New Philadelphia Council President Oversteps Legal Authority

Last Monday, August 30, the Council President’s “ad hoc” committee met to discuss pay raises for elected officials and appointed supervisors and department heads. The Council President, Mr. Day, feels that the current wage levels are not commensurate with the positions and effort those individuals put into their jobs. While Mr. Day feels the pay is too low, many tax paying citizens feel the pay is too high.

The Council President has a specific position in New Philadelphia city government. He is elected by the populace to his seat every four years. He is elected to be Council President, a position which is a separate, autonomous, position not related to City Council itself. The duties of the Council President are to moderate the council meetings, make committee assignments, and act as parliamentarian should questions of procedure arise. The Council President is not an elected member of the City Council. He has no vote on legislation other than to break a tie vote should that be necessary. By State Code, the Council President is defined specifically as a member of the Administration.

No mention is made in the State Code or City Ordinances which allows the Council President to become actively involved in actions within the City Council, including taking part in discussions by City Council or its committees. Robert’s Rules of Order specifically states the Council President is not allowed to speak from his chair on any matter of legislation under discussion by City Council during either a general or committee meeting while presiding. In short, the Council President of New Philadelphia is prohibited from commenting on, or contributing to, any legislative discussion going on in council meetings. His job is moderation of legislative meetings of the City Council, no more, no less.

The Council President’s moderation tasks include the assignment of proposed legislation to the proper City Council Committee. There are seven committees in the City Council: Finance; Salary; Safety, Health, and Service; Public Works and Economic Development; Zoning and Annexation; Special and Contact; and Parks and Cemetery. It is in these committees that the legislative business of the City is to be conducted The assignment of legislative matters to the proper committee is the responsibility of the President of Council. If finances are involved it goes to the Finance Committee, road construction goes to Public Works, wages and benefits go to the Salary Committee.

How did these committees come into being? Robert’s Rules of Order, which applies when there is no other ordinance or law, is explicit about this. The Council President is forbidden to create a committee for any reason without the City Council’s permission as expressed in the passage of legislation to do so. In the case of an ad hoc committee, Robert’s Rules of Order is specific, stating “a special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing committee.”

Chairmen of committees are appointed when the committee members are appointed to the committee by the Council President, the chairmanship going to the first member appointed to the committee. Members of legislative committees, such as those of City Council, are appointed from elected members of the City Council. and may only be done with the approval of the City Council. The appointments are irrevocable except by action of City Council, the assignments lasting for the entire council term, that is, from one Council election to the next, in New Philadelphia a two year span. Individuals who are not elected to City Council cannot serve on a City Council Committee.

That being said, the legality of the ad-hoc committee, appointed by Council President Day, to recommend legislation for pay raises for non-bargaining New Philadelphia city employees, comes into question. While wage levels of the administration and city department heads and supervisors merit investigation and consideration by City Council, the methods employed by President Day to do this are highly questionable.

President Day created the ad-hoc committee without the formal approval of City Council. This in itself is questionable as it specifically relates to salaries, a subject which without argument falls under the responsibility of the Salary Committee. This action is unwarranted by Robert’s Rules of Order, precedents sent by previous City Councils, State Legislatures, and both Houses of the United States Congress.

President Day appointed himself as the Chairman of this ad-hoc committee in direct violation of all law and precedent as he is not a member of the New Philadelphia City Council and has no legal nor ethical right to sit on any New Philadelphia City Council committee. The President of Council has no authority to speak on legislative matters nor offer opinions on legislative matters. His sole function is moderation of meetings of the City Council which does not include his participation in discussions of matters being discussed on the Council floor.

President of Council Day exceeded his authority when he appointed the current ad-hoc committee without the legislative approval of City Council.

President of Council Day acted illegally when he appointed himself chairman of the current ad-hoc committee. The office of President of Council is by law an administrative position and as such has no authority to act as a member of the city council or its committees, nor take part, except as a guest, in any discussions within the city council.

President of Council Day acted improperly when he created an ah-hoc committee to bypass the standing Salary Committee in which this inquiry legally belongs.

Are more pay raises so important that the integrity of the New Philadelphia City Council is to be trashed by members of the Administration? What can we expect next?

Obama's College Roommate Speaks Out

By Wayne Allyn Root, June 6th, 2010

Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

National Anthem and Flag Protocol for Veterans

There has been some confusion about how to offer the proper respect to the United States of America flag and national anthem. The following, taken from military.com explains the proper protocol.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 contained an amendment to allow un-uniformed service members, military retirees, and veterans to render a hand salute during the hoisting, lowering, or passing of the U.S. flag.

A later amendment further authorized hand-salutes during the national anthem by veterans and out-of-uniform military personnel. This was included in the Defense Authorization Act of 2009, which President Bush signed on Oct. 14, 2008.

Here is the actual text from the law:

SEC. 595. MILITARY SALUTE FOR THE FLAG DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES NOT IN UNIFORM AND BY VETERANS.

Section 301(b)(1) of title 36, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart;

Note: Part (C) applies to those not in the military and non-veterans. The phrase "men not in uniform" refers to civil service uniforms like police, fire fighters, and letter carriers - non-veteran civil servants who might normally render a salute while in uniform.

The Threat of the Cordoba Mosque

With all the discussion about building the Cordoba mosque at the site of the Twin Tower murders, some things have been lost in the politically correct rhetoric commentary surrounding the issue. We, for one, want to go on record that the mosque is not an issue based on freedom of religion, speech, or any other right supposed to be enjoyed by an American citizen. It is a move by a religious sect, Islam, further the demise of Christianity and the defeat of the United States of America.

The erection of a Cordoba mosque anywhere is the erection of a victory monument in the name of Islam in its fight to control the world. The twin towers mosque will be a symbol of victory as strong as the Arch of Triumph in Paris, the Yorktown Victory Monument, The Perry’s Victory Monument at Put-In-Bay, all of which celebrate victories of epic proportions which changed the world. The proposed Cordoba mosque will celebrate the deaths of 2,995 who died at the hands of Muslim murders in the name of Islam.

Put the rhetoric aside and look at the facts. Feisal Abdul-Rauf, the Muslim front man for the building of the Cordoba mosque, is clear in his purpose for building it at Park Place. Feisal Abdul Rauf is indeed an adherent and promoter of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals and objectives. Any doubt to his Muslim Brotherhood connections are addressed by the excellent and timely report by Alyssa A. Lappen, which is required reading for factual insight into Abdul Rauf’s link to the Muslim brotherhood

A document, An Explanatory Memorandum, on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, which came forward during the trial of the United States vs. the Holy Land Foundation, lays it out pretty clearly. The objective of the Muslim Brotherhood is the conversion of the United States into an Islamic nation through sabotage and subterfuge. The memorandum describes the process of settlement as a civilization-Jihadist process, stating that the Ikhwan, Arabic for brothers, must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” and “sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Clearly, according to this document, the objective of the Muslim Brotherhood is to convert the U.S. into an Islamic nation through sabotage and subterfuge. It is a handbook to achieve that end. The author painstakingly describes the process of “settlement,” among others, its meaning, and the methods to be employed. Point 17 of the document clearly illustrates that building Islamic centers equals building military “battalions,” points from which to stage the planned destruction of the West. “And what better place inside our front lines is there but within the perimeter of destruction at Ground Zero?”

This has nothing to do with civil rights. It has to do with the overthrow of the United States and abolishment of Christianity and Judaism. The building of a Cordoba mosque anywhere in the United States will create a training ground for Muslims to take away our freedom, liberty, and lives. Cordoba mosques are monuments to Islam, a religion of non-tolerance, a religion which even today stones dissidents to death, a religion which massacres Christians out of hand. Islam teaches Muslims to kill for the sake of Allah.

Do all Muslims agree with the fanatical leaders of Islam? Only they know with in their hearts. Do they all agree with the victory mosque to be built at the site of the Twin Tower murders? Only they know. But one thing is certain. No matter what religion, organization, country, or group one professes, to belong is to follow the dictates of the leaders. To belong is to believe the principles of the group are correct and should be obeyed.

To accept building a Cordoba Victory Mosque and Muslim terrorist training center in any location in the United States is against all logic. Has our government lost all sense of reality? Or have we not yet discovered the reality that our government has become part of an Islamic take-over of the United States of America?

