Police Pay Increases Strain New Philadelphia Budget

Last night, Monday, March 14, the New Philadelphia City Council approved Police Department budget requests for the next two years. It made sense that they approve the pay increases for policemen, not that the pay increases were merited, needed, or justified, but because there was no way that voting against them would have made any difference. The citizenry of New Philadelphia were bested in another expensive fact-finding decision which the City can ill afford.

The Times-Reporter article of March 15, “Phila City Council approves report on police wage hikes”, states clearly how the police union won their case as heard by Fact-finder Thomas R. Skulina. What Mr. Skulina, in his opinion, mandated a 5.75 percent pay increase for the police department over the next two years. But it only makes sense if the facts are not taken into consideration and if the incompetence of the city administration is overlooked.

The Times-Reporter quotes Skulina as stating, “The evidence is clear that, even after the recession that plagued the city, it is still leaves the city with the ability, if it chooses, to increase the pay of its police officers.”

There are a number of questionable conclusions used by Skulina to make such a statement.

The depression, let’s call it what it is, is not over. The true unemployment rate in Ohio is hovering around the 20 percent level. Nationally foreclosures are predicted to increase this year to 1.2 million homes. Already in 2011 over five million homes are two months or more behind in mortgage payments. 2010 was bad enough with 1 in every 45 homes being foreclosed. 2011 has all the appearances of being worse.

The city is in financial trouble. The general fund, where the money comes from to operate the city, such things as paying the mayor, auditor, treasurer, law director, city council, pay the bills for city hall, run the parks, that sort of thing, starts the year off 430 thousand dollars in the red. Add to that the Street Department, 30 thousand dollars in the red, the Cemetery two thousand dollars, and the total budget deficit is $462,000.

With the police wage increases approved, the cost of operating the city will be increased by an additional $39,000 this year and $45,000 in 2012, for a total deficit increase of $84,000 for the two years. In 2011 alone, the budget will be in the red over half-a-million dollars.

Where will the money to pay for this deficit come from? Two choices. One is that the economy will pickup, which is highly doubtful. Second is to increase taxes, which the mayor indicated would be his choice when he ran for office two years ago. The third, which is not spoken of at this point, is to lay people off.

A deficit budget does not concern Skulina. After all, he argues, five other communities in Tuscarawas, Stark, and Guernsey counties pay their police officers more than does New Philadelphia. With thirty five cities having police departments in those counties, we can only wonder what those cities are. When 86 percent of the cities in those three counties have police with wage scales less then New Philadelphia, it doesn’t seem that New Philadelphia police wages are that far out of line.

Skulina also made an interesting statement, one which invariably comes up as a point of prejudice and bias, which is totally not supported by the facts. “As a fact-finder," he said, “I definitely find that safety-force employees that are exposed to serious physical danger are not the same as the things office clerks, secretaries and non-safety employees are exposed to. Hence, I am not constrained by the arguments that whatever I recommend for the police is necessarily a given increase for the large non-safety union’s positions.”

This is a biased, unsupportable statement. In supporting his argument for police wage increases, he debases other employees as inferior, both in position and in risk, to those of the police department. This is not only degrading to those other employees, but shows a lack factual basis for Skulina’s ruling.

A study done in Maryland in 2009 lists the top jobs for fatalities per 100,000 workers, as the following:

Timber cutting 117.8
Fishermen 71.1
Airplane Pilots & Navigators 69.8
Structural Metal Workers 58.2
Drivers Sales Workers 37.9
Roofers 37.0
Electrical Power Installers 32.5
Farmers 28.0
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25.0
Sworn Police Officers 22.2
National average: 4.0

There is no doubt that a policeman’s job can have its moments, but a policeman’s job does not often relate to what is seen on today’s television series. He does not on a daily basis face life threatening situations. In this case, the question is not do New Philadelphia’s police officers deserve higher wages because of hazardous duty, but have they earned pay raises because of increased efficiency and public service.

Full blame does not fall on policemen of New Philadelphia for the inappropriate wage increases they have received. The fault lies with a system which leans on bias, favoritism, and selfishness on the one hand, and inability to properly administer the city’s finances on the other.

New Philadelphia administrations cannot compete with union lawyers on their own and refuse to engage competent legal help to negotiate for them. For the good of the city, both employees and citizens, the mayor should admit to his inability to negotiate effectively with professional union negotiators. He should hire competent legal council, one with experience, training, and the will to win to represent the city. Yet he does not and the result remains unchanged, the city loses negotiations, fact-finding, and arbitration with regularity.

The culprits of this most recent financial debacle are the same as in the past: a greedy union, an incompetent administration, and a biased fact-finder. The victims are the same as in the past: the citizens of New Philadelphia. How much longer will the citizenry accept an ineffective administration and legislature? It’s time to wake up New Philadelphia. It is your city. Get involved. Do something before the city disappears in a cloud of citizen apathy.

Ohio SB 5 and Municipal Unions

Public employees are getting a lot of publicity about how they will suffer if Senate Bill 5 becomes law. For them, SB5 is taking away their rights for the use of collective bargaining to establish working conditions, salaries, benefits, days off, work procedures, and who, incidentally, gets laid off if there is a cut back in employment because of financial problems. The unions call it collective bargaining. But is it fair to the tax payer?

Under current collective bargaining laws, the two sides, unions and cities, get together and discuss terms under which the union will work. It is basically a one way street. The union says this is the type of work we will do, this is how we will do it, these are the benefits, or freebies if you will, that you will give us, and this is what you will pay us. Should the city suggest it can’t afford to make the changes the unions want, the union says, we’re going to fact finding/arbitration, discussion closed.

Arbitration and fact finding work like this. An arbitrator is chosen from a list of people approved by the union, and agreed to by the city. His job is to decide which side, union or city, presents the best argument for increases, or keeping the status quo, of wages, working conditions, and all other matters connected with government funded, paid for by taxpayers, jobs. He hears both sides then makes his decision based on his wisdom, experience, and the amount of money the municipality has available which can be taken to make wage and benefit payments to the union members. One problem with the system. Most arbitrators are ex-union members who invariably lean toward the union point of view. When you go to arbitration or fact finding, the city is going to pay up, period.

The end result of the current system is unbelievable. Public employees consider dictating their working conditions their “rights.” They consider their benefits “rights.” They consider their jobs as “rights”. Nowhere is it written that being on a public payroll is a right. Where in the constitution is it written that public employees have a “right” to work for any level of government.

Disagree with the unions and you are immediately branded as being against teaching of students, fire prevention, police patrols, garbage collection, equal rights for workers, women, men, and dog catchers.

Suggesting municipal workers pay a fair share of their health insurance, life insurance, or retirement, is considered by unions to be a crisis because it will “take food from the mouths of children” who are dependent upon a parent who works for some form of government. No matter that health insurance, vacations, retirement, overtime, and benefits not available to non-public employees result in increased costs to municipalities and are direct causes of the municipality's financial distress. No matter that these benefits are far greater than paid by non-government workers. Government workers want them, the arbitrators provide them, and the public be damned.

Wages should be based on productivity and competence, not length of employment. Most people want to be recognized for doing a good job and well they should. It is degrading that the inept, lazy, irresponsible worker is paid the same as the conscientious, responsible worker. For that matter, within a pay scale, those efficient, responsible workers, should not be paid more for their work within that scale, those who do not measure up should be paid less or fired. The unions do not see it that way, and the loafer earns what the producer does because the union has protected their jobs for a number of years.

The money that pays public worker salaries comes from the taxes of people who don’t work for public employee unions. A public employee produces no income for the municipality for which he works. He provides a service without which the municipality could not exist. But income to the city comes from taxation. Money which is taken by taxation reduces the available money used by the taxpayer to subsist, to pay the bills, to live. Government employees do not always seem to be aware of that.

A new Philadelphia school teacher was quoted by the Times-Reporter as stating, “I’m opposed to the bill – I’m really frightened about my family’s future….It’s a slap in the face. I feel like they just don’t think teachers are important, and that’s really hard to swallow.” Those people who are out of work because the cost of doing business in Ohio has driven hundreds of businesses out of Ohio find their lack of any income hard to swallow. Thousands of workers lost their jobs, their livelihoods, because companies could not afford to stay in business in Ohio because of a tax structure which is oppressive. The highest cost of government is, like private enterprise, the high cost of personnel. But there is a difference.

Nongovernmental businesses have to make a profit to stay in operation. Governments don’t as they have the power to tax those who provide the jobs, who produce the goods, who keep the economy going. Governments raise taxes to pay their bills. So if government employees want more wages and benefits, their unions provide the means to increase them regardless of the effects such increases produce.

Increased taxes always result in decreased taxpayer spending, which decreases manufacturing, which decreases jobs, which results in a failure of the economy. SB5 recognizes this. The government unions do not. Regardless of how they try to explain it away, government employee union greed is the major cause of the financial mess Ohio is in today.

