New Philadelphia Bureaucratic Surveys

Years ago I was involved in initiating surveys for a large manufacturing company. While I did not write the surveys, I had a voice on what the survey questions were and how they were posed. Back then we were seeking answers to questions which would determine what products would be sold, how we could make them better, and most importantly, what was wrong with what we already had on the market.

One of the managers of the survey company gave me some good advice. Never, he said, write a question for a survey which limits or directs the answer. There are two surveys currently on the Internet, one from the New Philadelphia School System, the other from the City of New Philadelphia. Both are asking the citizen to rate certain aspects of the operation of each. Both present questions which, when finally tabulated, will provide no information which will have any value in determining the feelings and concerns of those who contribute answers. The problem is all in the wording.

The problem with both these surveys is that meaningful questions are not presented. In the case of the City survey, it fails completely the goal it sets for itself "to improve the quality of the downtown and make it more usable for businesses and patrons." Of the eleven questions, six are demographic, three repeat each other and two ask mundane questions about shopping habits. Anybody who reads the survey already knows the answer to questions 7, 8, and 11. If the City Administration and Councilmen aren't aware of those answers already, well, what can one say?

The School Survey is a different situation. One question is demographic and worded in such a manner as to permit arbitrary rating of the other answers, a fatal flaw. It is shocking that questions 1 through 4 even appear on this survey, as all the choices listed should be mandated by, and for, every administrator, principal, or teacher in any school system. Questions not asked in this survey, which certainly should be, are, were you were adequately educated to become a productive member of the labor force, did your children receive the training which will allow them to sustain themselves in the market place, are you receiving a good value for the tax dollars you are putting into the New Philadelphia school system, questions which require only a yes or no answer.

These surveys are faulted in their design. They appear to be designed to meet the needs and goals of those who designed them, showing that all is well. Unfortunately they will produce no changes in either the educational deficiencies of the New Philadelphia school system or in the economic problems of downtown New Philadelphia. Surveys won't solve the problems. Solutions can only come from an understanding of what, where, and why those problems exist and confronting them with solid business knowledge and experience.

Messrs Alsept and Taylor need to confront their challenges by getting out of the office and talk to those citizens who are paying the taxes to support the school system and economy of the city.

Surveys which ask irrelevant questions to relevant problems won't solve anything.

(Editor's Note: Surveys mentioned in this article can be found on the following Internet sites: www.npschools.org and www.newphilaoh.com)

McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit

Back the first of the year, January 9, 2010, to be exact, I wrote an article about lawyers and lawsuits, "Let's Sue Somebody." A couple of weeks later I had lunch with a lawyer friend of mine at Gavin's and that article came up in the conversation. You know, he said, sometimes things aren't always as they appear. Sometimes there is another part of the story that just doesn't get out. With that he reached into his coat pocket, took out a piece of paper, and gave it to me. I read it and what appears below is the rest of the story.

McFacts about the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit
Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.
The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.
Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.
According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.
The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonald's Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.
Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

The lesson to be learned here is one taught by my grandfather. Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see. He was a little strong perhaps, but there is an essence of truth in what he said. The media has become more biased in recent years than in the past, but still is a major opinion maker in the United States. This case illustrates the ease in which biased reporting, intended or not, can influence the thinking of those who read or hear it. It also serves as a reminder to all of us to seek the truth rather than blindly accept what is printed and spoken.

I admit I was taken in by the press reports of this case. But then, weren't we all?

Thanks Counselor.

Snow Plowing Revisited

"There are folks who read New Philadelphia Tattler. I know that because I received calls about a recent article, "A Question About Snow Plowing". If rolled into a single comment it would read something like this: "If the city doesn't plow the airport until even the alleys are plowed, why do I still have snow and ice on my street and the city has a number of trucks plowing at the airport?"

So on Friday, February 19, I went out to take a look. Nice day for a drive, the sun was out, temperature in the lower 40's. I visited all four wards and did find streets and alleys in need of some serious plowing. Let's not get picky. Snow patches are one thing, but two to three inches of snow and ice over the entire street for a couple of blocks is another. I didn't really have to look all that hard.

For instance, Cedar Lane and 6th Drive, NW, where there wasn't a bit of the street visible. Alleys between 10th and 12th Streets, NW, were in the same condition. Third Drive, SE, needed plowing to get rid of the snow and ice, as did Third Street, SW. These are but a few of streets which, even after three days of no snowfall, were still hazardous to drive on. A resident on Ninth Street, SW., told me that they were snowbound for a number of days, not even being able to get onto the street. I took a look there and snow and ice were still on the street. I drove out to the airport and sure enough, just as reported by callers, city crews were plowing snow. When I was there, early afternoon, the runways and taxiways looked pretty good. Matter of fact crews were cleaning up around the hangers. So what happened?

The answer is twofold. First, snowplow drivers are human. As a result they miss things, in this case some smaller streets and alleys. The solution to this is simple. Call the City Garage, 330-339-2121, and report it. When you do, follow the first rule with dealing with the city, write down the time of the call, who you spoke with, what you asked for, what response you were given, and what finally happened in response to your call. This is important if you don't get the response you think you deserved and want to follow up with a higher up official. Once that call is made, some patience may be needed, but it will take care of the situation of snow still on the street days after the last snowfall. Incidentally, I have been told that New Philadelphia police officers frequently call the Street Department about streets which need snow plowing, potholes, and similar problems.

The second problem as it turns out is, you guessed it, political. Some of the people who use the airport have connections, and connections can make all the difference in the world. When the Street Department is told to plow the runways and taxi areas, it is going to get done regardless of what any plan says. It is another case of the select few taking priority over the majority. About 60 airplanes are based at the New Philadelphia airport, could be a few more. Why are 17,000 citizens deprived of be benefits of city snowplows for the convenience of 6o aircraft owners? Most of the aircraft owners fly as sportsmen and if that is reason enough, why are not baseball, football, and soccer fields plowed as well? The only reason that the airport gets plowed before all the streets are clear is politics.

Don't blame the snow plow drivers. They do what they are told. If you are looking for someone to blame, start where the responsibility really lies, at the top. Talk to the mayor. Reminds me of what a master sergeant once told me. You can delegate authority but you can never delegate responsibility.

A Question About Snow Plowing

I received the following message on the Blog site Tuesday from Mr. Anonymous, a prolific correspondent, and thought you may be interested in the answer. That being said, here goes:

"Bob, you have blogged about the airport, and you have blogged about the budget...so here is my question. I live on a short street (2 blocks long, but not an alley, connected to main streets at both ends, there is enough room for parking on both sides and two cars can still pass each other). The snow removal has been lax at best, and salt nonexistent. I understand that budget constraints can cause the city to cut back on the overtime hours needed to plow to the extent we have become accustom to here in NP.
"The question I have is why are City trucks plowing and salting the airport runways before all the streets are plowed? It's not just the runways, it's all the hard-surface...they even bring backhoes in and clean the individual ramps to the hangers. I compare this to plowing a driveway; the City has never cleared my driveway for me, but has often plowed it shut.
"Can you find out why the City is plowing at the airport before plowing for it's citizens?"

I talked to Mr. Fred Neff, Superintendent of the Street Department, who, among other things, has the responsibility of keeping the streets open when it snows. His folks have been busy this year, and for the most part, have done a decent job. Much of the reason for this is a formal plowing and salting policy the city is committed to and is being closely monitored this year. The guide lines are quite specific, not only on what is to be done and how, but also on the consequences if the policies are not followed. This is the first time to my knowledge that such a stand has been taken by the city and in practice it seems to be working.

Some interesting procedures which are in place this year make a lot of sense. Hills and bridges in New Philadelphia are top priority. Streets such as Donahey Avenue, Parklane Drive, Shel Mar Hill, and other hill streets are plowed first. Major downtown streets, Broadway, Front, High, are plowed at the same time. Secondary streets, Tuscarawas Avenue, Commercial, Bluebell Drive, Second Street, for example, are next on the list. The access streets like North, Fair, Providence, Minnich, finish off the list. Basically there are four routes, or areas, to be plowed, each route defined so as to prevent misses and duplication of effort. Alleys are plowed when time allows.