The Tea Parties and the Future of Liberty

Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. Within a month he signed a $787 billion “stimulus package” with virtually no Republican support. It was necessary, we were told, to keep unemployment under eight percent. Overnight, the federal government had, as one of its highest priorities, weatherizing government buildings and housing projects. Streets and highways in no need of repair would be broken up and repaved. The Department of Transportation and other government agencies would spend millions on signs advertising the supposed benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I saw one of them on Roosevelt Island in Washington, D.C. It boasted that the federal park would be receiving a generous grant to facilitate the involvement of local youth in the removal of “non-indigenous plants.” In other words, kids would be weeding. We need a sign to announce that? And this was going to save the economy?

Then there was American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project number 1R01AA01658001A, a study entitled: “Malt Liquor and Marijuana: Factors in their Concurrent Versus Separate Use.” I’m not making this up. This is a $400,000 project being directed by a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The following is from the official abstract: “We appreciate the opportunity to refocus this application to achieve a single important aim related to our understanding of young adults’ use of male [sic] liquor (ML), other alcoholic beverages, and marijuana (MJ), all of which confer high risks for experiencing negative consequences, including addiction. As we have noted, reviews of this grant application have noted numerous strength [sic], which are summarized below.”

So what were those strengths? “This research team has previous [sic] been successful in recruiting a large (>600) sample of regular ML drinkers.” Also, “the application is well-written.” Well-written? With three spelling mistakes? But who am I to judge? As for the other strength, there is no question that the team’s recruitment had been strong. But is that really a qualification for federal money? After all, they were paying people to drink beer!

These same scholars were behind a groundbreaking 2007 study that used regression analysis to discover that subjects who got drunk and high were more intoxicated than those who only abused alcohol. The new study pays these pot-smoking malt-liquor drinkers at least $45 to participate. They can buy four beers per day for the three-week project—all of it funded, at least indirectly, by the American taxpayer.

Perhaps not surprisingly, when President Obama visited Buffalo in May, he chose to highlight other stimulus grants. On the other hand, he could have pointed out that the beer money goes right back into the economy. Think of all those saved or created jobs! In any case, the findings of this new study are expected to echo those of the first study, which found: “Those who concurrently use both alcohol and marijuana are more likely to report negative consequences of substance use compared with those who use alcohol only.” Reading results like this, I tend to think that those who concurrently get drunk and high are also far more likely to believe the stimulus is working.

And have I mentioned that the estimated cost of the stimulus was later increased from $787 billion to $862 billion? That’s a cost underestimate of nearly ten percent. Anyone in private business who suddenly had to come up with ten percent more in outgoing funds than previously anticipated would likely go out of business.

All of this set the stage for a revolt. The accidental founding of the Tea Party movement took place in February 2009, when CNBC commentator Rick Santelli let loose a rant against the stimulus package, and in particular the proposal to subsidize what he called “the losers’ mortgages.” He proposed a ceremonial dump of derivative securities into Lake Michigan, and a few hours later a website popped up calling for a Chicago Tea Party. The video clip raced around the Internet, and it was soon clear that many average Americans were furious about the massive new spending bill and the plan to subsidize bad mortgages.

The stimulus was bad, but by itself it was probably not enough to sustain an entire movement. This is why the larger context matters: Under President Obama, federal spending has been growing at an unprecedented pace. We are adding $4.8 billion to the national debt every day. The long-term viability of Medicare and Social Security isn’t merely uncertain—as so many analysts would have us believe. In fact, their failure is a sure thing without structural changes. By adding a massive new entitlement with the health care bill, we are simply going to go broke faster. Americans understood much of this even before Mr. Obama was elected.

Consider this story from the recent presidential campaign: In July 2008, Republican nominee John McCain stopped in Belleville, Michigan, to par-ticipate in a town hall. After several friendly questions, he took one from Rich Keenan. Wearing a shirt with an American flag embroidered over his left breast, Keenan told McCain that he would not be voting for Obama. But then he said: “What I’m trying to do is get to a situation where I’m excited about voting for you.”

The audience laughed, and many in the crowd nodded their heads. Keenan explained that he was “concerned” about some of McCain’s views, such as his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his views on the environment. Keenan allowed that he was grateful that McCain had begun taking more conservative positions. But he concluded: “I guess the question I have, and that people like me in this country have, is what can you say to us to make us believe that you actually came to the right positions? We want to take you to the dance, we’re just concerned about who you’re going to go home with.” The audience laughed again. McCain laughed, too, but then he grew serious: “I have to say, and I don’t mean to disappoint you, but I haven’t changed positions.” He defended his vote against the Bush tax cuts and, at some length, reiterated his concerns about global warming. Later, he went out of his way to emphasize his respect for Hillary Clinton and boast about his work with Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy.

I talked with Rich Keenan after the town hall. He described himself as a conservative independent. He said he often votes Republican but does not consider himself one. He added, “I do think that there are millions of Americans out there like me who are fairly conservative, probably more conservative than John McCain, and I think a lot of them are concerned about what’s going to happen if he does get elected.” Keenan was right. There were millions of people out there like him—conservatives, independents, disaffected Republicans, and many of them stayed home on election day. These people form the heart of the Tea Party movement.

In recent years, the Republican Party has seen its approval levels sink to new lows. In 2005, 33 percent of registered voters told Gallup they considered themselves Republican. By 2009, that number was 27 percent. The number of voters who identified themselves as independent showed a corresponding rise. But what’s interesting is that over that same time-frame, the number of voters self-identified as conservative stayed relatively constant: 39 percent in 2005 and 40 percent in 2009. (Self-identified liberals constituted 20 percent of respondents in both 2005 and 2009.) So even as the number of self-identified Republicans declined and the number of self-identified independents grew, the number of self-identified conservatives was constant. Of course, it’s too simple to postulate a one-for-one swap, but the trend seems clear. The Tea Party movement arose in an environment in which a growing number of Americans believed neither party was voicing its concerns.

All of this has liberals in the mainstream media and elsewhere flummoxed. At first they were dismissive. Think of the footage of Susan Roesgen of CNN going after Tea Party enthusiasts at a Chicago rally, suggesting they were irrational and stupid. And consider a few of the many other examples:

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote: “The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction—the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day—and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies—is calibrated not to inform but to incite.”

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said: “I believe that the Tea Partiers are misguided. I think they are racist, for the most part. I think that they are afraid. I think that they are clinging to their guns and their religion. And I think in many respects, they are what’s wrong with America.”

Actress Janeane Garofalo: “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. These are nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks.”

Comedian Bill Maher: “The teabaggers, they’re not a movement, they’re a cult.”

Perhaps the most stunning comment came from prominent Democratic strategist Steve McMahon: “The reason people walk into schools and open fire is because of rhetoric like this and because of attitudes like this. The reason people walk into military bases and open fire is because of rhetoric like this and attitudes like this. Really, what they’re doing is not that much different than what Osama bin Laden is doing in recruiting people and encouraging them to hate America.”

We’ve seen this before. On November 7, 1994, the Washington Post ran an article about the loud, hateful fringe on the right: “Hate seems to be drifting through the air like smoke from autumn bonfires. It isn’t something that can be quantified. No one can measure whether it has grown since last year, the 1980s, or the 1880s. But a number of people who make their living taking the public’s temperature are convinced it’s swelling beyond the perennial level of bad manners and random insanity. It’s fueled, they say, by such forces as increasingly harsh political rhetoric, talk radio transmissions, and an increasing sense of not-so-quiet desperation.” The next day, Republicans took Congress.

Are today’s Tea Party supporters on the radical fringe? In a National Review/McLaughlin Associates poll conducted in February, six percent of 1,000 likely voters said that they had participated in a Tea Party rally. An additional 47 percent said they generally agree with the reasons for those protests. Nor is the Tea Party movement “monochromatic” and “all white,” as Chris Matthews claimed. Quite the contrary: the National Review poll found that it was five percent black and 11 percent Hispanic.

Perhaps that poll could be dismissed as the work of a right-leaning polling firm and a conservative magazine. You can’t say that about the New York Times and CBS. Their poll, which has a long history of oversampling Democrats, found that Tea Partiers are wealthier and better educated than average voters. It also found that 20 percent of Americans—one in five—supports Tea Parties. That’s an awfully big fringe.

Other polls confirmed these findings: a Washington Post/ABC poll found that 14 percent of voters say the Tea Party is “most in synch” with their values; 20 percent say Tea Parties are “most in tune with economic problems Americans are now facing.” The most interesting poll, in my view, came from TargetPoint Consulting, which interviewed nearly 500 attendees at the April 15, 2010, Tax Day rally in Washington, D.C. Here are some results:

Tea Partiers are united on the issues of debt, the growth of government, and health care reform.

They are socially conservative on the one hand and libertarian on the other, split roughly down the middle.

They are older, more educated, and more conservative than average voters, and they are “distinctly not Democrat.”

