City Schools quandary over where to educate students while the high school campus is being rebuilt is the subject of an Advocate report (1/10/10).

It says administrators favor spending another half-million-or-so tax dollars on renting 16 classroom buidlings.

Another option, would be to schedule split sessions - difficult, but doable, the report says. The problem with that is “it ... hurts your activities” and the administration would have to “manipulate (its) staff so that everybody’s happy.”

This is the kind of fiscally irresponsible crap that property owners and income-tax payers are tired of hearing from NCS administrators.

We don’t care about your activities or your convenience, and we had hoped that a new superintendent and a new treasurer and a couple new board members might make a difference in the NCS attitude toward spending taxpayers’ money.

This is not a good omen.

C-TEC’s problem is management

Both of our sons graduated from Licking County Joint Vocational School and I am forever grateful for JVS instructors’ expertise and administrators’ patience and wisdom. My boys’ aptitudes were far better fitted to tradesmanship than academics and the long-term employment outcome has been a success, so far as that training contributed.

Since then, the school has changed a lot - different administrators and a whacky new name: “Career and Technology Education Centers of Licking County.” Maybe that name has to do with marketing and prestige; it sure doesn’t tell anybody what the institution is or does.

Because I am now and forever a cheerleader for vocational education, I let slide an Advocate report on 10/25/09 that addressed some of the financial miscues that have occurred and are occurring there. In view of the most recent operating levy failure and the excessive compensation for its new superintendent, taxpayers may wish to review this report: C-TEC at critical financial juncture

The long-overdue court decision on a lawsuit by Claggett & Sons regarding construction contracts could break the C-TEC bank. Even if it doesn’t, the matter likely will prove costly to taxpayers and may be read as a signal that the school board and administrators were careless in oversight and weak in judgment when they let all this get to lawsuit status.

On 11/15/09 the Advocate editorialized that C-TEC's problems require complete review, and demonstrated bad judgment in its idea for “a new Western Licking County strategy” because folks out there are “killing C-TEC operating levies by wide margins.”

The Advocate’s solution? Cut those people out of the C-TEC district and let them get their vocational education in Columbus, which would lessen the number of anti-tax voters. Such a solution fails to acknowledge that it would also lessen the number of taxpayers supporting Licking County vocational education, requiring each property owner in the smaller district to bear even more of a school-tax burden.

Meanwhile, C-TEC’s operating funds are substantial enough to pay the new superintendent, Joyce Malainy, a $113,262 salary. There is enough in the kitty to pay her $471.93 per day between now and her Jan. 4, 2010 start date as reported by the Advocate 11/18/09 Board approves superintendent's contract

When C-TEC goes back to voters, this example of hog-trough-ery will be remembered, if only by me. Paying anyone $471.93 a day is a slap at property owners who are tired of enriching the estates of school adminstrators.

Before C-TEC returns with another request for more money, it should not be predicated on finagling the voter base by cutting off students from Western Licking County. Consider instead - simply - better management of its affairs, especially concerning the use of our tax dollars.

More NCS construction = Higher taxes?

As Newark City School District continues improvement on its buildings I’ve long wondered whether debts being accrued may lead to higher property taxes.

Since 2004, when the issuance of $70 million in bonds was approved by voters for school construction, NCS has been hip-high in modernizing its facilities. An Advocate summary of the projects encompassed by this massive expenditure, as of last summer, is reprinted here.

Still to be undertaken is the most expensive ($39 million) element on the list: The restructuring of the high school campus, creating connected buildings and the demolition of Buildings C, D, E, and H, according to the Advocate report.

It seemed to me that, should the community elect to stop these building projects, lower tax bills would result from less money being spent for debt reduction. Further, I questioned whether the $70 million in bonds approved by voters in 2004 would cover inflationary costs.

I also wondered who dreamed up the plan for tearing down most of the buildings on high school campus and replacing them with structures never clearly explained nor debated, and over which - when it sinks into the community mentality - there might be a lot of dissatisfaction. Among the featured advantages of living in Newark - for decades - has been its beautiful high school campus. So who came up with this plan and why?

I queried Jeffrey Anderson, NCS treasurer, by e-mail. His reply was immediate and thorough. In summary, he said that curtailing these construction projects would not lower local property taxes, that the school building projects were designed according to state formulas and standards, that the school district is legally obligated to complete all the projects.