A long needed procedure is the plowing of major streets. These are plowed with trucks two or three abreast which moves the snow much more quickly and efficiently. Once those streets are done, the trucks then go to their assigned routes and plow. Part of the plowing routine is that no truck, while there is snow on the roadways, will travel with its blade up. It only makes sense that a snow plow traveling over a snow covered street should have the plow down and get the snow off to the side.

The point of this whole discussion is two fold. Neff has a plan on how to clear the streets of snow in an efficient, organized way which seems to be working. It should also cut back on expenses for snow removal, although the proof of that won’t be know until the spring thaw.

The second point is that, as it has been in the past, the airport is last on the list, last after the alleys are done. The City does not have an obligation to plow the runways, but does it as a service. The airport is shut down because of snow clogged runways and taxiways, and remains that way until the city streets and alleys are plowed. Corporate jets are not hangered at the airport, rather are kept at the Akron airport. So far this year, the airport has experienced long waits to have the runway and ramps plowed. And at no time has city salt been spread there.

So to answer your question, Mr. Neff and his crews have not put the airport ahead of the secondary streets and alleys of the city.

As you didn't provide your address, I wasn't able to get specific information about your particular concern.

Anyone interested in a copy of the Snow Plowing/Salting Guidelines 2010, the folks to call would be the Mayor, the Service Director, Fred Neff at the City Garage, and of course, your City Councilmen.

Thanks for the question, whoever you may be that asked.

Where Did In-Depth Reporting Go?

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” It was Sunday’s Times-Reporter, it was Saturday’s Times-Reporter. How so, you say? The lead story on Sunday, February 14, headlines “Year ahead shows promise.” The lead story on Saturday, February 13, headlines “Housing woes mount.” Confused? If you only read one or the other lead story, it made sense. If you read both, there could be cause for confusion.

The New Philadelphia Mayor’s State of the City address, presented to City Council in printed form on Monday, February 8, the basis of Sunday’s lead article, paints a picture of a city successfully working its way out of recession. Mr. Taylor cited a number of business improvements which have taken place over the last year, all of which are encouraging. The remodeling of Wendy’s, the Holiday Inn, and Wal-Mart are encouraging signs, but are not recent developments of planning and investment. Projects such as those are not accomplished overnight, rather require a year or more to come to fruition. A few new businesses have come to New Philadelphia, and for this we are genuinely thankful, and bid them welcome.

On the other side of the coin, Saturday, February 8, the Times-Reporter reported foreclosures in Tuscarawas County in 2009 at 454, the highest in the past two years. According to the article, foreclosures are 17% ahead in January 2010 when compared to the same period of 2009. On the same page was an article that Gorant Candies, Cards, and Gifts will close by the end of February. A walk through the city, including downtown, reveals a number of empty buildings, some of which have been unoccupied for months. Figures released by the Bureau of Labor the first of February show unemployment slightly higher than 11%.

The two lead articles send conflicting messages. Part of the confusion may be a lack of understanding on the part of the media of what is really happening in the city. Their articles appear to be not much more than quotes from city officials and others, which are accepted at face value and without question.

The media doesn’t seem to understand that the business of the City is generally not decided during meetings of City Council. The hard decisions, confrontations, negotiations, and, yes, political deals occur behind the scenes. Within City Council these activities take place in committee meetings, which, by the way, are open to the public. The news media is, by law, informed of such meetings 72 hours before they convene. The media, unfortunately, doesn’t generally publish such notices, nor do they attend the committee meetings in which decisions are made on which legislation is sent to the Council floor for a vote.

An example of the desirability of more in-depth reporting would be The Mayor’s State of the City presentation. It created questions which need examination but were ignored by the media. In it the mayor requested personnel increases including a Human Resources manager, an Assistant Street Superintendent, an Assistant Water Superintendent, and a permanent fourth Lieutenant for the Fire Department, the later in addition to the four Lieutenants hired last year. The four new positions alone have the potential to add a quarter of a million dollars to New Philadelphia’s budget. Tax revenues at all levels of government are down because of high unemployment. The Media failed to recognize the danger of increasing city personnel at a time when city income is decreasing.

It wasn’t that long ago that the guiding words in journalism were what, who, why, and where. It took digging, interviews, critical evaluation, to come up with the four W’s which made the news an important part of informing and educating the American public. It was inquisitiveness on the part of the news media which informed the public of current events, concerns, and kept watch over governmental follies. The search for truth and in-depth reporting, which made the American press unique in the world in past years, seems to have disappeared to be replaced with quotes from press releases and sound bites. What happened to the media of the past which aggressively protected citizens’ rights, guarded our liberties, attacked government excesses, and informed the public?

The citizen of New Philadelphia deserves to get the full story on events that shape and control their lives. It is the media’s responsibility to provide not only the story, but the facts behind it. It is the media’s legacy to find the truth and, regardless of political implications and pressures, report it to the citizenry.

Will New Philadelphia, and Dover, ever again experience the thrill of such a committed, informative chronicler of our times? I hope so.

Zucal Recommends Job Changes For Council Clerk

Mr. John Zucal, new New Philadelphia Councilman for Ward Two, hit the floor running Monday, February 8, 2010, when he presided at his first committee meeting as Chairman of the Special/Contact Committee. The purpose of the meeting was consideration of a resolution, assigned to his committee by Council President Joel Day, concerning a job description for newly appointed Clerk of Council Patti McKay.

The resolution contains four sections: A) General Assignment Responsibilities; B) Necessary Skills; C) Organizational Structure; and D) Specific Duties and Responsibilities. The document attempts to define the duties of the Clerk of Council. However, it is redundant to, and conflicts with, existing New Philadelphia Codified Ordinances, the Ohio Revised Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as Amended. It places duties on the Clerk of Council which are in violation of the principle of separation of powers in government.

The tradition of government organization in the United States, regardless of size, is three separate divisions of government, Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial. Crossing territorial boundaries of these divisions is unacceptable as it leads to the suppression of one by another. When one takes precedence over the others, our republican form of government becomes a totalitarian system which inevitably leads to uncontrollable excesses by those in power.

The organizational structure, suggested by this job description, requires that the Clerk of Council report to the Mayor and President of Council as well as City Council, thus making the Clerk of Council submissive to the administrative branch of government. By law, the Administrative branch, the Mayor and President of Council, have no power over City Council.

The President of Council is not a member of the City Council. He has no vote, unless there is a voting tie, is not able to introduce legislation, cannot speak on any matter being discussed on the floor. His sole responsibility is to preside over the proceedings, assign requests for legislation to the proper committees, and keep order. He has no connection, privileges, or responsibility in the legislative body.

A discussion developed between Mr. Zucal and Ms. Sandy Cox over the requirement that the Clerk of Council report directly to the President of Council and the Mayor as well as to the City Council. Mrs. Cox stated that the Clerk of Council was hired by the City Council and should report only to the City Council, not the Mayor or Council President. Zucal replied that they were talking about two different things, saying that by whom you were hired and who you “report to are two different things.” He also asked why “she could not report to the Council President and Council Members?….How could you have a structure where she reports to all members of Council?” Cox replied that the Clerk is hired by Council and should deal with Council and Council alone. Zucal asked whether or not the President of Council, Joel Day, was a member of Council, to which Cox replied, “No. He is a member of the Administration.”

President Day commented that the Clerk is the administrative assistant of City Council, charged with handling all administrative tasks connected with, and pertaining to, the Council. Zucal remarked that he has seen the President assign the Clerk tasks and wanted to know what those tasks were.

Day replied that he provided her with information that he considered pertinent to conducting council meetings. Zucal then said, “I believe that if we are looking for an organizational structure….we have to consider that the President of Council, who acts along with the seven of us (members of Council), all you have to do is, sitting at these meetings, see that there is a relationship, organizational, between the President of Council and the clerk.”