This new information complicated the mainstream media’s narrative about the Tea Party movement. This was not a fringe. Nancy Pelosi, who had earlier dismissed Tea Parties as “Astroturf”—meaning fake grassroots activism—revised that assessment, telling reporters that, in fact, she was just like the Tea Partiers.

This brings us to the present day. The president’s approval ratings are low, and Congressional Democrats’ are even worse. Members of the president’s party are not only running away from him in swing districts, but even in some relatively safe ones. Many analysts are suggesting that control of the House of Representatives is in play, and perhaps even that of the Senate.

This dissatisfaction flows directly from the president’s policies and those of his party. It is not simply “anti-incumbent,” as many of my press colleagues would have it. This voter outrage—and it is outrage, not hate—is specific and focused: Americans are fed up with big government and deeply concerned about the long-term economic health of their country. The stimulus was unpopular, and most Americans do not believe it’s working. Obama’s health care plan was unpopular when it passed. The American people understood the rather obvious point that it wouldn’t be possible to cover 30 million additional people, improve the care of those with insurance, and save taxpayers money, all at the same time.

Does all of this add up to big Republican gains in November? Not according to the mainstream media. The Boston Globe’s Susan Milligan recently wrote: “The Tea Party movement is energizing elements of the Republican Party and fanning an anti-Washington fervor, but the biggest beneficiaries in the mid-term elections, pollsters and political analysts say, could be the main target of their anger: Democrats.” CBS News reported the same thing just a few days later. What nonsense! I think there is little question that the Tea Parties—and the enthusiasm and energy they bring—will contribute to major Republican gains in November.

One final point: For many Tea Partiers, the massive and unconstitutional growth of government is the fundamental issue. But I think there’s something deeper, too. After her husband had won several primaries in a row in the spring of 2008, Michelle Obama proclaimed that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country. It was a stunning statement. It also foreshadowed what was to come: Since Barack Obama took office in January 2009, he has devoted much of his time to criticizing his own country. He apologizes for the policy decisions of his predecessors. He worries aloud that the U.S. has become too powerful. He has explicitly rejected the doctrine of American exceptionalism.

And this is not mere rhetoric. For the first time ever, the U.S. is participating in the Universal Periodic Review—a United Nations initiative in which member countries investigate their own nation’s human rights abuses. The State Department has held ten “listening sessions” around the U.S. during which an alphabet soup of left-wing groups aired their numerous grievances. These complaints are to be included in a report that the U.S. will submit to the United Nations Human Rights Council. It will be evaluated by such paragons of human rights as Burkina Faso, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, and Cuba.

When President Obama spoke before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009, he declared that a world order that elevates one country or group of countries over others is bound to fail. So he’s changing that order. If his domestic policy priority is the redistribution of wealth, his foreign policy priority seems to be the redistribution of power.

Most Americans don’t agree with the president’s priorities. And many of these Americans are now active in the Tea Party movement, a movement that has succeeded in starting a serious national conversation about a return to limited government.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The preceeding was adapted from a speech delivered on June 6, 2010,by Stephen F. Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.)

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Obituary of Robert Snyder, Jr.

ROBERT SNYDER Jr.

Robert W. Snyder, Jr. 1947 ~ 2010 Bob left us on June 19th after a day of doing what he loved, sailing the BJ at Soldier Creek with good friends and family. Bob was born September 2, 1947, at Mitchel Field AFB, in New York, the only son of Charlotte and Robert Snyder. After serving in the U.S. Navy, he married Connie and they began their life together in Denver. After a few years in Denver, the couple moved to Minneapolis where their son Michael was born in 1970. After a brief stay living in San Francisco they finally made their home in Utah where they raised their son and enjoyed many friends and family. Bob is survived by his wife, Connie, son, Mike (Wendy), granddaughter, Bailey, and sisters, Jean Allstun and Carol (Gary) Davis. Bob lived his life to the fullest and always found a way to have a good time. He had a way of making friends with everyone he met and will be missed by all who knew him. Services will be held Thursday, June 24, 2010 - 11:00 a.m. at Camp Williams, 17111 S. Camp Williams Road (Redwood Rd), Bluffdale, Utah. Family and close friends are welcome from 10:00 - 10:45 a.m. prior to the service. Arrangements in care of Olpin-Hoopes Funeral Home. Condolences may be sent to the family online at: www.olpinhoopes.com. In lieu of flowers and in memory of Bob's humorous outlook on life, please feel free to make contributions to whoever may be running against Obama in 2012.

Published in Salt Lake Tribune from June 23 to June 24, 2010

Financial Crisis Solution Is Return To Basics

The Massachusetts Bay Company, a joint-stock company founded in London by well-connected Puritans who kept careful records, foreshadowed “the Great engine” companies – blue-chip manufacturers that prospered into the mid-20th century (think General Electric, Procter and Gamble, U.S. Steel, and the Pennsylvania Railroad). The New England settlement would cost the Bay Company the equivalent of $40 million in today’s dollars, but by 1640 the company sent 200 ships and 14,000 settlers to Massachusetts

Led by John Winthrop, the expedition established business and management principles that persisted in early American commerce: careful planning, a disregard for social class in selecting management, an ethic of work combined with a habit of thrift, placing the good of the community above the individual, and a desire to create a kingdom of heaven on earth. “Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are upon us, soe that if wee shall deale falsely with out god in this worke…wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world,” Winthrop told his company. His son would build the first factory in America – a blast furnace – and those principles would launch economic growth through the Industrial Revolution and beyond.

Cotton Mather would one day comment that Puritan “religion begot prosperity and the daughter had destroyed the mother,” but the core principles of Puritan commerce persisted well beyond the first generation of Americans and extended to other parts of the world, particularly Asia. A 1917 plaque at the Newport News shipyard is an example: “We shall build good ships here, at a profit if we can – at a loss if we must – but always good ships.” Civilian leaders in occupied Japan used the slogan to train post-war electronics workers; one went so far as to help clean the offices of a dirty but promising firm working then with less than $600 in capital and in old army huts where staff members held umbrellas over their desks in a rainstorm. The puritanical lesson paid off; the company went on to become Sony.

What changed? American business lost sight of the principles underwriting its success, beginning most noticeably in the 1950s and climaxing in 1970 – the year Pennsylvania Railroad declared bankruptcy. Specifically management turned from bottom-up practices to top-down and the “Cult of the (so called) Expert” took over not only the nation’s boardrooms but its business schools. “Management experts” replaced execs with experience on the factory floor. Numbers mattered more than product and quality. One of the new conglomerates acquired the Newport News shipyard in 1969, and had its famous plaque moved to the Mariner’s Museum (It was returned after Northrop Grumman acquired the shipyard in 1986). And mid-century gurus like novelist Ayn Rand – whose hero in Atlas Shrugged declared, “I will never live for the sake of another man” – replaced altruistic business leaders.

As one result, U.S. productivity, which grew at an average yearly rate of 2.2 percent from 1870 to 1970, dropped to 1.1 percent from 1971-1995 – the lowest productivity growth of all advanced industrial nations.

How have Americans survived the productivity slowdown? They borrowed. “Credit is to the economy what steroids are to athletes; it enhances performance but, unless used in moderation, at a serious cost to the economic health of the nation.”

And that brings the us to the current financial crisis, which they trace to “profligate lending” and bad economic policies. Longtime Fed chief Alan Greenspan (an Ayn Rand devotee) comes in for particular criticism: Believing that the proper role of the central bank was to ‘take away the punchbowl when the party is getting good,’ Greenspan and his colleagues did exactly the opposite, adding gin, then vodka, and finally a line of cocaine to the bowl. The result has been catastrophic.”

But catastrophe is what it may take to concentrate the mind of American business, these authors suggest, and to propel U.S. management – both private and public sector – to take a fresh look at its Puritan roots.

(Editor's Note: This article is based on a review by Mindy Belz of World, a magazine published out of Asheville, N.C., of the latest book by two British authors, Kenneth and William Hopper. Their book, "The Puritan Gift: Reclaiming the American Dream Amidst Global Financial Chaos" is published by I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. and is available through local booksellers. Original publication of Ms. Betz's review, "Citty upon a hill", was published July 3, 2010.)

Traffic Cameras Come To New Philadelphia

Yesterday, Sunday, we received a number of phone calls, and an E-mail, about the installation of cameras which have been placed on the poles at the intersection of South Broadway and Mill Avenue, SE., the intersection on which the New Philadelphia Buehler’s is located. A couple of phone calls later, and here is the straight dope on what is happening. We called Greg Popham, New Philadelphia’s Safety Director, and Fred Neff, the New Philadelphia Street Department Superintendent, both of whom were most cooperative and informative.