Of course government employees are opposed to SB5. It’s passage will force responsibility onto them which they have not had to accept for years. It will without doubt cause some readjustments in their living standards. It is not right that government employment should provide wages and benefits which are oppressive to the taxpayer, have hurt the economy of the state. A government job is just that, a job, a privilege.

One thing is abundantly clear. As shown by union reaction to SB5 government workers are not dedicated to public service. Their dedication is to money. Their dedication is to getting whatever they can from the taxpayer. Their dedication is to self, not to the public good. The concept of public service is dead.

It's Never Just the Economy, Stupid

The following is adapted from a speech delivered by Brian T. Kennedy on January 7, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books. He has written on national security affairs and California public policy issues in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, and other national newspapers. He sits on the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense and is a co-author of the recent book Shariah: The Threat to America.

We are often told that we possess the most powerful military in the world and that we will face no serious threat for some time to come. We are comforted with three reassurances aimed at deflecting any serious discussion of national security: (1) that Islam is a religion of peace; (2) that we will never go to war with China because our economic interests are intertwined; and (3) that America won the Cold War and Russia is no longer our enemy. But these reassurances are myths, propagated on the right and left alike. We believe them at our peril, because serious threats are already upon us.

Let me begin with Islam. We were assured that it was a religion of peace immediately following September 11. President Bush, a good man, believed or was persuaded that true Islam was not that different from Judaism or Christianity. He said in a speech in October 2001, just a month after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon: “Islam is a vibrant faith. . . . We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” But unfortunately, Mr. Bush was trying to understand Islam as we would like it to be rather than how countless devout Muslims understand it.

Organizationally, Islam is built around a belief in God or Allah, but it is equally a political ideology organized around the Koran and the teachings of its founder Muhammad. Whereas Christianity teaches that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s—allowing for a non-theocratic political tradition to develop in the West, culminating in the principles of civil and religious liberty in the American founding—Islam teaches that to disagree with or even reinterpret the Koran’s 6000 odd verses, organized into 114 chapters or Suras and dealing as fully with law and politics as with matters of faith, is punishable by death.

Islamic authorities of all the major branches of Islam hold that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others. This so-called theory of abrogation means that the ruling parts of the Koran are those written after Muhammad went to Medina in 622 A.D. Specifically, they are Suras 9 and 5, which are not the Suras containing the verses often cited as proof of Islam’s peacefulness.

Sura 9, verse 5, reads: “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them . . . .”

Sura 9, verse 29, reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Sura 5, verse 51, reads: “Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust.”

And Sura 3, verse 28, introduces the doctrine of taqiyya, which holds that Muslims should not be friends with the infidel except as deception, always with the end goal of converting, subduing, or destroying him.

It is often said that to point out these verses is to cherry pick unfairly the most violent parts of the Koran. In response, I assert that we must try to understand Muslims as they understand themselves. And I hasten to add that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail. So I am not painting a picture here of the average Muslim. I am trying to understand those Muslims, both here in the U.S. and abroad, who actively seek the destruction of America.

Here at home, the threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the various Muslim student associations. These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. But let me quote to you from a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorist funding. It is a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs that was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference in 1987. It speaks of “Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

Elsewhere this document says:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] 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 Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes . . . .

Now during the Bush Administration, the number of Muslims in the U.S. was typically estimated to be around three million. The Pew Research Center in 2007 estimated it to be 2.35 million. In 2000, the Council on American Islamic Relations put the number at five million. And President Obama in his Cairo speech two years ago put it at seven million.

In that light, consider a 2007 survey of American Muslim opinion conducted by the Pew Research Center. Eight percent of American Muslims who took part in this survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of Islam. Even accepting a low estimate of three million Muslims in the U.S., this would mean that 240,000 among us hold that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified. Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15 percent agreed with that and 60 percent said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and Americans second. Among all participants in the survey, five percent—and five percent of the low estimate of three million Muslims in America is 150,000—said they had a favorable view of al Qaeda.

Given these numbers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the political aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood represent a domestic threat to national security. It is one thing to have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers within our borders, but quite another if that number is in the hundreds of thousands. Consider the massacre at Fort Hood: Major Nidal Malik Hasan believed that he was acting as a devout Muslim—indeed, he believed he was obeying a religious mandate to wage war against his fellow soldiers. Yet even to raise the question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse.

And as dangerous as it potentially is, this domestic threat pales in comparison to the foreign threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies—a threat that is existential in nature. The government in Tehran, of course, is enriching uranium to convert to plutonium and place in a nuclear warhead. Iran has advanced ballistic missiles such as the Shahab-3, which can be launched from land or sea and is capable of destroying an American city. Even worse, if the Iranians were able to deliver the warhead as an electromagnetic pulse weapon from a ship off shore—a method they have been practicing, by the way—they could destroy the electronic infrastructure of the U.S. and cause the deaths of tens of millions or more. And let me be perfectly clear: We do not today have a missile defense system in place that is capable of defending against either a ship-launched missile attack by Iran or a ballistic missile attack from China or Russia. We do not yet today have such a system in place, even though we are capable of building one.

Since I have mentioned China and Russia, let me turn to them briefly in that order. The U.S. trades with China and the Chinese buy our debt. Currently they have $2 trillion in U.S. reserves, about half of which is in U.S. treasuries. Their economy and ours are intimately intertwined. For this reason it is thought that the Chinese will not go to war with us. Why, after all, would they want to destroy their main export market?

On the other hand, China is building an advanced army, navy, air force, and space-based capability that is clearly designed to limit the U.S. and its ability to project power in Asia. It has over two million men under arms and possesses an untold number of ICBMs—most of them aimed at the U.S.—and hundreds of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles. China’s military thinking is openly centered on opposing American supremacy, and its military journals openly discuss unrestricted warfare, combining traditional military means with cyber warfare, economic warfare, atomic warfare, and terrorism. China is also working to develop a space-based military capability and investing in various launch vehicles, including manned spaceflight, a space station, and extensive anti-satellite weaponry aimed at negating U.S. global satellite coverage.

Absent a missile defense capable of intercepting China’s ballistic missiles, the U.S. would be hard pressed to maintain even its current security commitments in Asia. The U.S. Seventh Fleet, however capable, cannot withstand the kinds of nuclear missiles and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that China could employ against it. The Chinese have studied American capabilities, and have built weapons meant to negate our advantages. The destructive capability of the recently unveiled Chinese DF-21D missile against our aircraft carriers significantly raises the stakes of a conflict in the South China Sea. And the SS-N-22 cruise missile—designed by the Russians and deployed by the Chinese and Iranians—presents a daunting challenge due to its enormous size and Mach 3 speed.

China has for some time carried out a policy that has been termed “peaceful rise.” But in recent years we have seen the coming to power of what scholars like Tang Ben call the “Red Guard generation”—generals who grew up during the Cultural Revolution, who are no longer interested in China remaining a secondary power, and who appear eager to take back Taiwan, avenge past wrongs by Japan and replace the U.S. as the preeminent military power in the region and ultimately in the world.

However far-fetched this idea may seem to American policymakers, it is widely held in China that America is on the decline, with economic problems that will limit its ability to modernize its military and maintain its alliances. And indeed, as things stand, the U.S. would have to resort to full-scale nuclear war to defend its Asian allies from an attack by China. This is the prospect that caused Mao Tse Tung to call the U.S. a “Paper Tiger.” Retired Chinese General Xiong Guong Kai expressed much the same idea in 1995, when he said that the U.S. would not trade Los Angeles for Taipei—that is, that we would have to stand by if China attacks Taiwan, since China has the ability to annihilate Los Angeles with a nuclear missile. In any case, current Chinese aggression against Japan in the Senkaku Islands and their open assistance of the Iranian nuclear program, not to mention their sale of arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, would suggest that China is openly playing the role that the Soviet Union once played as chief sponsor of global conflict with the West.

Which brings us to Russia and to the degradation of American strategic thinking during and after the Cold War. This thinking used to be guided by the idea that we must above all prevent a direct attack upon the U.S. homeland. But over the past 50 years we have been taught something different: that we must accept a balance of power between nations, especially those possessing nuclear ballistic missiles; and that we cannot seek military superiority—including defensive superiority, as with missile defense—lest we create strategic instability. This is now the common liberal view taught at universities, think tanks and schools of foreign service. Meanwhile, for their part, conservatives have been basking in the glow of “winning the Cold War.” But in what sense was it won, it might be asked, given that we neither disarmed Russia of its nuclear arsenal nor put a stop to its active measures to undermine us. The transformation of some of the former captive nations into liberal democracies is certainly worth celebrating, but given the Russian government’s brutally repressive domestic policies and strengthened alliances with America’s enemies abroad over the past 20 years, conservatives have overdone it.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that our policy toward Russia has been exceedingly foolish. For the past two decades we have paid the Russians to dismantle nuclear warheads they would have dismantled anyway, while they have used those resources to modernize their ballistic missiles. On our part, we have not even tested a nuclear warhead since 1992—which is to say that we aren’t certain they work anymore. Nor have we maintained any tactical nuclear weapons. Nor, to repeat, have we built the missile defense system first proposed by President Reagan.