Cox replied that she agreed that there should be cooperation with the Mayor’s office, but the Clerk was an employee of Council and should only report to Council. Mayor Taylor inquired who on Council the Clerk should go to if she had a problem. Cox replied that any member of council would be an appropriate contact. Zucal stated that there should be a single member of Council to whom the Clerk should go to and that is why a new organizational structure was needed. He also stated that he would change the language that stated the Clerk would report directly to the President of Council and the Mayor. The meeting adjourned with no decisions being made.

I talked with President Day after the Committee meeting, asking his opinion of the meeting discussion. He said that he had assigned the Job Description project to Zucal. When asked who requested the job description, he said that he did. “I felt that there should be a job description for the Clerk. There never has been and why not do one now?” When asked if he felt that the Revised Code and City Ordinances didn’t cover what the Clerk’s position is, Day replied, “I feel that it’s got to be like we have job descriptions for us, the duties of the City. 39-97. Have you read that Ordinance?….We wrote job descriptions back then which are still in effect.” When asked if this was an indication that Council was going to mandate job descriptions for all the other jobs in the City as well, Day answered that he didn’t know and it was “up to Council.”

I looked up Ordinance 39-97 and found some really interesting material. The ordinance concerns itself with “Guidelines for staffing certain departments…under the jurisdiction of the Mayor and Auditor.” It covers all sorts of things, pay, vacation, number of folks in each city department, holidays, you name it. But it is limited to employees under the jurisdiction of the Mayor. City Council is not mentioned. Nor are job descriptions for any City position mentioned, let alone defined.

Ordinance 39-97 did lead me to The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, As Amended (29 U.S. C. 201, et seq.), which defines employee as “any individual employed by an employer. In the case of an individual employed by a public agency, such term means any individual employed by a state, political subdivision of a state, or an interstate governmental agency other than such an individual who is an employee in the legislative body of that State, political subdivision, or agency and is not employed by the legislative library of such State, political subdivision, or agency”.

In short, 39-97 does not apply to the Clerk of Council, while The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 specifically exempts the Clerk of Council from any Administration control.

One has to wonder why an ordinance defining a job description for the Clerk of Council was placed in the Special/Contact Committee in the first place, especially by the President Of Council who has no authority in, nor responsibility for, City Council? Why was the task of guiding the job description resolution for Clerk of Council given to the newest and most inexperienced member of the City Council? Why was this not assigned to a member with the experience of working with Clerk of Council? Why is a new job description necessary when the Clerk of Council had been effective and efficient for years following City Ordinances and the Ohio Revised Code?

Is there something here more sinister than what meets the eye?

2010 New Philadelphia Budget

On Wednesday, February 10, 2010, the Finance Committee met in Council Chambers, that is Sandy Cox, Chairman, and Darrin Lautenschleger, Committee Member, did. The other two members didn’t make it.

The reason for the meeting was to go over the 2010 City budget. This occurs once a year and sets spending for that year. The process is simple. The Committee receives the budget recommendation from the Mayor, then compares the requested expenses to the anticipated income. If expenditures exceed anticipated income, the budget has to be reworked to prevent going into a deficit.

This year the budget brought before the Committee was trimmed to the bone by the Mayor and for just cause. The carryover for 2009, money which is carried over from the previous year to run the city for the first three months of the new year, amounted to $1.5 million. The estimated carryover for 2011 is only $200,000, the economy being the villain. It’s another case of the dreaded “R” word, recession. Income is down although fixed expenses are up.

In no special order, here are some of the highlights:

The Fire Department has had problems with the floor at the fire station. It has sagged recently in recent years and needs to be propped up. Chief Parrish also considers the floor to be a hazard because over the years it has become slick and a number of firefighters have taken some spills. Budgeted: $24,000 to remedy the situation.

The Police Department had few requests for equipment. Their major concern was the purchase of new computers for two police cars and a new video recorder for one of the cars. Budgeted: $18,000. Also budgeted was $14,000 for portable radios and miscellaneous items.

The Sanitation Department received $25,000 for repairs to their garage. This is a priority item because of age and lack of maintenance over the years. The water pipes leak, the roof leaks, the walls leak, and the floor drains don’t drain. The heating is insufficient. The alternative is a new building, at $1.2 million, and the budget can’t afford it.

The Recycling operation needs a new truck. In this case the adage that no good deed goes unpunished, strikes home here. Fred Neff told the committee, that to cut down on expenses, the recycling route schedules were revised to reduce the work week to four days producing an approximate 20% savings. The Stark Tuscarawas Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District has funds available to provide a truck to the City, free of charge, but New Philadelphia isn’t qualified. The reason? We don’t collect recycling five days a week. So as Fred Neff explained it, if we go to five days a week, increase expenses, we might get the gift of a new truck. Neff has appealed this decision but has yet to receive an answer from the Solid Waste District. As a backup plan, Neff requested, and received budget money to buy a used truck for sanitation use not to exceed $18,000.

A used truck was budgeted for the Sewer Department, price not to exceed $12,000. The truck it will replace is held together by rust, has a rusted bed, and a shot transmission. Money was appropriated to replace the cover on one of the holding tanks, a “request” made by the EPA.

The advisability of purchasing used trucks versus new was discussed. The Mayor told the Committee that with proper inspection before purchase, used trucks have held up well in the past. Proper maintenance is essential once purchased. The savings are substantial and decrease in city income makes such decisions reasonable.

An interesting innovation may be coming soon to the Sidewalk Replacement Program. For the past couple of years the program has not been fully utilized. If you are not familiar with the program, the City will pay half the cost of residents replacing their sidewalk provided certain requirements are followed, like filling out the paperwork and submitting it to the Service Director’s office. The Sidewalk budget for this year is $20,000. Ten thousand dollars was unused last year and remains in the fund. A couple of alternatives were suggested for the use of that money. One was to use some of the money, on a fifty-fifty basis, to replace curbing for homeowners. The other was to change the usage limitation from replacing sidewalks to constructing new sidewalks where none presently exist. Note that these are possible alternatives, not done deals. That may take a while.

The Water Department came with a shopping list which included two trucks, a trencher/backhoe, and an assistant for Kelly Ricklic, none of which were approved. Ricklic also told the Committee that the Water Department was seeking a consultant to estimate how much un-metered water was being used by city buildings in an effort to determine the cost without the necessity of purchasing water meters.

The Cemetery is considering a renovation to their building because of concerns in compliance with the Disabilities Act. Mr. Limbacher, Cemetery Supervisor, stated the building is not accessible to visitors in wheelchairs. Restrooms are out of date and the front porch needs repair. No request for funding of these projects was requested at this time.

One new computer was approved for the City Treasurer.

Balancing the budget is complicated by wage and benefit costs. Those are set by contract and cannot be changed. When the percentage of department wages to budgets is compared, the complexity of budgeting becomes clearer. For instance, of the total budget for the Fire Department, 96% goes to wages and benefits. In the Police Department, 90%; City Prosecutor, 93%: Cemetery, 87%, City Auditor, 82%; Street Department, 69%.

On the whole the Mayor presented a budget which was trimmed to what appears to be the minimum which is consistent with City income. An increase in City revenue would ease the financial situation, but this is an uncertainty and evidently the Administration recognizes this, as does the Finance Committee.

Wake Up To the Terrorist Threat

Times seldom change. History gives us examples and when they are ignored, the results are devastating. The idea that tyrants can be peacefully dealt with is as false today as it has always been. What we are experiencing today is reminiscent of 1939, and just as dangerous.

After the First World War, on November 8 and 9, 1923, a German activist, Adolf Hitler, was arrested in what came to be known as the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, an attempt to seize the government of Germany by revolution. The putsch failed. Hitler was imprisoned.

During his incarceration he wrote a book, Mein Kampf, or My Battle. In it he laid out the plan for the Third Reich, a Germany which he would control, and which under his control would take over, literally, the world. Mein Kampf detailed the plan of aggression, concentration camps, methods to terrorize and subject nations to Nazi tyranny. On January 30, 1933, he was elected Chancellor of Germany. On March 23 that year Hitler assumed total control and became dictator of Germany.