Right off the top, those “cameras” are not really cameras in the true sense of the terminology. They are more sensors than anything else. The city traffic light system is based, in simplest terms, on a sensors which count the number of vehicles passing through intersections which have a high traffic volume. Through the use of computers, these traffic counts determine how often the traffic lights change from red to green, based on the traffic flow at any given time. The busy intersections have sensors imbedded in the asphalt. You can see where they are as they appear as rectangular shaped outlines on the asphalt just before the traffic lights. As cars pass over these sensors, the computers figure the traffic flow and adjust when the lights should change to provide the most efficient traffic flow through that light and preventing long delays at the light. The computer also determines if the left hand turn signal should be used, again depending on the amount of traffic wanting to turn left in comparison to oncoming traffic wanting to go straight ahead. The system works well.

One problem, however. The sensor wires in the pavement have a tendency to break. These breaks come from many causes, street repairs, pavement shifts, water freezing in the winter and breaking the line, to mention a few. The new system takes care of this problem. Called Advanced Detection Cameras, the cameras make the same calculations as the sensors in the asphalt do with the exception that they are not effected by the breakage problems experienced by the buried sensor wires. Being located in the positions they are, and constructed as they are, maintenance costs will be lowered and efficiency will be increased.

Current maintenance costs to repair buried sensor failure averages $1,500 per repair. The Advanced Detection Camera system will not require the frequency of repair of the current system and cost savings should be substantial.

Oh, yes. The “cameras” do not have the ability to take pictures to be used in traffic violations. Maybe I shouldn’t say that. There could be some value to having some New Philadelphia drivers think Big Brother is watching them running the red lights.

The installation of the new sensor system at the intersection of South Broadway and Mill Avenue, SE., is the first of two, the other being at West High Avenue and Bluebell Drive, SW.

New Philadelphia Budget Mirrors Federal Depression

It doesn’t matter how you cut it, the bad times we are in are getting worse. It is easy to listen to the propaganda coming from Washington and being parroted by the news media. After all, everybody likes good news. But the truth is too often ignored. The hard facts are we have increased unemployment, lack of business investment, and a collapsing economy. Investors Business Daily (IBD), in an article of August 6, sums it up. To quote, “As the ‘recovery summer’ turns into a nightmare, one thing has become painfully clear: This is the most economically incompetent administration since the Great Depression.”

Obama administration spokeswoman, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, reported that the economy had turned around because of Obama’s "strong and immediate action". The only problem, she said, was Republicans who refuse to support a $26 billion bailout for state and local governments and their pampered unions. Shortly thereafter Solis resigned and went back to teaching. Why? One can only suspect that the truth became too much for her to bear.

According to IBD, America has lost 4.1 million jobs since Obama took office and 7.7 million since the recession began in December 2007. So most of the jobs lost have been under this administration.

Doing more arithmetic, since the start of 2010 we've averaged 93,000 new jobs a month. That's below the 120,000 we need just to soak up new job-market entrants. At this rate, it will take nearly seven years just to get back to 2007's number of jobs.

The country is in a depression. Unemployment is increasing. New jobs are not even coming close to the number of young people seeking employment, with 27,000 more new applicants a month entering the job market than there are new jobs available. Add to that Friday's jobs report indicated that unemployment in July was unchanged at 9.5%, but a net 131,000 jobs were lost on top of 97,000 more than first accounted for in May and June. And because of new tax laws, businesses are not making investments as they normally would.

Don't believe it? Listen to what key U.S. business groups said Friday after July's disastrous jobs data were released.

"The current rate of employment is too slow to replace the more than 8 million jobs lost in the recession — not in the next year or two, perhaps even not in the next five years," said Bart Van Ark, chief economist of the Conference Board.

"Policies that have increased taxes, increased regulation and increased uncertainty have clearly not been a prescription for returning America to work," said Martin Regalia, chief economist for the Chamber of Commerce. That about sums it up.

New Philadelphia is deeply affected by the state of the United States economy. Without jobs, taxes collected by the City are lower. Without business expansion, jobs will not increase. Business expansion, including the New Philadelphia area, is close to nil.

While the City Administration and City Council have no control over the federal economy, they do have control over how City funds are appropriated and spent. It doesn’t matter if you talk of trillions of dollars spent by the Democratic controlled Congress and the Obama administration, the out of work family, of the City of New Philadelphia, the problem is the same. If you don’t have the money to pay the bills, you’re going to be in trouble.

New Philadelphia is close to financial disaster. City revenues are down with no relief in sight. But expenditures are on the increase. In three months employee contracts will be reopened with money as the major issue. But with both the City Council and Administration, money management seems to be at the bottom of the priority list. Planning for the financial future of the city is non-existent. The major concern of the Council President appears to be creating a solution to solve the complaints of Administrative personnel about salaries and benefits. The Mayor, at the same time, is contemplating the hiring of a Human Resources Director, a position which on the average pays $80,000 a year not including benefits.

The City of New Philadelphia should have as its first priority the future of the City. It is time that efforts to cut back on expenses. It will take hard work on the part of the Administration, City Council, and city employees, to produce a viable financial plan which will carry New Philadelphia through the next eight to ten years of financial difficulties. Continuing as we are, without an economic plan, without sacrifice on the part of city employees equal to the sacrifice being made by the New Philadelphia citizen in these poor economic times, New Philadelphia will face the choice of reduced services due to layoffs of city employees, increased taxes, or both, and a devastated economy as people leave the city to seek employment elsewhere.

Mr. Mayor, Council Members, appointed Administrative personnel, face the facts. We are in trouble and it is your responsibility to solve our economic problems. Empty promises, pandering to city employees, decisions based on party and other affiliations, passing legislation without appropriate research into cost, should no longer be acceptable. By accepting the positions you actively pursued you also accepted the responsibility to put the City and its residents above your personal ambitions. Now is the time for you to accept that responsibility.

(Excerpts for this article came from, and with permission, of the Investors Business Daily editorial The Propaganda Of Incompetents.)

Navy Seals Acquitted

Just in case you missed it, the trials of Matthew McCabe, Johnathan Keefe, and Julio Huertas were concluded two months ago and all three were found innocent of the charges involving mistreatment of the Muslim terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed. These three SEALs were falsely accused of punching Abed in the stomach while he was in US custody. If you want further details on the charges these SEALs check the blog for March 24, 2010, "Will Obama Sacrifice SEAL Heroes?" That they were ever brought to trial is still a disgrace, but at last they have been vindicated.

It is interesting to note that the first of the year the news media was filled with the fact that these three men were to be tried for abusing a terrorist prisoner, but their acquittals were hardly mentioned. For details of the trials of Matthew McCabe, Johnathan Keefe, and Julio Huertas, Google their names. You may find the whole incident revealing of current government thinking as concerns our defense and the military men who are on the front line protecting our country.

City Council Approves West High Paving; No Water Billing Changes

Last Monday’s, July 26, New Philadelphia City Council Meeting was, for the most part, pretty quiet. The media doesn’t always get the full story, possibly because they do not have time to verify what they are told by members of the administration or council. A couple of examples.

A resolution was passed for the widening of West High between Five Points and the railroad tracks. Because of the efforts of Councilwoman Cox letting the residents in that area know that the resolution was to be voted on at the Monday meeting, a number of the residents showed up to express their views. Their concern was the possibility of losing property due to widening West High and nobody had brought it to their attention. They were told the previous meetings had been announced in the media and that was all the City was required to do. Thanks to Ms. Cox, they found out about the upcoming vote. They asked questions about what was going to occur and the answers, according to the folks I spoke with, were unsatisfactory.

There are hidden issues in that resolution. Part of what the Council committed to reads that the City “does agree to participate to the proposed widening of State Route 39” and “agrees to pay 20% of the cost.” A concern about this wording was raised by Ms. Cox as to whether this made the widening by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) a done deal. She questioned the Law Director who told her that passage of the resolution was non-binding and the City could back out whenever it wanted, a position held by Mayor Taylor as well. Apparently the wording locks the City into the project and they cannot back out of it without the agreement of ODOT.

That brings up another question. Why did ODOT refuse to take part in a public hearing on the project until after the City approved the project? All meetings with ODOT and the City have been in private or in unpublicized “public” meetings. There is a responsibility of City Council and the Administration to represent the citizens and part of that responsibility is to keep them informed. No announcements, other than Ms. Cox’s, were made to those affected.