Most of the text of his email is at this link, followed by a note from NCS Board Member Tom Bline regarding the planning process for changes to the Newark High School Campus.

NCS Connects?

In a comment to another essay here, Amythirdward raised the issue of quality of, and purpose for, the recently published NCS newsletter “NCS Connects.”

“... If that is the best the Ms PR person can do, it is pretty ametuerish. I am amazed that after passing the levy the admin felt like that piece of paper would be bridge the communication divide between them and us!”

Your assessment on the quality of the NCS newsletter is on target, Amy. You’d think the work of an expensive PR expert - hired over objections by taxpayers - would reflect more professionalism. I could stand shallow performance if it hadn’t cost taxpayers $3,600 to produce.

Making this project doubly hard to swallow is the Advocate’s proclamation 5/30/09 that NCS “wisely waited until after the recent school levy election to restart its newsletter mailed to local residents ... We feared the district would misstep by sending a newsletter before Election Day.” Get what this deceitful editorialist is saying? Don’t spend $3,600 before the levy vote lest the taxpayers object to the waste. Now that the levy has passed, it doesn’t matter what taxpayers think of the waste.

This is right in line with the Advocate’s evermore-obvious insolence toward people who are paying for that inferior, $3,600-tax-paid propaganda sheet.

As for bridging the communication divide between NCS and parents/taxpayers, it’s going to take a lot more than more preaching from a school administration that has alienated itself from the community. Anyone who thinks otherwise ought to remember what I said on 5/7/09 ... “Anyone who considers the passage of the $5.9-million-per-year levy a sign that the community is poised to kiss and make up with the Newark City Schools should go read the outpouring of rage in comments to the Advocate on-line news report.”

If NCS administration thinks “NCS Connects” works as a kiss-up, they’d do well to reconsider.

Advocate editorialist is a mental and moral underachiever

Yesterday, an Advocate editorial trumpeted the virtues of Keith Richards. It called him “a pretty good example of what's needed to get the job done,” “a wise and savvy leader, “an open and honest superintendent” who “understood the importance of accountability,” calling for “a fresh start from a leader of similar skills and focus.”

It’s painfully obvious to anyone who is still reading the Advocate that good help is pretty scarce, maybe because of layoffs or involuntary furloughs. The editorialist who wrote this is the one who deserves a permanent furlough. She is not merely lousy help, but worse, a mental and moral underachiever.

I gave Keith Richards enough grief before he decided to retire. I was willing to drop him off the list of write-worthy subjects.

I was willing to let the King Richards’ era die a peaceful death - forgetting all the things about his reign that angered taxpayers -  so that Newark could get on with a new life with a new guy.

I was willing to forget that the superintendent told the Advocate ahead of the levy vote that the money would be spent, in part, on raises for employees. This in a system where the average salary for teachers is $53,179, and there’s one employee for every 8 NCS students. Raises for these people, but not a return to full busing, though local taxpayers spend more on the superintendent’s salary than the people of Alaska pay their governor.

I was willing to forget that under Keith’s guidance NCS mustered the third worst graduation rate in Ohio and that Keith blamed Newark citizens for this.

I was willing to forget that NCS failed to admit until after the levy vote that the estimate for increased government funding is $2 million and that it still hasn’t admitted more federal stimulus funding is expected.

I was willing to forget that the school board’s “transparent” search for a new superintendent began with an executive session to talk about it.

But yesterday when the Advocate trumpeted the virtues of Keith Richards, I just had to remember all this crap. 

There is a good side: The Advocate editorialist has clearly demonstrated - in case anyone ever doubted - her lack of support for NCS pupils, parents and taxpayers, while shamelessly paying dues to the local establishment clique in partnership with Keith Richards & company.

NCS levy signals call to arms

Anyone who considers the passage of the $5.9-million-per-year levy a sign that the community is poised to kiss and make up with the Newark City Schools should go read the outpouring of rage in comments to the Advocate on-line news report.

The NCS tax take has grown by $230 a year per $100,000 value. That’s added to the $892 per year already in place, plus a 1 percent income tax, plus state and federal taxes giving Keith & Company a total of $12,693 per student, per year, plus an estimated 9.3% increase in state and federal aid over the next two years. 