By September of 1938 Germany was an armed nation which was threatening war in Europe. Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain, met with Hitler in Munich and came to an agreement. Germany would be given the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in return for peace. The Czechoslovakians were not included in the discussions. On September 29, 1938, Nevelle Chamberlain stood on the steps of Number Ten Downing Street, the residence of the Prime Minister, and read the following statement:

"We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.” He concluded by saying, "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

In March of 1939, the German army entered Czechoslovakia and occupied the rest of the country. This was the start of the deadliest war in history. When the war ended six years later, deaths, military and civilian, exceeded seventy million, some calculations exceeding seventy eight million. No country in the world was untouched.

Hitler’s plans, all of them, were no secret. They were carefully spelled out in Mein Kampf. But nobody listened. Nothing was done to stop the rearming of Germany. No one believed the stories of death camps. Nobody expressed concern about the organized massacre of Jews. Hitler was not challenged until his armies were moving across Europe. Then it was too late.

There is a lesson to be learned from this. Aggression is not deterred by appeasement, trying to understand motives behind it, reaching out to establish a dialogue. Motives should be judged by actions, not words. The adage, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, then it must be a duck, applies to aggressors regardless of nationality, religion, race, or politics. Today, those aggressors are Muslims and they want to destroy our country, economy, liberty, our very lives.

That not all Muslims are against the western world is certainly a truism. In the Second World War not all Germans were against the United States, nor were all the Italians, or Japanese. But fight they did and they almost won. It is a deadly miscalculation to believe that only a minority of Muslims are attacking our country. It is a fallacy to think that Muslims do not believe that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and others are infidels and must be destroyed.

It is insanity to believe that they can be reasoned with and through negotiation their war against our culture can be ended. We are in a war of cultures. We are at risk on a daily basis and may not survive unless we realize that the attacks on the United States, and other non-Muslim nations, are not attacks by random individuals. We are involved in a holy war. The Muslim leaders make no secret about their aims. Our problem is that we don’t listen. We don’t hear them when they preach that the Koran dictates that all true believers of Islam are bound to kill the infidel.

Understand what is happening. It was no random act which destroyed the Twin Towers and killed three thousand more people than the Japanese killed at Pearl Harbor. Understand that this is the same group who tried earlier to destroy the Twin Towers, who killed hundreds of US Marines in their barracks in the Mideast, who blew up the USS Cole, who laid hostage to US embassy staffs, who cheered as they hung American dead from bridges in Iraq, who beheaded US servicemen and showed the executions on television.

The time for appeasement is over, long over. The myth that terrorists can be negotiated with should be discarded for the realization that negotiations are only successful if both sides already agree. Ignoring the acts of Muslim terrorists, forgiving the carnage predicated by Islam teachings, apologizing for retribution against those who kill our citizenry, is prelude to surrender and defeat.

We are in a fight for our very lives. If we don’t become aggressive in the defense of our country, we will surely lose that fight.

Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf

On Friday, February 05, 2010, the National Rifle Association published the following article. Thought you may find it interesting.

The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws. Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Not surprisingly, while the Brady Campaign easily fabricates a “right” to feel free from fear, it angrily scoffs at the right to self-protection by encouraging its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law. “I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition reads.

A call to Starbucks has confirmed what was pretty obvious on its face. The company is in the business to sell coffee, not jump in the middle of a Brady-generated squabble that state law has already resolved in favor of the right to carry firearms, in certain circumstances. Starbucks also isn’t in business to help Brady get its name in the paper.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable. It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history. The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system. The 1994 gun ban has expired. The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise. The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

And today, the media’s gun control darling is not the Brady Campaign’s leader, former Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Paul Helmke, who spends his time blogging about gun control on the Huffington Post website, where members on the fringe gather to rant about mainstream America. Today, the leader of the gun control movement is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends his time (and money) as mayor of America’s most influential city.

Gun owners who like coffee ought to drop Starbucks a line and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. As for the Brady Campaign, let’s hope things continue at the present rate. If they do, before too long we’ll have to explain who the group was, before it was forced to close its doors for lack of interest.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

City Budget Primer - How It Gets To Be

Budget time for the city of New Philadelphia is drawing near. According to the Ohio Revised Code, the City budget has to be approved by City Council, and in place, by the first of April each year. I haven't heard when the Finance Committee is going to hold hearings this year, that usually takes a day, but it has to be soon to meet the deadline.

To reiterate, the procedure to get a Council vote, in this case on the budget, there first has to be a Finance Committee meeting. The Finance Committee, as with all City Council committees, has three members, Sandy Cox, the Chairman, Darrel Lautenschleger and Colleen Espenschied, Committee Members, and John Zucal, the Alternate, who fills in should one of the Committee members be absent.

Remember, it takes two voting members to make a decision in a committee. The members meet at the Chairman's request, and if there is a quorum present, which requires a minimum of two members, the Committee transacts its business. After a discussion on an issue, a motion is made to bring the issue to the whole Council for a vote. The motion is read on three consecutive Council meetings before it is put to a vote. It requires a majority of Council members, four, to pass a motion, after which it becomes law.

The Finance Committee is the most important committee on City Council as its responsibility is to approve a budget for the operation of the city. The decisions it makes mandates how the money will be spent in the coming year. These decisions should be based on sound business principles, not the least making sure that the requested expenditures do not exceed the anticipated income. If they do, the City will go into default, a fancy term meaning go broke, and will be taken over and run by the State of Ohio, not a good thing. If expenditures are less than income, the city is considered financially sound and everybody breathes easier.

Where do the requested items on the budget come from? That is the responsibility of the Mayor. He asks for recommendations from the department heads and uses the information they provide to put the City budget together. His budget includes all the operating expenses for the City for the next year. He is assisted in his effort by the City Auditor, Beth Gundy, who advises him on the money available to the City to pay all the expenses for the year. The money comes from various sources, taxes, the federal government, state government, the county, New Philadelphia income tax, grants, endowments, and other sources. The anticipated income for the year is divided between all city departments, based on the requests which are submitted to the Mayor. The Mayor makes adjustments to these requests to keep all expenses within the available income, approves the budget and passes it on to the Chairman of the Finance Committee for advice and consent.

The Finance Committee then meets and studies the budget, item by item, to be sure that the requested items can be paid for out of the anticipated income. They are helped in this effort by information provided by the mayor and department heads, as to the necessity of each item, its cost, and whether the City can afford the expense based on the projected income. It is the responsibility of the Finance Committee to make whatever changes are necessary to keep the budget at a level which can be paid during the year. Part of this responsibility is to cut expenses where necessary, which includes the refusal to purchase equipment, hire personnel, that sort of thing. It is just like home budgets. If you don't have the money to pay for what you buy, don't buy it. Once this gets worked out in committee, it votes to pass it on to the City Council with a recommendation for Council action. The Council then has the option to approve, reject, or change the budget as it sees fit. If Council votes to approve it, it becomes law.

As with all budgets, there are two types of expenses, fixed and discretionary. Fixed expenses are those which have to be paid no matter what. They are generally recurring, and are not controllable. Discretionary expenses are those which are controllable and it is those expenses which are critical when putting budgets together. Discretionary expenses are the only ones which the Finance Committee and City Council can work with to control the budget.

Under discretionary expenses are the General Fund (pays salaries, operating expenses, building maintenance), and Master Capital (pays for purchases of new equipment, building construction or purchase, and other items which are expected to be used for years). Interestingly, included in the General Fund is the Police and Fire income and payroll expense. This is in addition to the money which comes from the half-percent income tax increase voted in a few years ago, which goes into a special fund. This money can only be used for Police and Fire operations.

If there are not enough funds to make the budget work, it is from discretionary funds where the cuts come. Services such as street paving, park maintenance, new vehicles, land purchases, health department services, and the like, get the cuts. Salaries and operating funds of the Administration and City Council fall under this category.