Is this a replay of the Public Works Committee meeting concerning the runway expansion at the City airport? As you may recall the word got out about a Public Works Committee meeting, chaired by Mr. Lautenschleger, to discuss extending the runway, which would involve taking of private property, homes included, by eminent domain. So many irate people showed up at that committee meeting that it was rescheduled and held in the pavilion at Tuscora Park. Good thing, too. The pavilion was almost filled with people who were against the issue. Currently, that project is still on hold with no decision made and no date set for another committee meeting.

What’s going on here? What is being left unsaid on issues which affect the public’s interests? Why the secrecy? The Administration and some council members maintain they have done everything thing to let the public know what is going on. The only problem is that the public doesn’t know it. Why didn’t Mr. Maurer, Chairman of the Safety, Health and Service Committee, who sponsored the legislation, take steps to inform the people whose homes and property are in jeopardy? Why did it have to fall to Ms. Cox?

As a follow up to the article published Friday, July 16, 2010, “New Philadelphia Water/Sewer Billing Over Charge Explained?”, Mr. Conner asked if any action had been taken to correct the billing system to prevent billing periods from extending beyond the monthly billing periods mandated by the City Ordinances. Mr. Zucal, the Service Director, replied, “I think our billing system works fine currently. I did not make the comment that I would get back to Mr. Conner, that was not the conversation. I told him thoroughly what we do, that’s how we do business in the city. I think our system works well. Our meter readers can’t be out every single day. We do work diligently to provide a good service and we have very few people who complain.”

I agree with Mr. Zucal that the meter readers can’t be out every single day. His statement last Monday, however, evaded the question, has the computer program which bills New Philadelphia water and sewer users been corrected to prevent improper billing? The statement he made during the council meeting apparently was “No.” It was apparent that no corrections to the billing system are planned to be made. The statement that very few people complain about the water department indicates that the Service Director is out of touch with the New Philadelphia citizen. There is dissatisfaction, Mr. Zucal, whether the Administration chooses to admit it or not.

Times-Reporter Editorial Logic Fails - Again

The Times-Reporter editorial for July 22, 2010 is another no-brainer, except in this case the definition is no brains. If Mr. Jekel writes his own editorials, or if he doesn’t, what gets published is his responsibility. He needs to go back and review Economics 101 and fourth grade arithmetic. The editorial, “Benefits extension delayed too long,” is an example of what is destroying the United States as we know it. It reads well, no question about that, but it does not face the realities of the economic disaster the country is now locked into.

The cost of extending the benefits for unemployed workers, almost thirty-four billion dollars this year, is referred to as “hardly a budget buster.” True, especially when the budget was blown to smithereens months ago. Jeff Foxworthy’s fifth-graders would be able to figure out that if you have a huge debt, 13.2 trillion dollars currently, you don’t throw another 34 billion into the debt pit.

Real life works like this. You’re making $50,000 a year. Your expenses are $49,000. You want a new car. You borrow twenty grand, pay nothing down, and end up with payments of $350 a month for the next five years. You are still making $50,000 but your expenses have risen to $53,200. You’re in debt by $3,200 for the year. If you can’t come up with the extra $3,200 you can’t pay the bills. The car will be repossessed, which takes care of the car payment, but there is now another problem. You lost the $3,200, reducing next year’s operating funds to $46,800 which is $1,200 less than your expenses. No sweat. You can put your expenses on the credit card. The credit card interest charges increase the cost of your purchases further decreasing your operating funds. Eventually you end up bankrupt.

That gets you off the hook, but sticks it to the folks who loaned you the money in the first place. That you became financially unable to pay the loan off is your responsibility, not theirs, and it is morally wrong to force them to pay for your bad decisions. You’re broke, the car dealer, having lost money because of your inability to pay, has less money to spend on inventory so he orders less, the manufacturer has the same problem so he orders less materials, and so it goes because you spent more money than you could afford.

Government spending has the same problem, although the Obama doesn’t seem to know, understand, or care. The federal debt is oppressive. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the total amount of good, products, and services the country produces, currently stands at 14.5 trillion dollars, which is only a trillion dollars more than the national debt. The tax income from all sources to date this year, is 2.2 trillion dollars, only 17% of the national debt. If all spending were to stop right now, it would take six-and-a-half years to pay off the debt, and we all know that’s not going to happen.

Unemployment has increased steadily in the past two years. The editorial states that for every job available there are five unemployed workers. It goes on to state that “the claim that these benefits discourage the jobless from looking for work, that’s pure bunk.” Could be. But then how many unemployed workers would there be, how many jobs being done by illegal aliens would be filled by Americans if welfare and the public dole were stopped and a policy of no work no food were implemented? Public welfare serves no one but the political hacks who want to exploit those who live in poverty. Unemployment welfare is a means of governmental control, not help.

To pay the debt down takes a couple of things. The US federal income has to increase. Federal spending has to decrease. The government’s answer is to increase taxes. Like it or not, it has already happened. The tax burden is going to be oppressive. The statements by Obama that the working folks won’t be hit with higher taxes is untrue (used untrue because a lie is not politically correct). You tax who has the money, and working folks, the so-called middle class, have the money. Tax increases on working people will reach 30 to 35% according to economists, with even higher increases for businesses and the nasty rich people who provide the jobs to the rest of us. Oppressive tax legislation has already been passed by the congress and signed by Obama.

Adding another $34 billion dollars to the disastrous debt Obama created since taking office may not seem like much to Mr. Jekel, but like buying a car when you can’t afford it, it only adds to our financial trouble. What we need is more private investment to increase business opportunity, jobs, the GDP, which will put the country back on a sound financial footing.

Increasing taxes on the people and businesses which provide jobs by will only decrease investment in US industry. Jobs will be lost rather than gained. Politicians didn’t learn this in the 1930’s and they still haven’t figured it out.

Mr. Jeckel is entitled to his opinion. He also has a responsibility to do the research to back it up. Unless, of course, his editorial is politically biased. Huh. Could that be it?

New Philadelphia Water/Sewer Billing Over Charge Explained?

An article in the Times-Reporter on July 14, 2010, concerning the City Council meeting the previous Monday, reported the following:

“During the public comments period, former city councilman Robert Conner of North Ave. NW asked why his water bill was for 38 days instead of 31 as required by city ordinance. He said no one in his neighborhood was charged for that many days. He called it “unfair, illegal and uncaring on the part of the city” and demanded answers. He was told he would have an answer Tuesday.
”Water Superintendent Kelly Ricklic contacted The Times-Reporter after the meeting to say that Conner had his meter changed at his request because it was noisy.”

Good reporting, but what is the rest of the story?

New Philadelphia City Resolution 09-2009, which sets the water rates for the city is specific in how water and sewer rates are to be calculated. Section 1 states: “The minimum water rate effective June 1, 2009 shall be Twelve Dollars and 90/100 ($12.90) per month. Beyond the minimum, any water usage will be billed with a seven percent increase.” Section 2 states: “The sanitary sewer rate effective June 1, 2009 shall be Twelve Dollars and 90/100 ($12.90) per month. Beyond the minimum, any sanitary sewer usage will be billed with a seven percent increase.”

The problem concerning the over-billing of seven days was discussed in a meeting with the Mr. Zucal, New Philadelphia’s Service Director. He explained that the replacement of a defective water meter created the billing problem. While the water meter was read on June 7th, then, because of the water meter replacement on June 14, it was re-read on the 14th, which accounted for the extra seven days. This was done because the billing program the city uses, according to the Service Director, does not allow combining two meter readings, one from the old meter and one from the new meter, to be combined in the next month’s bill. The Service Director said that the billing software program provided by Software Solutions Incorporated (SSI), of Lebanon, Ohio, did not have the ability to combine readings from two separate meters for the same billing period, therefore, the old meter must be read at the time it is removed to get the total water usage. The reason, I was told, was because SSI is a business oriented billing company and not utility oriented, hence the increased billing days.

I called SSI and was told by their representative that this was not the case. The SSI software, being used by New Philadelphia, provides a complete billing system for utilities and is capable of combining readings when meters are changed within the normal monthly billing period. The SSI representative stated that instructions for meter changes in a normal billing cycle are included in the operating manual for the software. In short, SSI stated that there was no reason, when using their software, that meter changes should interfere with the normal billing cycle.

The question then arises, why has this situation been allowed to exist over the length of time it has? The Water Office personnel are aware that improper billing periods create problems, and sometimes hardship, for water consumers, as they are the ones who get the consumer complaints. But the responsibility for correction of this problem does not lie with the office personnel, rather with management. The excuse that the extended billing period is caused by meter changes no longer holds water, no pun intended. The problem is that management is ignorant of the capabilities of the SSI software they are using for water and sewer billing. The Service Director and Water Department Supervisor have ignored recurring complaints from consumers about the billing problem and have not tried to investigate solutions to that chronic problem.