Just last month, with bipartisan backing from members of the foreign policy establishment, the Senate ratified the New Start Treaty, which will further reduce our nuclear arsenal and will almost certainly cause further delays in building missile defenses—and this with a nation that engages in massive deception against us, supports our enemies, and builds ever more advanced nuclear weapons.

At the heart of America’s strategic defense policy today is the idea of launching a retaliatory nuclear strike against whatever nuclear power attacks us. But absent reliable confidence in the lethality of forces, such a deterrent is meaningless. In this light, deliberating about the need for a robust modernization program, rather than arms reductions through New Start, would have been a better way for Congress to spend the days leading up to Christmas—which is to say, it would have been supportive of our strategic defense policy, rather than undercutting it.

But what about that strategic policy? Some of New Start’s supporters argued that reducing rather than modernizing our nuclear arsenal places us on the moral high ground in our dealings with other nations. But can any government claim to occupy the moral high ground when it willingly, knowingly, and purposely keeps its people nakedly vulnerable to nuclear missiles? The Russians understand well the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American defense establishment, and have carefully orchestrated things for two decades so that we remain preoccupied with threats of North Korean and now Iranian ballistic missiles. We spend our resources developing modest defense systems to deal, albeit inadequately, with these so-called rogue states, and meanwhile forego addressing the more serious threat from Russia and China, both of which are modernizing their forces. Who is to say that there will never come a time when the destruction or nuclear blackmail of the U.S. will be in the interest of the Russians or the Chinese? Do we imagine that respect for human life or human rights will stop these brutal tyrannies from acting on such a determination?

If I sound pessimistic, I don’t mean to. Whatever kind of self-deception has gripped the architects of our current defense policies, the American people have proved capable of forcing a change in direction when they learn the facts. Americans do not wish to be subjected to Sharia law, owe large sums of money to the Chinese, or be kept vulnerable to nuclear missiles. Having responded resoundingly to the economic and constitutional crisis represented by Obamacare, it is now time for us to remind our representatives of the constitutional requirement to provide for a common defense—in the true sense of the word.


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


The preceeding is adapted from a speech delivered by Brian T. Kennedy on January 7, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale’s Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books. He has written on national security affairs and California public policy issues in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, and other national newspapers. He sits on the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense and is a co-author of the recent book Shariah: The Threat to America.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College

Egypt Changes Bring America Closer To Disaster

According to the White House, the news media, and other detractors of freedom and United States interests, the terrible Honsi Mubarak, President of Egypt, has finally been disposed and good riddance. Mubarak was not the poster boy for democracy nor was he the most benevolent of Arab leaders. But he was a staunch supporter of Israel, strongly anti-terrorist, a friend of the United States. He brings back to mind Tito, the cold war leader of Yugoslavia. The story goes that Harry Truman and Josef Stalin were discussing the Balkans and Stalin commented that Tito was a real son-of-a-bitch. Truman agreed, but then commented that Tito was “our son-of-a-bitch.”

The analogy fit Mubarak well. We may have disagreed with much of what he did, but he supported our interests in the mid-East, was able to contain much of the terrorism against Israel and the United States, kept the Suez Canal open, and was not disruptive to American interests as are most of our so-called friends in that part of the world. In short, his interests coincided with many of ours, and that made life easier.

But to listen to the leftists, he was all bad. It was good, according the White House and other socialist Democrats, that he is gone, ousted by a popular uprising led by the freedom loving, democratic leaning sect, the Muslim Brotherhood. Or are they? With connections to al-Qa'ida, Hamas, their objectives are certainly questionable. Regardless of the rhetoric, the Muslim Brotherhood is a group which has as its main objective, as pointed out in Congressional hearings, "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."

The type of Islamic doctrine which will be brought to Egypt with the change of theological thinking in Egypt can be best expressed by a recent poll by the Pew Research Center. Interesting facts of the poll include the following:

• 49% of Egyptians say Islam plays only a "small role" in public affairs under President Hosni Mubarak, while 95% prefer the religion play a "large role in politics."
• 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.
• 82% support stoning adulterers.
• 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off.
• 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace.
• 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified.
• Nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas.
• 30% have a favorable opinion of Hezbollah.
• 20% maintain positive views of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
• 82% of Egyptians dislike the U.S. — the highest unfavorable rating among the 18 Muslim nations Pew surveyed.

It is unfortunate that Obama and the news media have just simply got it wrong. It is interesting that CNN reporter Anderson Cooper reported that the rioters in Cairo were mostly secular yuppies longing for human rights especially after he was beaten by an anti-American mob.

The Egyptians, along with other Islamic Muslims, have no interest in democracy or equal rights. They look at our principles as valueless. They want Islamic culture, and are willing to kill and die to force it upon our country.

The responsibility of the Administration and Congress is to protect our citizens, our country, and our way of life. They are failing in this responsibility to an extent which is treasonous. The disaster which is Egypt should not be accepted nor condoned. The present policy being followed by Obama will bring the end of freedom to America by a victory by Muslim religious fanatics.

There has been no change in the ideology of Islam. We are involved in a war to the death with Muslim terrorists and murderers. And with the help of an inept president and congress, we are losing.

Wake up, America. Our freedom is being taken away from us. Our Constitution is being disregarded. We are on the edge of disaster. Stand up for your rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. If you don’t protect them, nobody will.

New Philadelphia T-R Editorial Misses The Point On City Budget

One thing about the Times-Reporter Editorials, they sure do make you feel good. Take the one for Wednesday, February 9, 2011, “City Made Great Strides During 2010.” That’s an editorial to call for rejoicing and bringing on a good nights sleep. What causes the worry, as it usually does, is what is not said, and in this case, there is a lot which is not said. But wait. This is an election year. There are a lot of things which are going to be overlooked, at least by some folks.

The good news: Gross revenue for the city income tax is up 219 thousand dollars.

The bad news: That increase applies only to the general fund, which is only used to pay for projects which fall under administrative tasks of the mayor’s office, City Council, the Safety Director, that sort of thing. Such things as building maintenance, heating gas, electricity, phones, get paid for, in part, through the general fund. Administrative salaries for elected officials and some appointed staff members come out of the general fund. All of the rest, vehicles and other equipment, tools, gasoline, sewer pipes, asphalt, salt in the winter, all the things done by the city departments, do not. Things like wages for the fire and police departments, maintenance crews, sewer plant and water department workers, lawn maintenance workers, the cost of nuts and bolts, of oil and grease, do not. These are charged under different accounts and paid for from specific accounts, but not the general fund. It has been a bad winter. Cold. Natural gas prices are up. How much of that 219 thousand dollars is left after paying the utility bills for the city? That didn’t come up. Huh.

What else didn’t come up was the decrease in City income which will occur when the County distributes the annual State grant money which the city receives every year. The county commissioners have already alerted the city that this State money will be reduced this year, probably substantially. What will such a reduction effect? Well, we had such a good year last year that everybody in the city got pay raises. Wasn’t much, we are told. An average of somewhere around two to three percent over all. We must have been doing well financially to give pay increases, certainly better than communities around us, because every other municipality either held the line on wages or laid employees off. But we were doing good and had this extra money, so what the heck. The police are still negotiating a pay raise for this year even though the country is in a financial depression.

According to the editorial, Mayor Taylor reports that the general fund balance ended a million dollars less than the previous year. The reason for that is, are you ready for this one, expenses increased but revenue did not. Wow.

What the Mayor said, in a way, is true. What he refers to as expenses is really spending. If you don’t spend it, it is not an expense. You want to cut expenses, you cut spending. It is not that difficult a concept. But last year with what money the City did have, it was spent with the attitude of we have it, let’s use it. No looking forward to the future. No recognition that the economy and its related tax base was still in a freefall. No thought that the money held in reserve might be needed in 2011 or 2012, just use it.

Well, this year we may run out of money. An when we do, there isn’t going to be any more. By law the City cannot run on a deficit budget. To bad the feds and the state don’t have to follow that kind of plan. So what will happen? Cutbacks in services first. Paving, water production and delivery, sewer maintenance, cemetery care, park personnel, cuts in police and fire personnel.

The greatest expense the City has is salaries and wages so personnel will be the first to go. Through a series of badly negotiated union contracts over the years, benefits to union workers in the city, amounting to 48% of their base pay, is added to their wages in the form of medical care, dental care, vacation time, overtime, sick leave, retirement, to mention a few. Think of it. There are people working for the city who are making more in benefits than the citizens who are paying their wages through taxation.