Still NCS will not have enough, they say, to fully bus students, or fully fund the extras for students, but they do anticipate having enough for staff raises which are needed because the NCS classroom teachers’ average salary is only $55,331 for nine months’ work before benefits - and NCS has only one employee for every 4.9 students, and the superintendent makes more than the governor of Alaska.

That Keith & Company strategized a winning shell game on property owners comes as a call to arms. Sitting in front of a computer screen screaming insults back and forth may be therapeutic, but it’s a lousy solution. 

What has to happen next is state intervention into the rape of property owners. It has to happen before Keith & Company come back to rape again, and they will because it’s never enough no matter how much it is.

There are three people who are responsible for doing this, but who won’t do anything meaningful for property owners unless they are made to do it. One is State Representative Jay Hottinger, another is State Senator Tim Schaffer and the third is Governor Ted Strickland.

Jay Hottinger has practically grown to adulthood as our link to state government. Because of that, I think he is as responsible as any member of government for schools’ rape and re-raping of property owners in Newark, Licking County, and Ohio.

So here’s a suggestion for you guys sitting there moaning about having to pay yet another $5.9 million each year on top of an already-excessive tax bill:

Call Jay Hottinger’s office - 614/466-1482 - and ask him precisely what he’s going to do to solve the problem. If you don’t understand his answer, ask again. 

Then call Senator Schaffer at 614/466-5838 and ask him the same thing. Ask the same question as many times as it takes until you understand it.

Then call Governor Strickland at the constituent helpline 614/644-4357 and ask him what he’s going to do to solve the problem. Make sure you understand exactly what he intends to do before you hang up.

When you have done so, please leave a comment here about your experience. The number and kind of comments received will indicate how serious you are about dealing with the problem, rather than whining about it.

Newark Schools’ need for levy is unproven

Three events that have gone unreported and/or under-reported by the Advocate suggest that likely there is no need for a property tax increase, the goal of NCS.

One is that NCS superintendent said, in an Advocate report 4/21/09 Superintendent outlines Newark district's future, recent sacrifices (video) that raises to “staff” would be among the uses for a hike in homeowners’ tax bills if the levy passes.

This comes at the same time many property owners are losing their jobs and losing their homes (in part because of real estate taxes) and state government workers are taking 10 days without pay for the next two years, in addition to wage freezes.

The second is that a comparison with similar districts, as reported by the Advocate 4/26/09, How do Newark schools compare? demonstrates that NCS is not financially disadvantaged compared to the others. 

The newspaper gave readers a link to a spread sheet in which the similar districts are compared but it failed to otherwise mention some findings that I think are important. One is that Newark’s District Local Tax Effort was highest of the six districts. Another is our local District Instructional Expenditure Per Pupil is the lowest of the six, even though the NCS District Classroom Teachers’ Average Salary is the highest ($55,330.67).

The third is in regard to the additional state and federal money coming to NCS. I reported 4/17/09 Ohio House Dems break out school funding revise that a district-by-district estimate of Ohio Democrats’ school-funding revise would bring an additional 9.3% to NCS coffers during the next two fiscal years. That amount includes certain of the federal stimulus funds (poor students - Title I, and special education students - IDEA).

The Ohio House recently passed that bill and the word from Jay Hottinger’s office is that those estimates were unchanged. That bill could be changed by the Senate but, until its final passage, the figures comprise the only estimate we have.

In view of these facts - even if there were no war between the community and its school administration (How to stop the war between NCS and Newark taxpayers) - more money for “staff” raises will be a hard sell. 

Ohio sales-tax boost touted by analyst

Among ideas for Ohio government survival until the recession ends, there is one that seems to me worth considering. It was put forth not by a government official, but by newspaper columnist.

Thomas Suddes, op-ed columnist for the Columbus Dispatch and a former legislative reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, argues convincingly for a small, temporary sales-tax boost at this link.

Taxpayer interests go unprotected during negotiations, Part Two

I posted 4/16/09 an essay which concluded with this paragraph: “The day when taxpayers are free to sit in on negotiations regarding pay and benefits for tax-paid employees is the day when the taxpayers’ interests will be protected. We need a law to provide that protection, but until then we need a full public report on what happens when our employees line up at the trough.” That essay drew a lot of comments from Advocate readers and it can be accessed at this link.