There is no reason that regular billing cycles should not be maintained. The Service Director and Water Superintendent should correct this problem without hesitation by using resources already available within the billing system.

Another area of concern, which remains unanswered, is the sewer rate being charged for the use of the city sewer system. Resolution 9-2009 is specific. The sewer rate effective June 1, 2009 is $12.90. The ordinance is specific. Twelve dollars and ninety cents, no more, no less. Why are we paying more?



Addenda:

A month by definition is from the first day of a month to the last day of the month. Seven months have 31 days, four months have 30 days, one month has 28 but every four years adds an extra day to make 29, referred to as a calendar month, the terminology used in business, finance, and the legal profession. From the first of February to the first of March is a 28 day month, from the first of March to the first of April is a 31 day month, from the first of April to the first of May is a 30 day month. With this in mind, from the seventh of one month to the seventh of the next, regardless of the length of that month is a month. There is no way a month on a New Philadelphia water bill can be less than 28 days nor more than 31. (There is also a lunar month, of which there are 13, with a day over, in a year, but almost nobody in business uses it.)

Two-Percent Pay Increases for New Philadelphia Administrators

Last night’s, July 13, New Philadelphia City Council meeting was interesting to say the least. While most of the business Council conducted was of a routine nature, the matter of pay raises for non-bargaining officials, Resolution 26-2010, was reopened during it’s second reading. It was at this point that the members of City Council displayed their true positions on the fiscal well-being of the city.

The original proposal for those pay raises was brought to the floor by the Chairman of the Salary Committee, Mr. Locker who had been assigned the task of looking into pay raises for non-bargaining city officials. The salary committee brought legislation to the floor of City Council requesting a one-percent increase for elected and appointed city officials. This legislation was changed by an amendment brought to the floor by Mr. Lautenschleger which contained changes, the increase of the raise from one- to two-percent, and the exclusion of Council members from that raise. The amendment was approved by Council by a four to three vote for acceptance, Cox, Espenschied, and Walker voting against.

Last night Councilwoman Cox, chairman of the Finance Committee, proposed an amendment to the pay raise legislation which proposed two amendments, return the raise to one-percent and exclude all elected officials. Cox, in a prepared statement, said that the financial state of the City was becoming progressively worse and the City might not be meet its budget because of the decreases in City income. She further said that elected officials knew what their salaries would be when they ran for office and should be satisfied with those salaries.

A vote on the amendment was taken and by a four to two vote the amendment was defeated. That left the proposed two-percent increase intact as well as giving salary increases to the Clerk of Council and to Joel Day, the President of Council. For the record, voting against the Cox amendment were Espenschied, Lautenschleger, Locker, and Zucal. Voting in favor of the Cox amendment were Cox and Walker. Absent was Mr. Maurer. The third reading on Resolution 26-2010 will be taken on July 26 at which time a vote will probably be taken to pass the pay increases. It’s my bet at this point that the resolution will pass at that time.

There are some interesting sidelights to this scenario, For example, Mr. Jim Zucal, the Service Director, is related to Mr. Lautenschleger by marriage, by blood to Mr. John Zucal, the Councilman. Mr. Locker, Chairman of the Salary Committee, who presented the original wage proposal of one-percent on the recommendation of his committee, whose members are Winnie Walker and John Zucal, voted twice to increase the salaries of those involved to two-percent and to exclude members of Council from the increases. Council President Day, apparently dissatisfied with the Salary Committee’s handling of the wage issue, created an ad hoc committee to look into legislation to set guidelines for non-bargaining city personnel, and in an unprecedented move, appointed himself as chairman of that ad hoc committee. Chairman Day, incidentally, is related by marriage to Mr. Ricklic, the city Water Superintendent. Mrs. Espenschied said after the council meeting that she voted against the Cox Amendment this time as she didn’t like changing things in midstream. It’s all very confusing.

The bottom line is this. Employment in private business is down, unemployment in Ohio at 10.7%, which doesn’t count marginally attached and discouraged workers. These are folks who wanted work and couldn’t find it and are no longer listed on the unemployment rolls. The Bureau of Labor Statistics made the following report:

In June, about 2.6 mil­lion per­sons were mar­gin­ally attached to the labor force, an increase of 415,000 from a year ear­lier. (The data are not sea­son­ally adjusted.) These indi­vid­u­als were not in the labor force, wanted and were avail­able for work, and had looked for a job some­time in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unem­ployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks pre­ced­ing the survey.
Among the mar­gin­ally attached, there were 1.2 mil­lion dis­cour­aged work­ers in June, up by 414,000 from a year ear­lier. (The data are not sea­son­ally adjusted.) Dis­cour­aged work­ers are per­sons not cur­rently look­ing for work because they believe no jobs are avail­able for them. The remain­ing 1.4 mil­lion per­sons mar­gin­ally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks pre­ced­ing the sur­vey for rea­sons such as school atten­dance or fam­ily responsibilities.

Things are not well on the employment front. With rising unemployment, decreasing tax revenues, City Council should heed Mrs. Cox’s concerns about the financial state of New Philadelphia. This is not the time for any increases in budgets.

The Administration and City Council, if they do not face up to their responsibilities, can provide the New Philadelphians with only two things in the future, higher taxes or reduced services, or both.

Citizens, wake up. Press your councilmen and mayor to stop pushing the city into insolvency. Get involved.

Times-Reporter Gets It Wrong - Again

The Times-Reporter does it again. July 5's editorial should be included in every journalism class which is taught in every high school, college and university in the United States. The ignorance, I'm being nice, of the Editor in publishing the editorial "A demonstration of fiscal restraint," sets a new low in journalism for the Times-Reporter. It is obvious that Mr. Jekel doesn't even read his own paper.

On June 28, in reporting on the New Philadelphia City Council meeting, Joe Mizer stated that the City Council amended a proposed piece of legislation made by the Salary Committee concerning pay raises for elected and other non-union people working for the City. The original legislation, as it came out of the committee, called for a one-percent raise for such people. On the floor of Council, the one-percent figure was, by a vote of four to three, changed to two-percent. At the same time, any pay raise for City Council members was eliminated.

The editorial is an obvious lie in-so-far as its comments concerning New Philadelphia. Why would Mr. Jekel allow such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts be printed in the Times-Reporter? There is the excuse that editorials are not always written by the editor, that they are the result of an editorial staff. It is easy to pass the buck to somebody else, but passing the responsibility for such misleading statements to an underling won't wash. The editor is the editor, and what ever appears in any newspaper is undeniably the responsibility of the editor. Could it be that Mr. Jekel doesn't read his own paper? Joe Mizer got it right, why couldn't the editor? Is checking background information no longer a part of the editorial process.

Could it be that the T-R editor is enamoured with the New Philadelphia Administration to the point that truth and investigation of the facts is no longer a journalistic priority? Why haven't the following questions been asked of the Mayor and other Administration officials?

Is the President of City Council included in the proposed two-percent pay raise? After all, he is not a member of City Council. He is elected to an office which is more closely related to the Administration than City Council.
Who else is included in "non-bargaining" personnel? Are the school crossing guards, life guards, part-time workers, summer help, and others who work part-time for the city?
Why should non-elected, non-union employees get automatic pay raises when they are not evaluated on their job performance? There are no current job descriptions, if any at all, by which employees are judged. Tardiness is not reported nor punished when it occurs. Mid-morning breakfasts at local restaurants, a not infrequent situation, occurs without comment. Late and incorrect city reports from city officials go unquestioned.
Why should Administration officials get a two-percent pay raise when they talked the Clerical Union into taking one-percent in their contract?

In this editorial Jekel states "Kudos to New Philadelphia.....for doing the right thing" because, on a four to three vote, City Council saved the city a maximum of a thousand dollars a year by denying City Council members a pay raise. If City Council gets kudos for that, where was the editorial outrage when union employees received over half-million dollars in pay raises for 2010?

It is obvious that the Times-Reporter no longer understands what is going on in the City. It is obvious that the Times-Reporter is no longer a newspaper which has the motivation to report the news in a trustworthy manner. It is obvious that the editor of the Times-Reporter either doesn't have a clue about the newspaper business, or just plain doesn't have a clue.

Responsibility, as it always does, rests on the shoulders of the editor. Mr. Jekel needs to take a long, critical look at the Times-Reporter and his responsibility to its well-being and reputation. The misinformation, the bias, and the incompetence displayed in this editorial are inexcusable.