On the other hand, the Mayor is evidently overworked and, according to the Times-Reporter editorial, needs help. Forty percent of his time is spent working with people says the editorial. He needs an Human Resources officer, they go for about 70-thousand dollars a year to start, not including benefits. This would relieve the Mayor from dealing with medical leaves, insurance, the four unions and their bargaining contracts. I am sure his secretary would like that as she does all the paperwork for those types of things and the HR officer would certainly have his own secretarial staff. The mayor would also like to have an assistant general services superintendent and a part-time water clerk. Those additions alone, the way I figure it, will pretty much blow the $219 thousand dollar income tax increase from 2010 without taking the gas bill into consideration.

Such is the problem with the T-R editorial. We have the bright shiny side. Things are good, they say. Things are looking up, they say. Why doesn’t the editorial staff look into what they print? Why don’t they check the facts? What happened to the editorials of past years when they expressed opinions, good or bad, and left the advertisements and publicity to the want ads and social columns? I guess true journalism has succumbed.

Bernie Maddoff and Social Security

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail. Some of you know this but not enough of you.

Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.

Do you need a side-by-side comparison here? Well, here's a nifty little comparison:

BERNIE MADDOFF: Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.

BERNIE MADDOFF: Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in theHamptons and yachts.
SOCIAL SECURITY: Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying.

BERNIE MADDOFF: When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.
SOCIAL SECURITY: When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.

BERNIE MADDOFF: When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.
SOCIAL SECURITY: When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.

Bernie Madoff is in jail. Politicians remain in Washington .

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.” - Ronald Reagan

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” - Milton Friedman

Times-Reporter Firetruck Editorial Gets It Right

The Times-Reporter editorial on Wednesday, January 19, 2011, is commendable. This time they really got it right. Councilwoman Cox and Fire Department Chief Parish got the old ladder truck refurbished without the usual hemming-and-hawing which is typical of bureaucrats.

For twenty years Sandy Cox has been on City Council, much of it as the Chairman of the Finance Committee. She has seen councilmen, mayors, and department heads come and go. But she keeps getting reelected and fortunately for the city, keeps getting reappointed to Chair the Finance Committee. As a result of her experience, she knows where the money is, how much there is, and even more importantly, how not to spend it.

Chief Parish knows firefighting. He is good at it. And he knows equipment. When he went to the City Council two years ago and asked for a new ladder truck there was no question that it needed replacement. He made a good presentation to support his request, one which made a lot of sense, but the price tag was unreasonable, and Cox told him so along with the mandate to find another way. Well, Parish did. He located an outfit in Virginia, one of the few in the country, which rebuilt fire trucks at huge cost savings. It took a while, but when he came back to Council, he had the facts on what had to be done, what it would cost, and how long it would take to refurbish the old ladder truck.

Cox, in the meantime, dug through the budget figures, checked Auditor Gundy’s figures on the financial status of the City, crunched numbers in the cash status reports, and came up with a financial plan whereby the City of New Philadelphia could afford to refurbish the ladder truck to new condition. Council accepted Cox’s financial plan, okayed the purchase, and the City let the contract.

The end result is available for anybody to see. Take a trip down to the station house and see what you taxpayers bought. But as you look at it, marvel at what was accomplished. First no outside financing. No loans. No bond issues. No promissory notes. Even better, the job came in at only 1.3% over the estimate, something unheard of with government contracts. Even more amazing, the truck was delivered within the promised time frame, and at half the cost of a new one. How this was accomplished is simple. Cox does her homework and understands her responsibilities.

This project is notable as it does not fit into the norm of the way New Philadelphia, and other municipalities, do business. It’s all about the money. Take a good, hard look at how politicians do business. And you don’t have to look that far from home. Cox does due diligence. Other bureaucrats in town don’t. If you attend council meetings, and not many do, you hear a lot of “I don’t know”, “I’m not sure”, “I don’t have those figures with me” responses from the administration to questions ranging from finances to water billing, from paving to cash flow. It is difficult to understand why questions on the operation of the city by citizens as well as council members, are not answered concisely by administration representatives nor some council members. Difficult because it is the job of all elected officials, appointed department heads and supervisors, to know enough about the operations they oversee to have those answers. And if they don’t know, they have nobody but themselves to blame because, in short, they don’t do their homework.

Lack of background research by city officials and members of city council is inexcusable. Walking into a Council meeting without a profound understanding of what legislation is going to be considered is more than incompetent. No-one who holds an elected or appointed office does so unwillingly. Be it administrative, legislative, or appointive, each has actively politicked for the position, and part of the responsibility of each is to be fully informed on the legislation they are asking and voting for.

As pointed out in the T-R editorial, because of the efforts of Sandy Cox and Jim Parish, the refurbishing of the ladder truck was a success, not only equipment wise but financially as well. They both did their home work and it worked. New Philadelphia has an all but new ladder truck and the taxpayers got good value for their money.

If you don’t believe that homework, research, and study don’t pay off, consider the fiasco of the Gas Aggregation Plan now going on in the Special/Contact Committee, the two plus years it took the Public Safety Committee to come up with an ineffective noise ordinance, the lack of support and failure of the proposed runway extension at the New Philadelphia Airport, and the granddaddy failure of them all, the rezoning of Franklin Square against the wishes of the New Philadelphia citizen. These and other legislative and administrative problems occur because city officials do not do their due diligence.

All things taken into consideration, Sandy Cox and Jim Parish did a superb job on the part of the city to save half-a-million dollars and still come up with a modern ladder truck. Yep. This time the Times Reporter editorial got it right.

New Philadelphia Tech Park Viability Questioned

In a recent Times-Reporter article, CIC Seeks Financial Aid From Commissioners, January 8, 2011, it was reported that the Community Improvement Corporation of Tuscarawas County (CIC) requested an interest free loan from the County Commissioners in the amount of $75,000 to help cover staff expenses of $100,000. To help cover the other $25,000, the CIC requested a matching fund grant of $22,500. Without this help, it is possible that the CIC could not meet expenses and would have to close. The County Commissioners made no commitment but are looking into the request, and well they should.

Over the past years, beginning in 2001, the CIC along, with the Tuscarawas County Port Authority, has been involved in the development of the Tuscarawas Regional Technology Park. The plan was to create a high tech park on the east end of New Philadelphia near Kent State Tuscarawas which would attract high tech research and manufacturing. If successful, such a park would provide jobs, increased tax revenues, and prosperity for the region. But, it hasn’t worked that way even though the City of New Philadelphia, Tuscarawas County, the State of Ohio, and the Federal Government, have dumped in more than 12.5 million dollars to its construction. And what do we have to show for it?

Cost overruns for one thing. A law suit or two for another. A hilly area where level ground for construction is nonexistent. Streets, sewers, and water lines which lay unused. A water tank, at a cost of 1.2 million dollars, designed to supply the Tech Park and the east end of town, which is providing water to residences. Oh, yes. There is also a fiberglass broadband linkup ready to go. The only thing missing is interest by businesses willing to buy property there.

Of the 12.5 million dollars already spent or committed to the Tech Park, $5.4 million are committed for construction of an Incubator Building. The Incubator will provide prospective businesses with a place to use as start-up sites from which to grow and expand, either in the Tech Park or elsewhere. It will be a year or two until the Incubator is ready for occupancy, but even then there is no surety that tenants will be occupying the facility. And where will this money come from?

The State of Ohio, the federal government will give grants and loans, as will probably the county and surrounding cities. Kent State Tuscarawas made a $809,000 donation. Which brings up the question, if Kent State is able to donate $809 thousand for the Incubator, why tuition raises there?

But there is a bigger question. Considering the 17.9 million dollars already spent or allocated for the Tech Park, is it really worth it to the public as a whole? When does such a large expenditure reach the point of no return? When does the realization that throwing money at a lost cause isn’t going to work? Government is fallible. Government fails because it is unable to understand that it lacks the knowledge to operate a business in a way in which the public in general profits rather than a small, select group. It fails to realize that it can not succeed in such a project when the principle decision makers do not understand the basic principles of business.

If there were a real need on the part of private business to have such a tech park, private business would develop it because there would be a profit to be made. Private business requires a profit on investment to exist. If there is none, investors don’t put their money on the line. Government doesn’t have this outlook. Governments, at all levels, use theft of earned income, through taxation, for to finance projects no investor would buy into because of the lack of return on their investment.

Ten years of false premises, poor planning, tunnel vision on the part of the CIC regarding the New Philadelphia Technical Park, has led to an 18 million dollar debacle which we can no longer afford. The plan made in times when the economy was on a rise no longer applies. It is now obvious that the New Philadelphia Technical Park is not high on the list of desirable locations for businesses. Negative factors include the difficulty of doing business in Ohio, lack of accessibility to the Tech Park, lack of a comprehensive marketing plan, an advertising budget and sales staff which is inadequate to the task, and continued dependence on consultants who have failed to produce tenants for the Tech Park. The inability of management to overcome these obstacles has been accepted as the norm by those who are responsible for its success.