Fixed (or non-controlled) expenses are those which include total costs for all union salaries, federal, state, and county grants, such as the CHIP and Small City grants which help the poorer neighborhoods in the city by providing housing repair and street improvement. These expenses cannot be cut as their use is directed by federal, state, county, and/or city law.

Getting a budget from the Mayor's office to the final vote on the Council floor may not seem all that complicated, but the reality is that the effort is one which is all too often taken for granted. Poor information concerning anticipated income for the coming year can, and does, contribute to bad financial judgements. To get the job done properly requires honesty, candidness, and good communication between all parties involved, the Mayor, City Treasurer and Auditor, department heads, the Finance Committee, and City Council.

It also requires interest and curiosity on the part of the citizens of New Philadelphia. They must become actively involved in the process by finding out how, where, and why the money is spent. It is your responsibility to find the facts, and there is no better place to start than to contact your City Councilmen and the Mayor. It's your money. It's your city. Get involved.

Jesse, Barack, and the Railroads

History, in a way, tends to repeat itself. In this case look at the railroads. Back in the 1800s, the James boys stole from the public by holding up trains. Actually, it was an innovation by Jesse and Frank James who came up with the idea that it was quicker, safer, and more profitable to stop a train, rob the passengers and the express boxes, and scoot with the money. Innovation being what it is, Mr. Obama wants to do the same thing, but with a twist. He wants to build more railroads. To do it, he wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill. The difference here, between the James boys and Mr. Obama, is not as great as you may think.

Both of them are using the railroads to take money from the citizenry. The difference is in method, gunpoint versus tax legislation, or maybe there isn't that much difference after all. The President wants to dump eight billion dollars, that's an estimate, of course, into the building of more passenger routes between major cities in the country. We're talking passenger routes here, not freight, and that's an important point to remember. In addition, the Obama plan is to dump another billion dollars a year for the next five years, to "get it started."

Unfortunately, passenger traffic on the railroad has never been profitable. From almost day one, the railroads have been subsidized by the government in one form or another and the creation of Amtrack was welcome news to railroad management. The move by the government to take over the management and operation of passenger service from the railroad companies undoubtedly saved them from bankruptcy and allowed their continued operation as freight haulers. Last year Amtrack lost in excess of $468 million, which, by the way the government calculates things, was good news and a sort of victory, as it was $6.8 million less that what it had budgeted to lose. The number of riders dropped last year, with the shorter commuter routes showing the least loss, which makes sense when you consider these short routes serve the larger cities, New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles. The fact remains that even these heavily used routes are still, as they always have, losing money.

So with typical political logic, Mr. Obama wants to make a large transfer of money from the working public, which uses it for food, housing, medicine, and clothing, to the federal government to spend on Amtrack. The idea sounds great except for one thing. The national debt stands at $12.4 trillion. Unemployment rolls stand in excess of 11%, probably closer to 18% if you count those who are unemployed but not receiving benefits. Income to federal, state, county, and municipal governments are down, including Tuscarawas County and New Philadelphia. We're in a depression folks, and they just don't get it. Yep. That's the "D" word I just used. Depression.

But fear not. We can afford Mr. Obama's railroad expansion. He just hasn't told us how yet. That will be coming this year along with the proposals to raise taxes. They are coming, surely on the federal level, and probably on the state county and municipal levels as well. But don't be fooled by the oft repeated Obama promise that he won't raise taxes. That is part of governmental double-speak which translates to the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed. That isn't raising taxes, it's just not letting the taxpayer keep what he already has. Washington still doesn't understand that more taxes kill business and jobs.

And the trains probably still won't run on time.

Airport Improvement Commentary

Last Monday’s Public Works Committee meeting to discuss the Master Plan for New Philadelphia’s airport was interesting for a number of reasons, the foremost being the number of citizens who attended.

A dozen or more citizens went to the Committee meeting to voice their opinions about the possibility of losing their homes and property if the airport runway were lengthened to accommodate larger corporate jet aircraft. Unfortunately, they did not get the opportunity to speak before the committee because of time restraints. I had the opportunity, however, to chat with a number of them after the meeting, and one, who will remain anonymous, expressed his concern, saying, “We were going to remodel the house, but with the possibility of it being taken from us, even if it is ten years down the road, well, we’re reconsidering it. We thought we would live there until we died, but if the city has plans to take it, what’s the sense?”

Mr. Lautenschleger met informally with some of the homeowners and tried to calm their fears, but with little success. He did promise to have another meeting to hear their ideas, but most left with unanswered questions.

Mayor Taylor’s remarks about the Master Plan were straightforward and appeared to be candid. His comment that there was no FAA requirement that City Council approve the Master Plan was unexpected but welcome. His request, as I understood it, was to get a decision from City Council on how to proceed and get the job done. The job in this case is a decision to either extend the runway or make improvements to bring it into FAA standards and maintain it as “a Mom and Pop airport.” He also stated that it was up to Council to make that decision, and in that I totally disagree.

By City Ordinance it is the responsibility of the Airport Commission to provide City Council with a comprehensive plan for the airport, something which has yet to take place. It is significant that the Airport Commission was represented by Mr. Ted Gentsch, a member of the Commission. Mr. Gentsch, who works for Lauren Manufacturing, is well informed, articulate, and committed to improving the current airport or developing a new airport which will serve the needs of Tuscarawas County. He has appeared before Council on numerous occasions to sell the airport concept to Council, and has frequently indicated that Lauren has a major interest in extending the runway to handle larger jet aircraft. The problem is that Mr. Gentsch is the only member of the Airport Commission that appears before the City Council with any regularity. It is evident that the President of the Airport Commission, Mr. Tom Frabizo, does not have the same commitment to the airport as does Mr. Gentsch, otherwise it would be he selling the airport’s needs, requirements, and dreams to the City. His absence before City Council in regard to airport concerns is disturbing.

A single comprehensive plan which should be brought to City Council which contains justification for the expense the Airport Commission and the Mayor are requesting. It should spell out in detail improvements to be made, the cost of such improvements, their justification, and the effect on city residents those improvements would have. The generalizations presented in the Master Plan fall short in justifying the seizing of private property and the expense associated with any proposed upgrade.

It is also time for the Airport Commission to face the facts of life for the times in which we live. There is no free money. What the government is going to invest in any project at the airport, the 95% share they may pay for the project, is not free. It comes from taxes the government takes away from business profits and individual wages. Justification for spending the millions to upgrade the airport should be based, not on availability of tax money, but on sound business principles.

What will the people of New Philadelphia get in return for this investment? What businesses will be drawn to New Philadelphia, as we have been told will come if a larger airport is constructed? What are the businesses which will leave New Philadelphia, as we have been told may happen, if a larger airport is not constructed? How long will it be before New Philadelphia realizes a return in its investment, and what will that return be? How is it more inconvenient to drive 35 minutes from New Philadelphia to Akron-Canton than it is for residents of East Cleveland to drive to Hopkins, or residents of Joliet, Illinois, to drive to O’Hare, or residents of Beverly Hills to drive to LAX? How many more corporations, other than Lauren, will house their aircraft at the New Philadelphia airport? What will be the benefit of extending the airport runway to the citizen who lives on Front Street, 4th Street, NW, Kaderly Street, NW, or Sherman Avenue? How will the tax base be affected?

When it comes to expansion in New Philadelphia, look at recent history. What is the residency rate at the Tech Park? Where is New Philadelphia’s return on its investment there?

Airport Master Plan Committee Meeting

Monday night the Public Works Committee met in Council Chambers at City Hall. The meeting, called by Chairman Lautenschleger, was to discuss two issues, the New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan, and the purchase of property owned by Mary Egli located to the southeast of the existing airport runway. An audience of approximately 12 citizens and others was present.

Mr. Lautenschleger explained that the proposed Airport Master Plan to update the New Philadelphia Airport has been discussed for a number of years and was being brought to the City Council for adoption by the City to serve as a guideline for future improvement of the existing airport.