Since then, the Advocate’s short list of blogs has allowed this discussion to slip off into its cyber abyss, though the arguments were still flowing, and at least one of which is worthy of rebuttal. Here’s what “moreon” wrote:

“Bruce,
negotiations by public employees shouldn’t transpire under public scrutiny in real time. That would be nutty if you could do it. It would devolve into Bedlam. (Thus I got off on my tangent about pure democracy and Perot....)

“Law should specifically guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business. Those facts and the contract itself tell the story. Additionally, the board or its members and the superintendent/administration need to be responsible to field the questions of the public as to their decisions, etc. They should be forthcoming and if they are not, or if the public doesn't agree substantially, well...elections happen.

“Further, beyond the real time-Bedlam point, I think the very nature of negotiations cannot successfully be micro-managed, nor should they be. The concept of negotiation in any context requires a great degree of confidentiality. Without it, the process is ineffective in producing agreements, settlements and contracts, because the sides are chilled from freely bringing up anything openly which if it is not agreed to, will be of such a nature that it can later be brought up and used against them openly (politically or otherwise). You should want this freedom in negotiations which is founded on confidentially. The public benefits from it, and the public can be protected otherwise by the process. I, however, don’t think you should want a transcript of negotiations or the like to go to work on.

“You need the facts existing before the negotiation, you need the facts agreed upon at negotiation, and then you need truthful and good-faith accountability from your elected board and their administration. You can decide from this process whom to look to replace with a better candidate. (At some point, we need to start voting for someone, not against.) Even if someone doesn’t know the negotiator, he or she knows who was responsible– the ones who owned the decision– and they may be forthcoming about things if asked. A member may wish to be distinguished from another by answering.

“Believe me, I know how difficult it can be in this county to get to the bottom of things with public entities, prominent organizations, powerful people, and even the media– notwithstanding the board meeting open microphone, newspapers blogs, letters to the editor, etc. It’s even harder, after you get to the bottom of the facts, to get them noticed, realized, and listened to by the public without first being crushed or distorted by powerful interests of the status quo. Then, there is always the apathy. Many very bright people here concentrate not on the local but focus outward toward Columbus or the rest of the world. Oops, I feel a tangent coming on....

“Joe Citizen...sit in during the process?

“Yeah, let’s get all of us bozos on this blog in to micro-manage what our elected board does in negotiations!!! It might be fun at times and get the blood moving, but what we really need is more candidates, and less election walkovers and appointments. We need more people thinking about local action who now view things mostly at other levels or not at all. Tangent!...damn!!!
4/18/2009 11:51 AM EDT

Here’s my response to all that ...

“It would devolve into Bedlam.”

If the law were to guarantee public scrutiny, negotiators would learn to negotiate openly because they would have to. (And since you capitalized “Bedlam” I had to go look it up. Now I know.)

“Law should specifically guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business.”

I don’t understand “guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business.” Are you saying laws already address this? And if so, could you give me a fer-instance, and tell me where these underlying facts are available to the public? Or are you saying we need more laws to guarantee this?

“Those facts and the contract itself tell the story.”

Are labor contracts between public employees and government administrators public records, and if so how are they accessed (specifically, those for Newark City Schools and The City of Newark and Licking County)?

“... The board or its members and the superintendent/administration need to be responsible to field the questions of the public as to their decisions, etc. They should be forthcoming and if they are not, or if the public doesn't agree substantially, well...elections happen.”

But we don’t vote for the superintendent/administration. Further, until all these factors regarding who’s doing what, saying what, representing whose interests and how - until then we haven’t a notion who might be villain or hero.

“I think the very nature of negotiations cannot successfully be micro-managed, nor should they be.”

Nor did I say they should. I said they should be open to public observation, not that the public should intervene nor even be heard during this process.

“The concept of negotiation in any context requires a great degree of confidentiality. Without it, the process is ineffective in producing agreements, settlements and contracts, because the sides are chilled from freely bringing up anything openly which if it is not agreed to, will be of such a nature that it can later be brought up and used against them openly (politically or otherwise). You should want this freedom in negotiations which is founded on confidentially.”