There are only two choices left to the CIC and those who are proponents of the New Philadelphia Technical Park. The first is to accept that the plan has failed, its good intentions not meeting the requirements which businesses desire, and let the plan pass away. The second is to objectively appraise the work already done, determine what caused the failure, and adapt the site to another, more practical use. In either case, rather than spending an additional 5.5 million dollars for the Incubator Building, return the money to the public coffers to reduce the public debt. To continue to spend taxpayer dollars for a project which, in ten years, has failed to produce even one seriously interested response from a viable business is a breach of trust to taxpaying workers and businesses be they located locally or nationally.

It is sad but undeniable that the Tech Park failed because of poor planning and inadequate management. Had the original planners done their due diligence when considering a project of this type, the proposed project might never have been seriously considered, saving millions of dollars which have been spent accomplishing nothing but increased debt. It is time to let it go.

New Philadelphia Police Contract Comments

Had two comments which we really wanted the readers of this blog to have the opportunity to read. Both come from that avid reader and commenter of blogs, Anonymous. Both of them were posted on January 8, 2011. We thought they were interesting because of the point of view The difficulty is that they refer to past blogs and following the usual procedure, that is tying them to the blogs they refer to, the comments would probably never be seen by other readers because of the ages of the original blogs.

The first, refers to a blog written on November 17, 2009, titled New Philadelphia Police Contract, the link to which is http://nptattler.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-philadelphia-police-contract.html. The comment follows:

“You speak about "not singling out the police department" when you rant for paragraph upon paragraph about how the expenses of the city take priority over the well-being and overall protection of the citizens you represented. The job of the police in any state, city or village is to uphold the constitution and protect those that they serve, (i.e. the public). For you, as a formal elected official to sit here and spew forth details of a contract in order to inflame more than inform citizens is wrong. Regardless of your personal opinions of how things are conducted inside of this city, make your outlook at least somewhat balanced.”

The second comment refers to a more recent blog written on December 12, 2010, titled New Philadelphia Union Asks For Pay Raises, the link to which is

http://nptattler.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-philadelphia-police-union-asks-for.html. The comment follows:

“http://www.timesreporter.com/newsnow/x389484517/Three-men-in-custody-after-one-of-the-largest-seizures-in-New-Phila-history?img=4 It would seem that officers working for the New Philadelphia Police Department don't offer any "increase of services or patrolling of troublesome areas" do they? I guess this one incident is just "business as usual".”

Glad for the comments and we thank you for your efforts, whoever you are.

30 Second Caller Uses First Amendment Against Christianity

If you want a definitive example of why the United States is in such a deplorable state, take a look at the 30 Seconds comments for Monday, January 3, 2011 published in the Times-Reporter. Somebody, who has no idea of what the United States Constitution is all about, made the following statement: ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That is not a quote from a godless liberal, those are the first words of the First Amendment that the founding fathers wrote. It is intended to protect this country from being taken over by any religion, including Christianity.”

The comment is designed to make a point which is hidden, most likely with a political motive in mind. Considering the timing, it opens some questions, none of which will be answered by he who submitted it to the Times-Reporter.

The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The statement made by the anonymous 30 Seconds submitter, is privileged by the First Amendment. But it is a half truth, a standard tactic for those who do not use logic to back up their statements. The rest of statement of the Amendment forbids prohibition of the free exercise of religion by the United States Congress.

To this point, the Congress has done neither. It has not tried to establish a national religion nor has it passed legislation to prohibit the free exercise of religion in the United States. United States courts have prohibited the free exercise of religion through bench legislation, the most blatant being the United States Supreme Court who has consistently ruled against the Second Amendment on every occasion the matter of religion has come before it.

The writers of the Constitution were specific in what they said. The terminology is concise and understandable. Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the practice of religion in the United States. It’s that simple. Federal courts rule on matters of the Constitution, the Supreme Court particularly, and in the case of the First Amendment, should rule only on the action which Congress takes, not on arguments which occur within the sovereign states. It’s called home rule and such matters belong under the jurisdiction of such states, not legislative federal courts..

Those who fear and attack Christianity, but apparently no other religion including Islam, are hard to fathom. The United States was founded by Christian believers who brought their beliefs and work ethics to a new world. They built it into the most powerful and productive country in the history of the world. It was not until the sixties when the Christian ethic began to be debased that the United States started into decline. There is no question, regardless of religious orientation, that the loss of the Judeo-Christian ethic which built this country, has produced disastrous social and economic results. Crime runs rampant in government. Lack of responsibility in the family has created a new class of poor, enslaved to the government, totally dependent on welfare payments, trapped in a life without hope.

The caller of the Times-Reporter article has an ax to grind which he does not explain. Not knowing what that ax is, opens inquiry into its interpretation. With the political situation being what it is, could this be a continuation of the debate as to whether a mosque should be built in downtown New York City to commemorate the successful murders of four thousand by Muslim terrorists? Perhaps he is the typical atheist who believes that Christ never existed, was not resurrected, and is a meaningless legend, but is so afraid that he is wrong in his belief that he fears even the mention of Jesus’ name? Or could it be possible that he really doesn’t understand what Christianity has done for this nation?

What other country has freely in the past done so much for so many people in so many countries? No country has provided the relief to stricken peoples without asking for something in return as we have. After the Second World War, we rebuilt the economies of our enemies. We have responded to disasters with aid and succor as no other nation has ever done. We have gone in harm’s way to protect those who could not protect themselves. We have liberated more people from oppression and helped them reconstruct their lives than any country which ever existed. And we did it because of a history of responsibility, honor, and hard work, all based on the Christian ethic.

If the caller believed the Constitution, and the First Amendment, was important, if he understood what they meant, he would not be complaining about Christianity, which he really is. Rather, he would be up in arms because of the loss of constitutional guarantees which have been taken from him by the federal government. He would be outraged by the illegal usurpation of those rights by President Obama, the courts, and the Congress. He would be ashamed that he stands by and allows the practice of Christianity to be forbidden in violation to the Constitution.

An atheist? A Muslin? A socialist? Who knows. But the caller is certainly not someone who comes from the heritage which made this country great. Undoubtedly though, he is one who will complain the loudest when the freedom, liberty, and ethics brought to America by Christians has disappeared.

Whoever called the comment to 30 Seconds is allowed to his opinion, guaranteed by the First Amendment. He is also allowed the ignorance of what the Constitution is and its meaning to his well being. Once again it is proven that one doesn’t need the facts to have an opinion.

New Philadelphia Proposed Sewer Rate Increase

2010 ended in New Philadelphia with the City still able to sit up and take nourishment. Not much more, but still alive. The effect on City finances of the mismanagement at both the federal and state levels, the increased costs of wages and salaries for city employees, and the lack of income for the City due to lost jobs and the resultant lost taxes, have put a strain on the City budget which borders on the disastrous.

Many of the financial problems could have been avoided. Pay increases for city employees were ill timed, excessive, and prompted by greed. In the immediate future financial problems will only be compounded, if judged by past performance, when all city departments, with the exception of the Fire Department, will attempt to secure additional wage and benefit increases in the coming year. (The Fire Department got a three year contract in 2010.) Wage and benefits increases in the next year could push the City budget over the edge, resulting in layoffs of city employees and cutbacks in services which would be unnecessary.

In some things the City had wisdom. An outstanding example is the refurbishing of the Fire Department’s ladder truck. If you haven’t had the opportunity to see it, go take a look. It is truly a thing of beauty and efficiency. Congratulations to all who were involved in that project. Fire Chief Parrish showed the rest of the city how to get ‘er done. The presentations he made to City Council, the need, the options, the costs, the answers to questions, all added up to the approval and financing necessary. Who won in this one? We all did. Fire protection in New Philadelphia was raised to a new level of excellence because of the Chief’s due diligence.

Reiser Avenue sewers are another impending emergency. When Reiser Avenue was first laid out as part of an industrial complex, the sewer system seemed adequate. Perhaps planners at the time did not expect industrial growth in the area to expand the way it did, or failed to appreciate the sewer requirements if it would, the end result being the inadequacy of the system today is causing serious concerns. To move sewerage in the area a new lift station is required. Along with, again, some government grants, the Reiser project will probably have sufficient funds to install a lift station with the capability of handing increased waste flow now and in the future.

Last March, Mayor Taylor proposed widening University Drive. Should this take place another financial crisis would be hidden in the shadows. The University Drive sewers have been in place a number of years and certainly, judging by those of similar age, are going to need some serious work. If there is even a remote possibility of construction on University Drive, now is the time to make the decision on how to proceed. Replacement of the pipes is certainly an option, but so is relining them. Relining is the least expensive and from what we have been told in the past, just as effective. Whatever option is chosen, planning is essential now to prevent another wasteful exercise as has happened in the past, in which roads are constructed only to be torn up at a later date to replace or repair existing sewers.