The FAA requires a master plan for airport improvements and upgrades. There are a number of options in the Master Plan for upgrading the airport for larger aircraft. Mayor Taylor said he wants City Council to be fully updated on the Master Plan to aid them in making long range decisions concerning the airport’s future. He explained major airport projects are, if approved, reimbursed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at 95% of the cost, the City paying the remaining five percent. City Council has not adopted a Master Plan in the past, and, said the Mayor, it is not required that it does. He desires a consensus of opinion from all concerned, the community, private individuals, businesses, on what Harry Clever Field should look like down the road. “Do we want to develop it or keep it a Mom and Pop field,” he asked. “At some time the FAA is going to require a decision as to what we are going to do with the airport and that will probably happen in the next five years when the runway needs resurfacing.”

Loretta Snyder, representative from Michael Baker, Jr. Associates, the consultants for the airport, stated that Clever Field is part of the national airport system which extends throughout the entire country. Businesses utilize smaller airports frequently and that is why almost every county has an airport.

Councilwoman Cox asked why the plan had to be approved when the Mayor previously stated that it did not have to be approved. She also questioned the number of options in the Plan and the effect of approving all of them rather than a single one.

Mr. Ted Gentsch, of Lauren Manufacturing, and a member of the Airport Commission, answered, stating, “The FAA requires you to look at every conceivable way of configuring the runway and expanding it, and the costs of expanding it and the impact on the community…and that you have done due diligence in expanding it at the current site. So, every alternative is outlined in there…The best alternative is Number 4, the next best alternative is a green field site.” He suggested, ‘If the number of alternatives is to great (seven), you can approve the Plan using only Option 4.

Cox asked why the Plan should be adopted when it contains two Alternatives which are “not recommended” and two that are “not practical,” to which Gentsch replied, “It’s a plan.”

Lautenschleger stated that the Master Plan is an overview of every possible scenario and doesn’t mean what’s going to be adopted or moved forward.

Cox replied that plans had been proposed in 2001 and 2004 which were not adopted because of removing of people’s homes and the cemetery. Lautenschleger said that the Plan was part of larger thinking and moving ahead in the future, and “If we don’t want to adopt any of this, then there are [other] scenarios. One, we could have public hearings and put this out here and have people review it and use their input. That’s not a bad thing as they can see everything that’s on there and then they can go back and maybe work on it some more. If you decide that you don’t want any growth at the airport,…then we should get that out on the table so the Airport Commission can understand and then they [may] decide to let the airport go. That’s an extreme scenario.”

A discussion between Lautenschleger and Cox ensued concerning removal of houses. Lautenschleger insisted that home removals was never discussed. He went on to say that such statements were scare tactics generated by unsigned letters being sent to residents in areas around the airport. (Ed: The letters in question are copies of the of the recent blog on this site, see New Philadelphia Airport Renovation, which were copied and sent without our knowledge.)

The Mayor stated that the Airport Commission has “no legal authority to move forward and pick an option, it has to be City Council.” He went on to say that he wants to get all the people concerned involved and make a decision about the airport which will decide its future. Cox stated her concern that there isn’t enough property at the present airport for expansion of needed hangers and other such improvements and suggested that the alternative of building another airport would be the most logical move.

Mr. Don Kennedy, a local realtor, asked if the FAA, in a past meeting, would not commit to a new airport as the cost would be in the range of 20-million dollars, but would commit to a new runway because they felt the option of a new airport was not feasible,. Mr Gentsh replied the FAA did not commit to anything. “If you read the Master Plan through to the end”, he said, “you’ll find that if you go through all the options, they say in there something to the effect…that you should consider a green field site. A green field site or a new airport would be the option for this community which would create the least amount of problems in terms of relocation, obstacles such as Schoenbrunn Park, that sort of thing. Getting everybody politically on the same page would be required, a champion, as the mayor mentioned, before that step could be made, and there are some sites which would be quite suitable in Tuscarawas County.” Gentsch went on to say that the FAA did not rule out a new airport but, when it was explored in the recent past, the political acceptance, county and municipalities, was not forthcoming.

Mr. Lautenschleger requested the Service Director, Mr. Zucal, to arrange a meeting with all interested parties in the near future to obtain concerns and comments concerning the Master Plan. The meeting closed with no action being taken and the matter of the property purchase from Mary Egli not discussed.

How Does New Philadelphia Make Its Laws?

There is a procedure, covered by New Philadelphia City Ordinance, on how legislation can be brought to the floor of City Council for consideration. The steps are simple, but not always fully understood.

Anybody may request New Philadelphia City Council to consider the creation, change, amendment, or revocation, of an ordinance by a request to a member of City Council. This right applies to any citizen of the city, and in some cases non-residents. The request may be made through any seated City Councilman, or through the President of City Council. This includes public officials such as the Mayor, Service Director, Police and Fire Chiefs, or any person who who works for the city.

Once the request is made to City Council, the request must be placed in a Council Committee for study. Standing Committees of the Council consist of three members plus an alternate, for a total of four. The alternate member fills in for an absent committeeman, should that be necessary, to assure three members are present at each meeting, assuring a quorum will be present. The Committee considers the question, or request, and by majority vote, two out of the three, decides whether or not to place the question before the full council. If the vote is to place the question before Council, the City Law Director is requested to prepare a numbered ordinance, all ordinances and resolutions are individually numbered for identification, to be presented by the recommendation of the Committee to the full Council at its next regular meeting. If the Committee desires, on the other hand, not to present the question to the full Council it may choose from a number of options. It may: vote to decline presenting the question to Council; it may table the question for further study at a later date; it may table the question indefinitely, which effectively blocks the question from ever being brought up again; or it may do nothing, neither send the question to the floor nor consider it further in Committee, which stops any further action on the question. In the latter cases, the Committee actions prevent any consideration by the full Council on the question.

How does legislation get to a Committee? If the request for action is received by the President of Council, who assigns the request to one of the Standing Committees. It, then has the responsibility of deciding what, if any, legislation is needed. If the request is presented to a sitting member of Council, that member has two choices. He may either refer the question to the President of Council, or he may take the question into his own committee for study and have his committee make the decision as to the advisability of bringing the question to the full Council.

A note of interest. Any Committee Chairman has the ability to bring before his Committee any legislation proposal he desires for his Committee to consider. Unfortunately, this is not frequently done. The Council President, on the other hand, has the ability to assign any legislative request to any of the Standing Committees, regardless of the Committee or the subject matter. For instance, a matter concerning City finances could be assigned to the Parks and Cemetery Committee instead of the Finance Committee should the Council President desire.

Once the legislation gets to the floor of City Council, it must, by law, be publicly read three times on the Council Floor, at three separate Council meetings. The exception to this are emergency measures which, by a minimal vote of six Council Members to wave the standing procedural rules of the Council, will allow Council to pass legislation with less than the three required readings.

Once passed, the question becomes law and is entered onto the permanent file of Codified Ordinances by the Clerk of Council.

Standing Committees, their Chairmen and members, may be found by checking http://www.newphilaoh.com/,the City of New Philadelphia Website at or by calling your City Councilman, The President of City Council, or the Mayor whose numbers are listed in the blog on this site titled "City Officials Phone Numbers."

New Philadelphia Airport Renovation

Welcome to the new year and along with it the first of a new spending spree. The Chairman of the Public Works Committee of the New Philadelphia City Council has called a committee meeting for Monday, January 25, at 6:30 p.m. This meeting, according to the announcement made to the media, will discuss two items, the proposed Master Plan for the New Philadelphia Municipal Airport, and the purchase of some acreage south-east of the existing runway, some ten acres currently owned by the Estate of Mary Egli. Neither of these items are new before City Council. They seem to come back with disturbing frequency.