Budget Breaking Pay Increases Recommended by Council

What was City Council thinking last night, Monday, June 28? A two-percent raise for all non-bargaining personnel? Well, not quite. City Council members were not included. The two-percent increase was an increase from the one-percent increase recommended by the Salary Committee. Councilman Lautenschleger did not feel one-percent was enough for the elected and politically appointed New Philadelphia city officials. Lautenschleger is quoted by the Times Reporter as saying, “I personally believe that’s appropriate at this point.”

Appropriate must have different meanings depending on whether you have a salary protected job, as in government employee, or are unemployed, as in 11% unemployed in Tuscarawas County. The 11% figure does not include those no longer supported by the public dole, folks who the government has just written off. The probability of increased income taxes on the citizen of New Philadelphia to pay for salaries of elected officials and others is rising daily, but is of no concern to city employees. After all, their jobs are secure, their wages paid by those who are lucky enough to have jobs.

So what about city officials salaries? With a two percent increase they are doing pretty well. Take a look at the following figures of yearly earnings, bearing in mind that these are salary figures only and do not include benefits the city pays such as pension contributions, workers compensation, Medicare, health insurance, life insurance, and others which average another 48-percent. An easy rule of thumb to figure it out is add half-again as much to the salary.

Police Chief: $60,432
Fire Chief: $60,432
Service Director: $56,731
Water Superintendent: $54,653
Auditor: $52,977
Law Director: $50,325
Mayor: $48,903

It isn’t like everybody is underpaid. The Police and Fire Department clerk receives in excess of $15,759/year without benefits added.

The cost of wages, without benefits, of the 2% increases amounts to $25,566 for the year should they be passed by Council. But there is more to it than that. The Clerical Union contract, which was approved by Council after being agreed to by Mayor Taylor, allowed only a 1-percent wage increase to the clerks of the city. They originally requested 1.5-percent but the clerks settled for one-percent. I found that interesting at the time as the some members of the Police Department received more than a seven-percent increase and the Fire Department got seven-percent over three years. Go figure.

What’s this going to cost the City in the long run this year alone? In excess of half-a-million dollars when you figure the benefits in, not the $26,000 the auditor reported when asked by council. The difference? Well, it’s evidently hard to know what the real cost of insurance, workers compensation, and similar items paid by the city as these costs are handled by an outside contract and the city pays a monthly bill without really knowing what costs are to individual employees. The problem is that the City just doesn’t have the money to pay these high wages.

There was an interesting editorial in the T-R a short while ago admonishing the Council in these troubled times for even considering pay raises, interesting because last year, the T-R editorial spoke of the necessity of increasing the pay for police and fire departments. Then, okay. Now, no-no. It’s very confusing.

The mystery in this whole thing is that nobody involved seems to know, understand, or care that the United States, and Ohio, and Tuscarawas County, and New Philadelphia, are in serious financial trouble. The economy is not getting better. It is on the verge of collapse. At what point will the Mayor realize that spending money without money coming in will cause deficits, insolvency, and the inability of the city to pay its bills. It’s called cash-flow, Mr. Mayor. You must limit spending to what you can pay for, and we are close to not having the money to pay the bills. Mr. Mayor, you have an opportunity to become a legend in your own time. If this legislation passes City Council, stand up to the responsibility of your office and veto it. Show council and the citizens that you really do have the welfare of New Philadelphia as your prime concern.

Addenda:

Wages for 2010 with 2% Wage Rates, Benefits Not Included:

Police Chief: $60,423
Fire Chief: $60,423
Service Director: $56,731
General Services Supervisor: $55,883
Water Superintendent: $54,653
Park Superintendent: $54,376
Sewer Superintendent: $53,592
Auditor: $52,977
Health Director: $52,871
Assistant Sewer Supervisor: $52,276
Cemetery Supervisor: $51,003
Law Director: $50,325
Prosecutor: $49,836
Environmentalist: $49,094
Mayor: $48,903
Nursing Director: $48,691
Income Tax Administrator: $47,693
Assistant Park Superintendent: $45,339
Assistant Service Director: $42,029
Assistant Prosecutor: $34,731
Assistant Prosecutor: $34,731
Mayor Executive Assistant: $33,118
IT Guy: $32,164
Health Office Secretary: $31,421
Maintenance Director: $31,209
Part Time Nurse: $26,057
Assistance Maintenance Director: $26,053
Assistant Environmentalist: $15,912
Police/Fire Clerk: $15,759
Receptionist: $14,280
Treasurer: $11,924
Safety Director: $9,378

Total Cost for 2010 Wages Without Benefits: $1,303,853.

Add 48% to above wages to include benefits.

Safety Committee to Meet on Possible Property Seizure

A little bit on the late side, but the Safety Committee will be meet on Monday, June 21, 2010, at 6 PM, in Council Chambers of City Hall, to discuss the widening of West High Avenue. Residents of West High between the railroad tracks and Five Points should be especially aware of this as the decision made by the Safety Committee will play a big part in the eminent domain seizure of private property on that stretch of road. It is our understanding that none of the residents who own property on West High, which is under consideration for the street widening, have been informed of this meeting, a situation which we hope is not true. If it is the case, we take umbrage with the committee, as these residents have the right to be informed of the city's plans for property seizure before any formal action is taken.

Residents should take advantage of the opportunity to attend this important committee meeting, ask questions, and make committee members aware of their feelings. Failure to do so could see the seizure of property without the owners consent. Interestingly enough, invitations to attend the meeting were sent to a local realtor and ODOT representatives.

For further information contact your City Councilman or the Mayor.

Residents, get involved. It's your property the city will take should this project be approved.

Pelosi Ethics Come to New Philadelphia

Last Monday, June 14, New Philadelphia City Council took another step to distance itself from the citizens of the city. There was a day when administrative and legislative members of the city displayed a responsibility to the folks who live here. Today, the agenda of most elected officials in New Philadelphia seems to be to protect themselves, even if it means breaking faith with the citizen. An oath is taken by every elected official in the city in which they promise to uphold the law. Words are words, but actions define character. A case in point is Resolution No. 32-2010.

32-2010 finally, we hope, brings the melodrama of OH Holly Corporation, operators of the Perfect Landing Restaurant at the New Philadelphia Airport, and the City of New Philadelphia, owners of the building which houses the restaurant, to a final close. The melodrama concerned itself with disputes over the lease agreement, a typical he-said-she-said type situation. It dragged on for quite a while, opposing lawyers complaining that they couldn't get together with each other, that sort of thing. About a week ago, agreement was reached, at least by the lawyers. The OH Holly Corporation agreed. All that was needed to close the deal was agreement by City Council to make the whole issue disappear. It was at this point that the city government system unraveled.

During Monday's council meeting, the Law Director requested an executive session to discuss changes to the OH Holly lease. The executive session was requested, the Law Director stated, to deal with an ongoing lawsuit. The executive session was approved by Council. What occurred during that session is unknown, and by law should remain that way. There are, however, concerns as to why it was called in the first place. Evidently, the ongoing lawsuit was no longer ongoing. The judgment had already been agreed to by both parties and approved by the presiding judge. All that was needed was approval by council. By going to an executive session any explanation or discussion of the agreement the City was to be bound to, was lost to public knowledge.

Here is where it begins to get sticky. When the executive session closed, and the normal council meeting resumed, a motion was made to add Resolution No. 32-2010 to the evening's agenda. It was added by a vote of the council. One thing was missing. According to the rules of procedure for bringing legislation to the floor of city council, it must first be approved by a council committee in a scheduled committee meeting. This was not done, and apparently, not by oversight, but by a conscious disregard of standing council rules. The originator of this disregard of standing rules is not known as the action was taken in the executive session. This action proposes another breach of procedure. Decisions are not to be made in any executive session. These sessions are for information purposes only. It is obvious that a decision was made during the session Monday evening to break the rules and bring 32-2010 to the floor for a vote without it being heard in committee first.

The argument that there was not sufficient time to have 32-2010 heard in committee before the Council meeting doesn't hold water. The Finance Committee met that evening prior to the council meeting on another matter, and 32-2010 could have been discussed at that time under the statement on the committee meeting notice "and other matters which may be brought to the attention of the committee." The resolution itself, then was faulted, as it states it was sponsored by the Finance Committee, which it was not, as the Finance Committee never discussed it.

Another concern about the request to ignore the procedural rules by council revolves around the time involved in bringing 32-2010 to the attention of City Council. The court case was completed on May 7, 2010, according to the court records. That provided ample time for the matter to be brought before Council and considered without the necessity of blatantly ignoring Council procedures. While no time limit was set for the signed agreements to be returned to the court, a five week delay in returning the necessary documents to the court may be considered excessive. The cause of the delay remains an unanswered question. Was an unacceptable delay a factor in the extraordinary method used in getting 32-2010 legislation passed?