Lump these problems and their solutions together and the hard questions begin. How are we going to pay for these sewer improvements as well other projects which are waiting in the wings? How indeed.

The argument will be given that the state and federal governments will provide funds to help make such projects possible. Where is the guarantee for that? It doesn’t exist. The incoming governor is talking about cutbacks in state grants. If the feds cut back funding to the states again, which they will, where is the state going to get the money? Does New Philadelphia have adequate reserves to remain in business without outside help?

The immediate fix is the proposed increase in sewer rates. Those using 400 cubic feet or less will be charged an additional $0.50 a billing period for their sewer usage. At seven hundred cubic feet and above the rate will increase by four-percent. The fifty-cent figure touted by the administration fades away upon examination. To find out what your actual increase will be takes a little arithmetic. Look at your recent water/sewer bills and check the “Usage 100 Cu Ft” listing for Sewer, it will be the second line down. If it is less than 4 the new rate will be $13.40. If it is 5 or more, multiply the billed amount by .04 to get the increase, or by 1.04 to get the total charge.

The lack of planning in the past, combined with uncontrolled wage, benefit, and salary increases have put the City into a serious financial state. It has become imperative that programs of long range planning become routine in all phases of city operation. Spending on nonessential projects must be stopped. The Mayor must take the role of a leader and accept the responsibility of running the city, not merely agreeing with demands made by its employees. City Council must accept its responsibility to research and understand the legislation it considers and desist from rubber stamping the Administration’s requests.

Citizens, call your Councilmen. Call the Mayor. Insist they stand up to their responsibilities. Without your active involvement, there will be no change. Stay informed, get involved, save your city.

New Philadelphia Committee Mishandles Gas Aggregation Proposal

Years ago, Dr. Laurence J. Peter wrote a book, The Peter Principle, the theme of which was that people advance to their level of incompetence, and then remain there to the detriment of the business or enterprise in which they are involved. In recent years, this concept has become combined with a lack of responsibility by individuals to fulfill their obligations to others. This combination, plus ignorance of what the position of City Councilman entails, has become commonplace in the New Philadelphia City Council.

The following example is illuminating.

For some months now, the Special/Contact Committee, Mr. John Zucal, Chairman, has been dealing with a gas aggregation issue for the city. The aggregation theory is that if a number of citizens go with a single gas supplier, the rates charged to them as a group will be less than what they can obtain as individuals. For the most part this is true. The Administration chose to accomplish this through the services of a broker specializing in obtaining these prices.

In the attempt to obtain an aggregate natural gas supplier, the Special/Contact Committee has failed to perform its obligation to the City Council and, as a direct result of that failure, its obligation to the citizenry of New Philadelphia.

Consider the following:

The selection of Buckeye Energy as a broker for the City was done without due diligence on the part of the Contact/Special Committee. Prior to the vote accepting Buckeye as the City’s sole agent, no other broker was interviewed by Zucal’s committee. When asked by Councilwoman Sandy Cox if Buckeye Energy’s performance was investigated, Zucal replied references given by Mr. Bellish were checked and he was satisfied with Buckeye and Bellish’s performance. When Cox reported other municipalities had concerns with Buckeye, Zucal stated that the mayor and he were satisfied with Bellish. The question was closed, no further response was forthcoming.

Mr. Bellish recommended Direct Energy as the preferred natural gas supplier to the citizenry. Mr. Zucal concurred, recommending City Council approve his recommendation. Then it became apparent Direct Energy, who had recently been the supplier for the City of New Philadelphia, was in a disagreement with the City because of its performance. Although Buckeye Energy did not uncover this disagreement, Zucal permitted Buckeye to propose another company, Constellation New Energy Gas Division. No inquiry was made into Constellation by Buckeye or Mr. Zucal’s Committee. A check of Constellation by New Philadelphia Tattler, revealed a penalty of five million of dollars imposed by the Federal Government for its avoidance in following government regulations concerning its gas distribution practices which is yet unexplained. When this was brought to the attention of Mr. Zucal, he made no comment and no follow up was reported by his committee.

When the legislation was presented to City Council to accept Constellation New Energy Gas Division LLC as the “approved supplier” on November 22, 2010, the Administration and Mr. Zucal hoped the acceptance of Constellation would pass on the first reading. “No” votes by Councilwomen Sandy Cox and Winnie Walker, who objected to their late receipt of the Constellation agreement, prevented its passage. Cox stated that she did not have sufficient time to read the agreement, a feeling shared by Walker. As a result, the vote to waive the rule requiring three readings before voting on the resolution failed. Mr. Zucal commented in a later interview, that it didn’t pass because of a “bureaucratic SNAFU ”.

A letter from Robert Conner to Mr. Michael Johnson, City Law Director, concerning the terms of the Constellation agreement, was forwarded to the Mayor and City Council, and subsequently published on this blog site (see blog New Philadelphia Gas Supplier Agreement Questioned). Because of questions raised by that letter, Mr. Zucal, at the December 13, 2010 City Council meeting, requested Resolution 58-2010, the acceptance of Constellation as the gas supplier for the City, be tabled until January 10, a request passed unanimously by City Council. Cox read a statement after the vote in which she stated her concerns about past financial and operational practices which brought about the federal inquiry and fines to Constellation. In an interview with the news media, Zucal stated that Mayor Taylor didn’t have time to look into the gas aggregation situation and that is why he, Taylor, hired Bellish to seek out a company for him. In addition, he told the media, “The information Sandy (Cox) shared, although somewhat relevant, is really insignificant at this point in time.”

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Who has the responsibility for getting this legislation passed through City Council? Certainly not Mayor Taylor who can only request such legislation. Only City Council has authority to pass legislation.

The structure of City Council is such that any legislation first must pass through an appropriate committee before it reaches the Council floor.

It is the responsibility of the Committee to which legislation is assigned to investigate, using due diligence, to obtain all the facts pertaining any resolution or ordinance assigned it. It is the responsibility of the Chairman of that Committee to lead and direct such investigation and deliberation required to provide answers to council members when asked. It is the Chairman’s responsibility to oversee and approve ordinances and resolutions prepared by the Law Director, assuring they are what the Committee recommended, and are written as to be understandable to all who read them. It is his responsibility to provide direction to his committee, request their input, and to reach agreement within his committee before presenting legislation to the full Council.

Committee members should aid the chairman in finding information which is important in understanding the legislation. They also have the responsibility to seek out data which could effect the final legislation as well as the floor vote. Their input to the chairman should be pertinent, accurate, and timely, providing both pros and cons with which to judge pending actions.

The discussion, or lack of it, which took place during the attempt to pass Resolution 58-2010 is memorable because it reached a low point in the activities of New Philadelphia’s City Council. It is a memorial to ineffectiveness. Questions asked by council members were unanswered or ignored. Deficiencies of companies vying for New Philadelphia’s business were accepted without question. Delivery prices of natural gas were never quoted. Bellish provided questionable information which the Committee never questioned. Competitive bids for agents and suppliers were not requested as required. The Committee Chairman placed blame for his lack of information on the Mayor, the lack of passage of the resolution on incompetence of members of the Council, both allegations unfair.

The condition of New Philadelphia’s City Council is the result of citizen apathy. Individuals with potential to serve on City Council choose not to run. Unqualified people sit on Council by default. Being the only candidate for a ward seat is not an election and leads to indifference.

Legislation is passed by council members who do not understand its language or its implications.

A council member who does not take his position seriously, does not accept responsibility of the position, does not act to represent the people who elected him, does not ask questions or do the research required to gain knowledge of the issues before he votes, and does not understand how the system works, has no moral right to claim a council seat.

Attempting to legislate for New Philadelphia requires a dedicated council of seven members. You have lost control of your city through incompetence of many City Council members. Take it back. Do not let your future be decided by part-time council members who neither understand nor have a commitment to the responsibility which comes with the position. Citizens, you must become involved. At the very least, attend Committee and City Council meetings. Consider running for office. You owe it to yourself and your city.

Ohio Deer Hunters Donate 416,400 Meals To Needy

COLUMBUS, OH – Ohio deer hunters have donated more than 104,100 pounds of venison to local food banks so far this deer season, according to Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife.

“I am happy to see this program continue to grow each year. Ohio hunters once again have shown their generosity so Ohio’s food pantries will receive the nutritious red meat they so desperately need,” said David M. Graham, chief of the Division of Wildlife.

The 104,100 pounds equals approximately 416,400 meals for needy Ohioans. To date, 2,082 deer have been donated with plenty of deer hunting opportunity left in the 2010-11 season. Last year at this time, 1,910 deer had been donated representing 95,500 pounds of venison.