New Philadelphia Municipal Airport, Harry Clever Field, is a general aviation airport designed to handle small private aircraft. Most of its traffic is the type of aircraft which are family owned and used for recreation such as Cessnas and Pipers. It also is a base for MedFlight helicopters, the folks who airlift critical patients to Akron and Cleveland hospitals. There are a couple of companies who use the airport for their corporate aircraft which include some jets and turboprops. It is well equipped for performing periodic maintenance checks and repairs on aircraft, sells fuel, and rents hanger space. Some people are concerned that larger corporate type aircraft, the larger jets which fly nationally and internationally, have difficulty using the airport due to the runway length, which is 3,950 feet. Users of corporate jets, such as Lauren Manufacturing, are interested in the city extending the runway to an excess of 5,000 feet to accommodate their jet aircraft, and possibly, a new, larger jet for international travel. In a perfect world, this would be a great idea. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world.

The Master Plan for the Airport, first conceived by Zande Associates of Columbus, Ohio, and recently redone by R. J. Baker, Jr. of Cleveland, Ohio, lists seven alternative plans for improvement of the airport. They all contain similarities which will directly impact citizens of New Philadelphia.

Alternative One: Increase the existing approach areas to provide access by larger aircraft to the airport by taking homes and property by eminent domain including part of the East Avenue Cemetery and relocation of some roads.

Alternative Two: Extend the northeast end of the runway by taking eight houses by eminent domain and the purchase of approximately two acres of property, and acquire property from Schoenbrunn Village.

Alternative Three: The runway to be extended to the northwest but is not recommended as part of the cemetery and many houses are to be taken.

Alternative Four: Extend the runway to 4,500 feet and relocate the southwest end to a more westerly direction which would include taking houses and property by eminent domain as well as acquiring land from Schoenbrunn Village and changing the road into the Village.

Alternative Five: Extend the runway to 4,500 feet, reorient the runway through the center of East Avenue Cemetery, relocate the railroad tracks. This was not recommended as it would require taking several homes by eminent domain and the cost is considered excessive.

Alternative Six: Extend the runway 5,000 feet to the southeast, requiring more seizures by eminent domain, seizure of part of the East Avenue Cemetery, closure of Delaware Avenue and excessive costs due to needed land fill. This was not recommended because of the high cost.

Alternative Seven: Reduce the classification of the airport to bring it into compliance as a small general airport. This was not considered as practicable as it would preclude the use of the Lauren Learjet.

Alternative Eight: Develop a new airport. No recommendation made by the planners.

All the recommendations, including those not recommended by Baker, include a common thread. Take private property by eminent domain, close existing roads, destroy the East Avenue Cemetery, and spend untold dollars over the next 20 years.

Capital improvements at the current airport, which contains two phases, one for zero to ten years, the second 11 to 20 years, was originally calculated to be $8,485,000 in 2006. That figure because of inflation, jumped to $9,330,000 in 2009, an increase of better than six percent in two years. With the present economic crisis and the uncertainty of its future, it is impossible to predict what the cost of the project will be when, and if, completed.

A presentation was made to City Council by Mr. Ted Gentsch in the fall of 2009, in which he explained the Airport Master Plan. He mentioned often the problems that Lauren experienced with the current airport facility and how its limitations precluded the purchase of a larger company jet aircraft. He also stated that his preference would be a new airport located in Tuscarawas County which would accommodate larger aircraft.

On Monday the Airport Master Plan is going to be discussed in Mr. Lautensleger's Public Works Committee. The Committee will decide whether or not to recommend acceptance by City Council of the Master Plan. Administration officials, and some councilmen, have made the comment that passage of this Plan really doesn't lock the City into its implementation, that passage will merely agree on the principle of further exploration of the Plan's recommendations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Should this Plan be passed by City Council, it becomes the law of the city, one which must be implemented regardless of the impact on the city. Make no mistake about it, once passed a City Ordinance is the law.

Acceptance of the Airport Master Plan as it currently stands will take homes and property by force of law if necessary. The East Avenue Cemetery will be desecrated. Delaware Avenue will be closed. Runway extensions will involve agreements with Schoenbrunn Village, which is State of Ohio property, land which the City will never own. It is not generally known, but 500 feet of the existing runway are on state property, not owned by the City of New Philadelphia. The City will be committed to pay 20 percent of the cost of construction regardless of the alternative chosen. And once committed, the city will be required to pay the bill. And the rest of it? It isn't free money as is so often portrayed. It comes from taxes everybody pays. And it comes from a government which will expect something for its investment, and that something is, today, unknown.

The second item to be discussed by the Public Works Committee is the purchase of ten acres of property southeast of the airport runway. This property, owned by Mary Egli, has long been coveted by the mayors of New Philadelphia. In 2001 the acreage was appraised at $89,910. City Council turned the purchase down then, and on two occasions since, refused to bring it to the full Council. The Mayor requested Mr. Lautensleger's committee to consider purchasing it this year, but at a price of $190,000, an increase of 211 percent. All sorts of reasons are given for the city to purchase the property, the one most frequently passed around is to extend the runway at the airport. You have to be aware that should that property be purchased without it being included in the Airport Master Plan expenditures, the city will have to pay the full amount. The FAA won't put a penny into it otherwise, and once purchased it's the city's. The Mayor says if it doesn't work for the airport, the City can always turn it into a cemetery. So if we buy it now, and the deal with Schoenbrunn Village falls through, then we have ten acres of over-priced farmland.

This whole thing is fraught with disaster. Bets are being made in an economy which is in deep trouble. It comes back to the old question of how are we going to pay for all this? How long will it take for a new airport, or for 10 acres of property New Philadelphia really doesn't really need, to pay back the cost the City is being asked to put up to finance these unneeded purchases? How will these purchases effect the City's cash flow?

If you have questions about this, contact the Mayor, City Auditor, Council members, City Council Representatives to the Airport Commission are Ms. Colleen Espenschied, Mr. Jim Locker, and Mr. John Zucal , all of whose phone numbers are listed on this blog site under City Officials Phone Numbers. and in this case the Airport Commission President, Mr. Tom Farbizo, Office 330-364-0662 or Home 330-343-1260.

Remember, what the government gives away, it must first take away.

Gun Fight at the OK Corral

Back a few years ago, about 16, when I was writing for the Pharos-Tribune, I ran into a fellow named Ben Traywick in Tombstone, Arizona. I was looking for something to send in with some local color about the Southwest, and for that sort of information, what better place than the local newspaper, in this case, the Tombstone Epitath. The editor there told me to look up Ben and pointed to a building across the street. "That's where Ben lives," he said. "If he answers the door he probably won't talk to you, and if he talks to you, he probably won't let you in." He was wrong all the way around.

Ben was the official town historian then. He has written many books about Tombstone and talking to him was literally a step into the past. We became friends and talked frequently after that. The thing he always wanted to do was set the record straight about his town. So for Ben, here is the truth about the gunfight at the OK Corral.

TOMBSTONE, ARIZ - "I was in a Brisbane pub in '43 and the bartender asked me where I was from," said Ben Traywick. "I said Tennessee, and he asked if that was close to Tombstone."
Traywick, 65, Tombstone town historian, leaned back in his chair. "This is the most famous town in the world," he said, "and it's because of three things. The O-K Corral, the name Tombstone, and the Earps. Right down the street from the O-K Corral was the FW Smith Corral. The town's original name was Goose Flats. If I asked if you heard about the gun fight that took place between the Jones brothers and the cowboys at the FW Smith Corral in Goose Flats, you probably wouldn't care. But the Earps and the O-K Corral, that's something different."
For the last 25 years, Traywick has been researching the history of Tombstone and the gunfight. He has published 40 books and hundreds of articles about the town and gun fight.
"The fight only lasted 30 seconds," he said. "I don't think anybody wanted it. It was a confrontation that got out of control."
There had been problems between the Earps and the cowboys, including the Clantons, and Sheriff Johnny Behan, who was known to be involved with rustling and highway robbery. On the day of the fight, Ike Clanton was arrested by Marshal Virgil Earp, for carrying firearms in town. He resisted and Virgil subdued him with a pistol barrel slap to the head. He was fined and released. Shortly after, Tom McLaury threaten Wyatt Earp. Wyatt pistol-whipped McLaury and left him laying in the street.
Virgil and Wyatt decided to run the Clanton cowboys out of town. They planed to pistol whip them to embarrass them to the point that they would leave town and not return.
"In order to do that," said Traywick, "they had to get close, within six feet of them. With a seven-inch barrel pistol, it only took a step more to get near enough to crack 'em on the head. It was too damn close for a gunfight. So, along with Morgan Earp and Doc Holliday, who took a shotgun, they went looking for the Clantons. Holliday and Morgan were hot tempered, and had had enough. They wanted to settle it with the Clantons.