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Law Director was asked why the resolution did not go through committee. The Law director stated that it didn't have to go through committee as "this was a settlement that just came out of trial." He further stated that Council can bring items to the floor without going through a committee. "I'm telling you," he said, "that Council can void that rule with anything by putting it up, by voting to put it on the agenda. When they put it on the agenda, they bypass that rule. They have a right to do that. It's a procedural rule for order of Council." He went on to say that City Council is not bound to its own rules. What council wants to do, it may, with no restrictions.

The implications of last Mondays action by City Council are far reaching. A dangerous precedent has been set. With no constraints on procedure, there are no safeguards to the public. No longer are citizen comments assured. No longer is any operational rule or procedure of City Council viable.

My objection is not to the legislation of 32-2010. It is to the blatant disregard of standing rules and procedures.

With the decision to ignore City Ordinance 121.01 in this case, the precedent has been set which paves the way for city council pass legislation without the knowledge of New Philadelphia citizens. It also admits the New Philadelphia City Council into the Pelosi Get Legislation Passed No Matter How Society.

If the Law Director and City Council don't respect their own rules, what sort of respect do they have for you? Wake up folks. It is your future they are dealing with. Get involved.

Apathy Stalls New Philadelphia Legislation

Every once in a while there are things which need to be mentioned, none of which are big enough to make a full article, but never seem to get said. They kinda' pile up and eventually get thrown into a potpourri of thoughts. Today's the day to dig into that pile.

There are a lot of things sitting in City Council which should be acted upon. This is not unusual, but City Council needs to get on with the City's business, get them out of committee, and do something, anything but ignore them.

Last year a request for action was passed to the Safety Committee from the President of Council concerning noise in the city. This has become a problem over the years and came to a head a couple of years ago when a resident complained of the loud music from Bud and Tooties, a bar on West High Avenue. The matter was resolved by an agreement between Bud and Tooties, the Police Chief, and the resident who had complained. Unfortunately, the matter didn't stay resolved and the noise continues. The problem doesn't end there but spreads like a blight across the city through loud mufflers on cars, trucks and motorcycles. Even worse are the boom boxes in automobiles which vibrate house windows as they drive by. The police department states that there is no ordinance to cover noise, although the City's Codified Ordinances seem to disagree. It's been in committee for about a year, with only one committee meeting to my knowledge. But, we still have the noise. The EPA can define illegal noise levels. Why can't the City?

There is a proposal in Committee to widen West High Avenue. There have been meetings with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) concerning this street "improvement," but the folks who live in the effected area generally have no knowledge of the plans being considered, which include taking of their property by eminent domain by the City. To this date, neither the City, nor ODOT, has had any communication with residents. Does that make any sense? Cost of the project is estimated at $600,000 for the City's share alone. Yeah, that word was estimated. Who knows what the cost will be when the project gets under way in a couple of years.

Three and a half years ago a change was made to the City Codified Ordinances concerning how legislation was brought before City Council. In the updated, a really loose term in this case, City Ordinances, this change still is not included. From time to time the New Philadelphia Law Director makes noises like he is going to bring the ordinances up to date. Doesn't work. I guess it is a case of priorities because the Codified Ordinance book, and the reproduction of them on the City's website, are still out of date. Many of the resolutions and ordinances under which the City operates are not included in the published Codified Ordinances, or have been changed over the years so the published information is incorrect and/or misleading. This is an Administrative problem, not a Council problem, one which should have never been allowed to exist. It is dereliction of duty on the part of the Mayor and the Law Director that the New Philadelphia Codified Ordinances, which are used by the citizens and public officials of New Philadelphia, are not correct. I guess if you can't see 'em, you don't have to follow 'em. Makes life easier, I guess.

The Mayor has requested a Downtown Urban Planner be added to his staff. It appears that he recognizes the need to do something with the deteriorating downtown area. Evidently the survey he requested on conditions in Downtown New Philadelphia confirmed what was already well know to the residents here, but remained a mystery to the Administration. The request for an Urban Planner raises a couple of interesting questions. Didn't the Mayor appoint a Select Committee made up of influential citizens to make recommendations to get downtown up and running again? Isn't this the Mayor's job, to plan for the City's future? But the biggest question was raised by the Council President when he placed the responsibility for considering the creation of the position for Urban Planning. He assigned the task to the Zoning Committee rather than to the committee responsible for Economic Development. Are we missing something here? It appears that of late President of Council makes committee assignments for reasons which have no relationship to committee expertise on any given subject. What's going to be next, the President of Council taking on personally chairing the committees? Whew. The way things are going is it possible that the Council President wants to become Mayor?

One last thing. The White House was ecstatic about the increase in jobs last month. It made great headlines and soundbites in the media. The numbers look great with 431,000 created in May. Of course, 411,000 of those jobs, 95.4%, were census takers. The jobs are temporary, will cost the taxpayer in the long run, produce no increased production, nor monetary gain to the economy. But then congratulations to those 20,100 folks who found permanent jobs in May.

D-Day Lessons Lost On Obama

Sixty-six years ago today, June 6, 1944, 100,000 soldiers landed on the shores of France to begin the liberation of Europe, the majority of them American. American forces suffered the largest number of casualties. Of the 4,400 Allied troops who died that day, 2,500 were Americans. Of the 10,000 casualties that day, 6,600 of them were American.

The commitment and sacrifice of the United States on that June day is all but forgotten. But without it, there would be no freedom in Europe, and quite possibly none in the United States. It is only through the efforts of those brave young men, and many not so young, who who fought in what General, later President, Eisenhower called the Crusade in Europe, was it possible to free Europe from a barbaric, totalitarian regime, a Germany led by the madman Adolf Hitler.

In the Pacific, Americans fought and died to destroy an equally barbarous enemy, Japan, whose cruelty, murder and sadism, had taken by force most of the Pacific basin. American youth died on small islands with names like Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Luzon, and in unmapped jungles of Guadalcanal and Burma. They died in prison camps through torture, starvation, and outright murder.

Had the United States not become involved in the Second World War, we would be living in a totally different world than we have today. If the United States had not become involved in the reconstruction of Europe and the Pacific, there would have been little if any economic recovery in either. The United States destroyed its enemies. It devastated their property. But unlike any country in history from the beginning of time, as a victor, it rebuilt their economies, their cities, prevented worldwide starvation, and asked nothing in return.

But today, things have changed. In the past eighteen months, President Obama has disgraced the United States in ways unimaginable two years ago. He has apologized for what he perceives the United States has done in the past. He has become subservient to Muslim countries and leaders whose priorities are the elimination of Christianity and Judaism. He has forsaken the integrity of our country, blaming the United States for the corruption of South American governments. He condones Mexican border jumpers and wet-backs who come into the United States with drugs. He lets murderers from Mexico who kill United States citizens, sell drugs, steal from our social services, go unpunished. Obama punishes American soldiers, sailors, and airmen, for protecting us and making it possible for most of us to sleep secure in our homes at night. He increases, on a daily basis, our dependence on foreign oil, mostly from Muslim countries. He has taken control of private banks, two of the world's largest automotive companies, nominated Supreme Court justices, one who openly declares her dissatisfaction with the Constitution of the United States and another who has no judicial experience. He has increased income taxes on both individuals and businesses, and usurped medical care in the United States.

Obama has aligned himself with politicians whose priorities are not the welfare of the United States citizen, but control of the United States for their own purposes. Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and Obama have created a legislature and administration which is destroying the liberty we once enjoyed. What we are seeing today is a replay of Germany in the 1930s. Obama told Americans during his campaign what his intentions were and nobody listened. Adolph Hitler told the Germans, and the world, what his intentions were and it took a world war to depose him. Nobody listened to Hitler and nobody learned.

The United States was the hope of the world. In less than two years, Obama turned the Uniterd States from a world leader, economically, militarily, morally, into a blossoming communistic state, with the now predictable end of totalitarianism in the foreseeable future. The success of the Obama takeover and the communist bias of the congress, is founded in the lack of concern of the American public. The five hundred plus federal officials who make the laws, and administer them, were elected by American people who believed the lies, forgot the lessons of past history, want something for nothing from the federal government, and gave up their chance for freedom and liberty not only for themselves, but for their children and all future Americans.

Wake up citizens. You are being sold into slavery. Wake up while you still have the chance to do something about this theft of your country. Become informed. Become vocal. If the Obama crowd is allowed to continue you will lose your life, liberty, and right to happiness. And even worse, those thousands who died at Normandy and on those Pacific islands will have died for nothing.