Last year FHFH collected 116,750 pounds of venison from 2,336 deer through the entire season, which ran from September 2009 to February 7, 2010. Ohio county chapters with the highest numbers of deer donations so far are: Licking-208; Muskingum, Morgan and Perry-189; Coshocton, Tuscarawas, and Knox-160; Athens, Gallia, Hocking, Meigs, Vinton and Washington-137; and Franklin-121.

“We are thrilled that the partnership between FHFH and ODNR has resulted in greater numbers of donated deer – and meals provided – across Ohio again this year. With high unemployment in many areas fueling an even greater need for nutritious food items at food banks and feeding ministries, this growth could not have come at a better time, ” according to Josh Wilson, FHFH national operations director.

Hunters still have a weekend of deer-gun hunting, December 18-19, and eight weeks of archery hunting in Ohio. Archery season remains open until February 6. The statewide muzzleloader deer-hunting season will be held, January 8 – 11, 2011.

The Division of Wildlife collaborated with Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry in an effort to assist with the processing costs associated with donating venison to a food bank. So far, a $100,000 subsidy grant was provided in two $50,000 allotments that are to be matched with funds generated or collected by FHFH. The division subsidized this year's FHFH operation as an additional deer management tool, helping wildlife managers encourage hunters to kill more does.

Venison that is donated to food banks must be processed by a federal, state or locally inspected and insured meat processor that is participating with FHFH. Hunters wishing to donate their deer to a food bank are not required to pay for the processing of the venison as long as the program has funds available to cover the cost. There are currently 71 participating meat processors across the state. A list is provided at www.fhfh.org.

Currently there are 31 local chapters across the state with a need for more. Anyone interested in becoming a local program coordinator or a participating meat processor should visit the "Local FHFH" page at www.fhfh.org. The Web page includes a current list of coordinators, program names and the counties they serve.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources ensures a balance between wise use and protection of our natural resources for the benefit of all. Visit the ODNR Web site at www.ohiodnr.com.


(EDITORS NOTE: Specific numbers of deer donated by individual chapters can be obtained by calling Vicki Ervin or Josh Wilson at the numbers listed below.)


For more information, contact:
Rick or Josh Wilson, FHFH National Headquarters - 1-866 -438-3434
Vicki Ervin, ODNR Division of Wildlife - 614-265-6325
Lindsay Linkhart, ODNR Division of Wildlife, Central Ohio - 614-644-3925
Tom Lavergne, ODNR Division of Wildlife, Northwest Ohio - 419-424-5000
Jamey Graham, ODNR Division of Wildlife, Northeast Ohio -330-644-2293
Susie Vance, ODNR Division of Wildlife, Southeast Ohio - 740-589-9930
Kathy Garza-Behr, ODNR Division of Wildlife, Southwest Ohio - 937-372-9261
Heidi Hetzel-Evans, ODNR Media Relations - 614-265-6860

New Philadelphia City Council Meetings for December 13, 2010

For those of you who may be interested, the following items are scheduled to be discussed at tonight's, December 13, 2010, New Philadelphia City Council committee meetings which begin at 6:15 PM.

6:15 PM -Review New Philadelphia Fire Department Ambulance Charges

6:45 PM - Renewal of the lease between the City of New Philadelphia and the State of Ohio for the use of state property upon which the east end of the runway at the city airport rests

7:00 PM - Increases in the sewer rates for the City of New Philadelphia

Immediately following the 7:00 PM meeting - Appointment of Airport Commission members for the coming years

Regular City Council meeting begins at 7:30 PM. Of special interest in tonight's meeting will be the Gas Aggregation resolution.

New Philadelphia Gas Supplier Agreement Questioned

The following Letter sent to Michael Johnson, New Philadelphia Law Director, by Robert Conner expresses concerns about the gas aggregation legislation, Resolution 58-2010, being considered by the New Philadelphia City Council at the request of Mayor Taylor and sponsored by Mr. John Zucal, Chairman of the Special/Contact Committee. Copies of this letter were distributed by Mr. Johnson to Mayor Taylor, Council President Day, and all members of the New Philadelphia City Council. It raises questions about the appropriateness of the proposed legislation being discussed in the City Council. Resolution 58-2010 will be presented for a second reading at the City Council meeting on Monday, December 13, 2010, which begins at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

* * * * * *

ROBERT N. CONNER
122 North Avenue, NW
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
330-602-7001 rnconner@yahoo.com

December 4, 2010

Mr. Michael Johnson, Law Director
City of New Philadelphia
117 South Broadway
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663

Dear Mike,

Thank you for the information concerning Resolution 58-2010. I have looked it over and have some concerns in which you may be interested.

The use of the City letterhead in conjunction with that of Constellation Energy (CNEG), while an excellent marketing tool, should be reconsidered. The implication is that the City of New Philadelphia is a participating partner with Constellation in the providing of natural gas to its citizens.

The letter itself is misleading, stating, “Under this arrangement,….(CNEG) will be the exclusive natural gas supplier and provide the City of New Philadelphia’s citizens with offers for service beginning with the February 2011 billing cycle.” This is not factual as other natural gas suppliers which are doing business in New Philadelphia will not be terminated. “Exclusive” indicates that Constellation will be the sole supplier of natural gas within the City and is the only choice. From a marketing standpoint, while effective, the terminology raises a question of marketing ethics.

The reference to billing and maintenance as “your local utility” is ambiguous. The specific designation of Dominion East Ohio should be used to prevent confusion. A minor point but one which could be a precursor of misunderstanding.

The letter has potential for involving the City in future lawsuits. The tenor of the letter is that New Philadelphia, by authority of the Mayor, recommends New Philadelphia residents use Constellation Energy and concurs with Constellation Energy’s policies and procedures. The dual signature blocks at the bottom of the letter indicate a partnership.

The third page, first paragraph, of the letter, it states, “Voters in the City of New Philadelphia approved this aggregation program and in response the City of New Philadelphia passed an ordinance enacting the same.” I have no knowledge of such a referendum appearing on a ballot for the City of New Philadelphia, nor the passage of such, by the voters of New Philadelphia. Such a blatant lie should not be propagated among the citizenry, especially under the letterhead and signature of the Mayor of New Philadelphia.

Concerning the Contract:

Article 1.1

The City of New Philadelphia is committed to actively promote and market the services of CNEG. It further states that for the period of the contract the “City agrees that it will not endorse any other gas supplier during the term of this Agreement.” Such an agreement may open the City to charges of discrimination and/or possible action under Anti-Trust legislation.

Article 1.2:

The City of New Philadelphia is committed to participate in paying for advertising and mailing of advertising materials for CNEG.

Both Articles 1.1 and 1.2 are committing the City of New Philadelphia to become an active partner in the advertising and marketing programs of CNEG. This is not in the best interests of the City. Such commitment and action by the City, or its officers, may constitute a serious conflict of interest and/or constitutional issues. The City should not become involved in the activities of private businesses which are attempting to sell to the citizenry a product for financial gain.

Article 1.2(b) states that CNEG “may utilize City resources for advertising, promotion and consumer communications….for the term of this Agreement.” This opens the possibility of the use of City copy machines, sign making capabilities, personnel to deliver advertising and promotional materials house to house, advertising on City water bills, advertising on City vehicles, and commits the city to provide information on names, addresses, and possibly other information for all city residents listed in the City’s computer systems.

It is not in the best interest of the City to enter into an agreement or partnership with any vendor in which the vendor will be selling a product to citizens of the City. The use of the City logo, the terminology used in the cover letter, the Mayor signing the cover letter along with a CNEG representative, could be construed as a City mandate to use a specific natural gas supplier, namely Constellation New Energy.

There are other issues which cause concern. Thomas Bellish, of Buckeye Energy Brokers, who by resolution was authorized to represent the City in finding a proper natural gas supplier, recommended Direct Energy as the best choice gas supplier when the City is in conflict with Direct Energy because of a performance issue. This displays a gross lack of due diligence on the part of Mr. Bellish.

Mr. Bellish offered a donation to the City of $3.00 for each resident who signed up with Direct Energy, an offer which was not repeated with the CNEG proposal. Why was the $3.00 offered in the first place and why not with CNEG? Could it be because of a difference in natural gas price between the two being overshadowed by the commission?

During his original presentation, Bellish stated that he would be the New Philadelphia resident’s representative with the gas supplier. In a discussion with Robert Berry, Vice President of CNEG, Berry stated after the Marketing Agreement was signed, neither Bellish nor Buckeye Energy would be involved. All transactions after the signing would be between CNEG and its customers, no intermediary involved.

Could the City have done the same thing that Bellish did and come up with the same agreement. In short, yes. By contacting suppliers of natural gas the City Administration could have cut the same deal. There is the possibility that a better deal could have been made. Considering that Bellish works on a commission basis, the offer from CNEG might not be the least expensive to the consumer, but the most advantageous to Mr. Bellish. The way the situation is now, the New Philadelphia gas user who buys into the CNEG agreement may never know.