I’m not sure how you arrived at any of this but, as regards public employees and public shepherds of tax money, I think you’re wrong. The public’s money is at stake and that’s justification enough to require by law that the public may observe the negotiations process.

“The public benefits from it, and the public can be protected otherwise by the process. I, however, don’t think you should want a transcript of negotiations or the like to go to work on.”

There is no way, in my opinion, that public exclusion from public business could ever be a benefit. In what context do you make such a pronouncement? And why wouldn’t I want - and why shouldn’t I be entitled to - a transcript of negotiations between public employees and the people who are presumably guarding my interests?

“You need the facts existing before the negotiation, you need the facts agreed upon at negotiation, and then you need truthful and good-faith accountability from your elected board and their administration.”

How do you propose that individual taxpayers get the “facts existing,” “facts agreed upon,” and most particularly “truthful accountability” from any public official and particularly from anyone representing Newark City Schools?

“Even if someone doesn’t know the negotiator, he or she knows who was responsible – the ones who owned the decision – and they may be forthcoming about things if asked. A member may wish to be distinguished from another by answering.”

That’s a stretch. The ability to hide behind closed doors provides a shield for collective irresponsibility. If everyone’s at fault, then no one is at fault. Straight answers begin to flow only when these folks are flushed out of the shadows.

“What we really need is more candidates, and less election walkovers and appointments. We need more people thinking about local action who now view things mostly at other levels or not at all.”

Right on. Opening negotiations between overseers and manipulators of public funding - all levels of government and quasi-government (not just schools) - and public employee unions would, in my opinion, help bring all that to fruition.

Taxpayer interests go unprotected during negotiations

In comments to my Advocate essay yesterday, spacemonkey9000 said he believed the constant spending increase by schools “starts with mandatory pay increases for all teachers, regardless of their ability, simply because they have a contract that dictates the same. I have always thought that teachers unions are the downfall of troubled school districts ...”

Amythirdward compared teacher unions to “the UAW and the outrageous pay and benefits autoworkers collected.”

PEARL52 believes “they'll raise themselves right out of a job.”

I agree with the thrust of these comments. I also believe that the fault is ours. We have let government and schools out on a long leash; we haven’t paid attention to what goes on when they line up at the trough. Now, taxpayer-voters waking up a little bit, thanks to the Internet, and learning more and talking more.

Because we’re learning about the excesses that are occurring, we’re sensing the need to put the brakes on these people by questioning their wisdom and ability in spending public money, rather than voting yes for “the kids,” for “higher property values,” for “attracting jobs,” and other babble from bobble heads whose only objective is getting the wherewithal to pay public employees more.

We should also be sensing the need to learn how this all comes about, and exactly which elected officials are giving away the farm, so we may have the chance to vote them out.

In my recollection, it’s been many years since the Advocate has reported details of new contracts and who negotiated them. We learn only about their cost - long after the fact - when these government and quasi-government representatives are asking for more money to pay the bills.

This is exactly why we have a superintendent of city schools making about twice as much as the mayor of the city and about $2,000 less than the Ohio governor - the one who currently “needs” more tax money to pay the bills.

The day when taxpayers are free to sit in on negotiations regarding pay and benefits for tax-paid employees is the day when the taxpayers’ interests will be protected. We need a law to provide that protection, but until then we need a full public report on what happens when our employees line up at the trough.

NCS revenue up $17.5 million from ’99 to ’08

My post entitled “Learn how much you’ll pay if the levy passes” had a misleading comment that speaks to an on-going misconception about school funding in general.

That comment said NCS hasn’t had an increase in something like 12 years, (referring to property tax millage). Voter approval of levies aside, the fact is that total revenue for NCS has risen from $52.8 million in 1999 to $70.3 million in 2008.

Total levy collection has gone from $21.75 million in 1998/1999 to $23.36 million 2006/2007 (latest figures from the NCS FY08 Financial Report)

Meanwhile student population has dropped from 7,433 in 1999 to 6,468 in 2008.

All this from the most recent (FY08) NCS Financial Report.

People who want to get into the fine details of NCS funding can read and download in pdf format three tedious documents from the Newark Tea Party web site.