The City of New Philadelphia is not considering a contract with Constellation New Energy for the supply of natural gas to New Philadelphia. It may not enter into any contract on behalf of an individual citizen of the city. What the City and its Mayor are about to enter into is a marketing agreement between the City and CNEG which will allow CNEG the opportunity to use the City’s reputation in an aggressive marketing plan based on the good name of the City of New Philadelphia to sell natural gas to its residents. It is the same type of marketing agreement signed between Michael Jordan and Nike, with the same objective, to add legitimacy and credence to a sales campaign. What will the City be endorsing next? Pepsi over Coke? Burger King over McDonalds? Lauder over Clinique?

Lastly, I find it inconceivable that the City would consider passing legislation authorizing a letter signed by Mayor Taylor and an Exclusive Marketing Agreement, which contain empty spaces. These unfilled spaces reference contact information for Constellation Energy and other critical items including the cost per cubic foot of natural gas delivered, and the dates the agreement will be in force. All pertinent information should be stated in writing before any agreement comes out of Committee and is presented on the Council floor. The Marketing Agreement being considered for passage in its present form is tantamount to signing a contract for the purchase of real estate without the location and price being disclosed. I know of no attorney who would recommend the purchase of anything by presenting the seller with a signed blank check. If 58-2010 is passed in its present form, all parties involved will have failed their moral and legal responsibilities.

Passage of Resolution 58-2010 is ill-advised. The City of New Philadelphia has no moral nor legal right to become involved in a marketing plan with a supplier of any sort which is in a competitive industry doing business within the City.

Thank you for your time. I would appreciate your comments and am happy to discuss this with you at any time should you request it.

Respectfully,



Robert N. Conner

Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, And The American Character

Sixty-nine years ago the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. In what President Roosevelt called a day of infamy, the United States was drawn into the world's most destructive, devastating war.

I lived in Seattle in those dark days. The military was not prepared to take on a two front war. One of 35 anti-aircraft guns available to protect the west coast was located at the city playground not far from our house. We kids thought it pretty impressive. The barrel pointing upward and nearby the big ears of a sound detector which was designed to hear aircraft engines of approaching aircraft and determine their altitude and direction in which they were flying. No radar, just sound. We were unprepared to fight. Had the Japs landed on the west coast that day, the only protection the country could offer were the Rocky Mountains.

There was one factor which only Japanese Admiral Yamamoto recognized. He said at the time of the attack, "We have awakened a sleeping giant." From the destruction of the Pacific Fleet, the loss of 2,500 American lives, the sleeping giant, the American character shook itself from the depression of the 1930s which was still ongoing in 1941, took a deep breath, and joined in defeating two of the greatest threats to freedom the world has ever experienced.

On December 8, the United States declared war on Japan. On December 11, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. In four days, the United States took on which, at the time, were two undefeated military opponents, the Germans and the Japanese. There was no hesitation. There was no fear. Deep concern, but no thought of letting either the Japanese or Germans take away our liberty and freedom.

America had the industry to do the job. Natural resources which God had provided our nation were plentiful. Factories producing consumer products were converted to the production of war materials. Singer Sewing Machine production was changed to weapons manufacturing in a matter of months. Aircraft production exploded and in less than a year the Boeing plant in Seattle was producing a B-17 Flying Fortress every hour, 24 hours a day, and they were only one of many plants which built the mightiest air force in the world. The American worker was up to the job and provided all the materials that the U.S. military needed to fight a two front war while at the same time produced enough additional materials to supply our allies.

The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps expanded rapidly. Before the 1939 draft, the Army alone was only 175,000 men strong. The draft increased it to 1.4 million before December 7. The response of the country after Pearl Harbor was a rapid increase it the Army's size, not only because of the draft but of patriots who enlisted, to more than 8.3 million men by the end of the war in 1945.

Were it not for the United States involvement, the war would certainly have been lost. Without America's men, resources, know-how, and America's belief in God, World War Two would have been lost.

It was the American spirit which made the difference. American pride, courage, and determination freed the world from oppression and saved our country, our liberty, and freedom. It was the American ethic which, after the war was over, rebuilt Europe, including Germany, Italy, and Japan. The United States took nothing in the way of conquered lands. It helped the countries devastated by war, aided people displaced from their homes, fed the hungry and cured the sick, not because it had to, but because it was right.

Sixty-nine years ago America suffered through the beginning of a world changing conflict. But in the long run, it won and for a while the world was a better place.

December 7, 1941 was not a disgrace, disaster, or humiliation. It was a day which showed that the American dream was capable of reaching into its deepest inner soul and meeting any challenge. That dream still lives.

New Philadelphia Police Union Asks For Pay Increase

Thanksgiving is over. Black Friday, that magical day after Thanksgiving when stores cut prices to reasonable levels in hopes of breaking even for the year, is past. The weather is cold, damp, and wet. The prospects of snow increase day by day. Unemployment is on the increase again. Housing foreclosures are on the increase. Personal bankruptcies have exceeded one and a half million through October this year, a new high. More than 58,500 businesses filed bankruptcy papers during the same period. Negotiations for pay increases for city employees has begun. Yep, the holiday season is underway.

We live in an age of greed, selfishness, and feelings of entitlement. Starting in the 1960s, the work ethic in the United States changed. Pride of craftsmanship was traded for the easy dollar. This is the curse of the MBA, that highly educated group, if you have low expectations of education, of managers whose total ambition was to build the bottom line, to make larger profits. These supposed financial geniuses had the book learning but no practical understanding of business. It is unfortunate that they succeeded in destroying the concepts of dedication to God, country, and family which made the United States the great nation it was once. In its place they created a society where bigger is better, where morality, responsibility, and pride in self was replaced by the concept of “you owe me”.

The principle of responsibility for one’s self has all but disappeared. The pride of a job well done has for the most part been replaced with the concept of I deserve things and if I don’t work for them, then somebody should provide them to me. The idea of being paid for the work one does seems no longer to exist. Employment is now considered to be a right instead of a privilege.

It used to be that that pay raises were based on achievement. You work harder, you get promoted, you make more money. That and the acceptance of responsibility, was the bellwether of pay raises. Today that is no longer the case. There does not seem to be any correlation between ability, competence, professionalism and wage scales. The last negotiations between the City and the Police Union, along with the other three city unions, were unique in a number of ways. With the rest of the country in a depression, pay raises were granted city employees not based on achievement or job proficiency.

Police officers in New Philadelphia are in the top 20% of wage earners in the city. The average salary in the department, including benefits (wages, sick pay, hospital and medical care, retirement, clothing, paid holidays, overtime, personal days, special assignment differentials, et cetera) is in excess of $65,000 per annum. Not bad when the average income for city residents is somewhat below $44,000.

How did the wage scale get to the level it has for city employees during three depression years? What happened is two fold.

First, the administration has been inept in its negotiations. Unions have been advised by union negotiators, lawyers who do nothing but represent union members in conflicts with the city. The City failed to hire competent attorneys to represent it in such discussions. During the past negotiations the attorney hired by the Administration was not qualified in the intricacies of labor law, being primarily a human resources (personnel) manager. The City was in jeopardy at the start and never recovered. Members of City Council, for the most part, did not perform diligently to determine if the city was able to afford the pay raises, most of which were based on creation of new positions of sergeant and lieutenant, and the lumping together of all patrolmen into the highest paid level. City councilmen generally approved pay increases for 2% with the promise of reopening negotiations at the end of the year.

Secondly, when disputed contracts go to arbitration, the referee has a long association with the union movement, generally as a long term union member of good standing. When union lawyers present their case to a friendly arbitrator while the City uses an attorney who is not familiar with, nor has experience with, union law, the result is fairly well predictable. In the past, such conflicts have been decided on the principle that the City has the money and can afford the increases. There is no reason to suspect that the same formula will be used in the upcoming union contract discussions.

The police are going to ask for more money, probably more benefits as well. In return they won’t be asked to do anything more for the citizens than they already do. No increase in services, no increase in courtesy, no increase in patrolling of troublesome areas, no increased enforcement of the laws and ordinances which they ignore now. Business as usual, that’s the plan. But if they don’t get the wage and benefit increase they want? Well, it can’t get any worse. Or can it?

So here we go again. There will be much ado in the negotiations but they will be the same smoke and mirrors approach of the past. The city will be hit again for unjustified increased expense brought about by self-interest on the part of the unions. The added expense to the city will be made up as the mayor’s promised during his election campaign, to raise city taxes to pay the cost of City wage increases and layoffs will not be considered.

So here we have it. Another year of neophyte City negotiators taking on Union professionals. You would think that the Mayor and City Council would learn from their past ineptitude. But they won’t.

Welcome to the start of the holiday season.