One is NCS FY 08 Financial Report from this link:
http://www.newarkteaparty.com/pdf/ncsfinancialsfy08.pdf


The second is the NCS FY08 Budget from this link:

http://www.newarkteaparty.com/pdf/ncsbudgetfy08.pdf


And the third is Property Tax and School Funding by the Ohio Department of Taxation from this link:

http://www.newarkteaparty.com/pdf/ohioschoolfunding.pdf

Learn how much you’ll pay if the levy passes

What will be your total property taxes if voters approve the Newark Schools’ May levy request for 7.5 mills?

There is a calculator on the Licking County web site that will determine the amount for you. It’s fairly convenient to use once you find it and enter the information it needs.

Here’s how you do it: From the Licking County home page - http://www.lcounty.com/ - click on “eCounty” in the menu bar and select “Taxes, Real Estate and Collections.”

This takes you to the “OnTrac” page where you can search for your property by entering your last name, first name.

This will bring up a table with your parcel number. Click on the parcel number and you’ll see your address, property values and other data.

Go to the menu bar and click on “tax” and select “calculators.” You’ll be asked to select the proposed levy. Once that’s done, the additional amount you’re going to pay will appear.

To find the total tax if the levy passes, you need to add this additional amount to the amount of your existing property taxes. To find that number, go back to the menu bar and select “tax” again, then under that, select “taxes.” Bingo! Here’s your present tax bill. All that’s left is to add the two figures.

Grow your own poison

The question came up in another blog: Can you grow your own tobacco if you live in Ohio? Someone said no, but I think that is incorrect.

We’re in Growing Zone 6, according to Burpee’s. Here’s a guy who claims great success in Zone 6 and offering you 1000 seeds for $5.99 plus shipping. On eBay, look for HOMEGROWN IRANIAN SHERAZI TOBACCO SEED KIT, 1000+ SEEDS.

Another source for about 400 seeds and growing instructions is eBay Item Number 360144672415 titled TENNESSEE BURLEY TOBACCO SEEDS SEED GROW YOUR OWN.

Still, I don’t think you’d be able to grow a quality product here, or farmers would be doing it. But likely one could squeeze out enough leaves to keep a personal habit satisfied.

If anyone decides to try, I’d be interested in how it goes.

By the way, I haven’t smoked for decades, but I remember the grip that nicotine had and I sympathize with those who suffer from that. If I were still so gripped I would have been growing my own poison even if I had to set up a greenhouse for it. Also, I’d be spending a lot of time, effort and money in a real effort to get loose from the habit.

What is the federal stimulus supposed to stimulate?

There seems to be much confusion about that question, not only from out here as a distant observer, but from the meager results produced by the Port Authority task force. Those results, as reported by the Advocate 3/28/09 consist of: proposals to endow three multinational corporations with the means to become more efficient (meaning producing more with fewer employes), plus six construction projects at various places throughout the county, none of which are in Newark.

That’s it. The task force apparently never had as a target the creation of permanent local jobs by local companies and small business owners. To my knowledge there’s never been a public mention of that.

As for the construction projects being touted by governments everywhere, these are a form of government bailout. Call them improvements to the infrastructure to provide for long-term growth, they are nonetheless things that government wants because - with or without federal stimulus funds - government is going to have to pay for them. Further, any permanent jobs (as opposed to temporary construction jobs) that result from them will be in the very distant future.

Meanwhile, Ron Platt of the Port Authority has been pleading for projects where stimulus dollars could be used. So I asked in a blog comment yesterday whether any action had been taken by anyone to inquire of permanent local business persons if they could create jobs with the help of this stimulus money. There was no answer on that, so I presume not. I mentioned as examples Wilson’s Garden Center, Main and Plaza Hardware stores, Claggett & Sons, WCLT, Goumas Candy, Dennis’ Used Cars. Maybe these aren’t so great but it might kick-start some thoughts.

Also, I wonder if anyone has inquired of The Works or Dawes Arboretum or the Hartford Fairgrounds or the hospital or the historical museums of Newark, Granville, and Buckeye Lake? No?

To get the community interested and enthused the task force needs to promise the creation of as many jobs - good, permanent jobs - as possible and as quickly as possible. Sending the resources to privately owned local businesses and recreation/tourist attractions would help ease the anxiety and anger of taxpayers while adding to the quality of life - and the wealth - in Licking County.

I think that’s what the federal stimulus is supposed to stimulate.