"The Earps and Holiday met the Clantons and Tom McLaury in an alley, only 15 feet wide, around the corner from the O-K Corral. There were nine men and two horses in that alley. When he got close, Holiday jabbed Tom McLaury with the shotgun and said we're going to kill you guys. They believed him and went for their guns, because they felt they had no other choice. It got out of hand.
"Wyatt and Virgil were shattered when this happened. Virgil shouted, 'You men are under arrest, throw up your hands,' and he said this with a cane in his hand. He had to throw the cane down and then reach for his gun. Wyatt had his gun in his coat, because Sheriff Behan said he had disarmed the cowboys, which he hadn't. The fight had already started before Wyatt could get his gun out. Ike Clanton didn't even have a gun."
When it was over, 28 shots had been fired. Two of the Clanton cowboys were dead. Virgil and Morgan seriously wounded, and Holliday had bullet burns on his buttocks.
"Nobody was ready for a fight," said Traywick. "It was just a confrontation that got out of hand."

City Officials Phone Numbers

New Philadelphians. Want to reach your city officials? Here are the phone numbers, just in case you want to call.

A question about City Council. How many people on City Council represent you? If you said four, you are correct. Your Ward Councilman and all three Councilmen At Large represent you on Council. If you have concerns, comments, you name it, call all four and make your feelings known. When it comes to a vote, four votes make a majority. Don't make the mistake of believing that you are only represented by your Ward Councilman. On issues with which you have concerns or comments, call all four.

City Council

Joel Day, Council President
Home: 330-343-8782 - Work: 330-364-8273

Sandy Cox, Councilwoman At Large
Home: 330-364-6469

Jim Locker, Councilman At Large
Home: 330-339-1750

Winnie Walker, Councilwoman At Large
Home: 330-339-6910

Colleen Espenschied, Ward I Councilwoman
Home: 330-364-5612 - Work: 330-454-9400

John Zucal, Ward II Councilman
Home: 330-364-5102 - Work: 330-964-0700

Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward III Councilman
Home: 330-364-2317 - Work: 330-343-6647

Rob Maurer, Ward IV Councilman
Home: 330-339-7028 - Work: 330-364-8874


City Administration

Michael Taylor, Mayor
Home: 330-343-3000 - Work: 330-364-4491, Ext 242

City Income Tax Administrator, Dixie Dyer
Work: 330-364-4491, Ext 230

Law Director, Michael Johnson
Work: 330-364-5593

Safety Director, Greg Popham
Work: 330-364-4491, Ext 244

Service Director, James Zucal
Work: 330-364-4491, Ext 240

Street Department, Fred Neff
Work: 330-339-2121, Ext 255

Water Department Supervisor, Kelly Ricklic
Work: 330-339-2332


Future articles on this blog will bring you information on how the City Council works, its rules, procedures, and perhaps, its biases. To find out what's going on, check the blog. If you have questions or comments about the city, let us know and we'll do our best to come up with an answer.

Real Chili For A Cold Night

A number of years ago we were in Casa Grande, Arizona, when the locals were having the annual chili cook-off. Learned a lot about chili that week. For one thing, there are as many different kinds of chili as there are cooks. But real down-home Texas chili "don't have no beans." That's chili con carne. By definition, chili is meat in a red sauce, and they mean it. The meat, by the way, is cubed not ground. Spices, vegetables, everything but the meat, is put in porous bags and suspended in the sauce to prevent anything from getting into the sauce. One parsley sprig in the finished meat sauce and you're disqualified. We tasted chili for a whole day and came away with a couple recipes, a favorite reprinted below. The porous bag is going a little too far for me. I'm not in a competitive mood, so I don't use it. And beans are definitely out. Oh, one other thing. When it comes to hot spices which really burn the mouth and tongue, like jalapenos and such, the best cure to stop the burn is milk. It quickly neutralizes the acids and lets you get back to the hot stuff again without waiting. Be aware that you drink it, you don't put it in the chili.

The traditional way is to eat chili is straight with tortillas, tacos, bread, or crackers. The wife likes to put it over macaroni. Some put it on spaghetti. I guess if you come from the Far East you could put it over rice but I've never seen that in a Chinese restaurant. I don't know what the Amish put it on. But no beans. The instructions say to make it ahead and store it in the refrigerator over night so the flavors will all blend in. It is good right away, so it's your choice. Left-overs are great for breakfast. Oh, one other thing, don't use expensive meat. Leaner is better. It's chili for Pete's sake.


CHILI NO BEANS

1 pound lean beef, cut into 1/4 inch cubes
1 chopped onion
2 chopped garlic cloves
8 ounces tomato sauce
16 ounces diced tomatoes, undrained
2 teaspoons salt
1/2 teaspoon ground pepper
1/2 teaspoon Tabasco sauce
1/4 teaspoon dried red pepper

Sauté beef in a skillet until just about brown. Pour off grease and reserve. Put meat into large sauce pan. Combine onions and garlic in the skillet and sauté until onions are clear. May add some of the reserved fat, if necessary. Add onion and garlic mixture to meat. Add all other ingredients to meat mixture and stir until well mixed. Cook, covered, on medium to low heat for 2 hours, stirring occasionally. When cool, refrigerate over night. Heat to serve.
Serves 4.

Let's Sue Somebody

If you haven't seen the front page article of the Times Reporter for January 6, 2010, you might want to take a look. It concerns a lady who was robbed at the Giant Eagle in Dover in 2008. According to the T-R she was approaching Giant Eagle's entrance when a man grabbed her purse and took off. The lady held onto the purse and was dragged by the thief along the sidewalk until the strap broke. She was also struck, according to the article. She yelled for help but there was nobody there to render assistance. The police caught the thief, who is currently doing a four year term for robbery. Case closed? Evidently not. According to the T-R, the lady is suing Giant Eagle, and the property owners, because there wasn't a security guard on duty outside the store, nor was there a window in the front of the building through which the folks at the customer service desk could have seen the attack.

I regret what happened to the lady. Things like this are never pleasant, and it is with regret that I admit that such attacks are all too frequent and on the increase. But I have a question as to responsibility. How does the blame fall on Giant Eagle and the property owner? The blame falls on the thief. If someone should be mugged in front of your house, should it be your responsibility because you didn't have a security guard on the porch?

What has me upset about this whole thing is that we seem to be living in a society in which individuals no longer accept any personal responsibility for themselves. Most folks seem to want somebody else pay for their misfortune, no matter what the cause. Granted this lady was a victim, but it wasn't Giant Eagle's fault. It was the fault of the thief. Sue him.

This case recalls other memorable law suits.

A patron stopped into a McDonald's, bought a cup of coffee, got into the car, put the coffee between his, or it could have been her, legs, started up, spilled the coffee, resulting in burns from the hot coffee on his legs. The end result was a lawsuit. which McDonald's lost and was ordered to pay a large amount for medical expenses, pain and suffering. The reason? The cup was not labeled wait a warning that the contents were hot. Come on. I thought it was stupid then, and I think it is stupid now. It's coffee. It's supposed to be hot. If you buy a cup of hot coffee and don't understand what hot is, it's you who has the problem, not McDonald's. Would the customer have complained and demanded money back or a replacement cup had it been cold? Probably.

A farmer went to work on his barn. It was a cold day, started out below freezing. He set a ladder up on the side of the barn and climbed onto the roof. Came time for lunch, he got on the ladder to go back to the house and disaster struck. He had placed the ladder atop a large frozen manure pile. As the morning wore on, the temperature rose, and combined with the natural activity of such a pile, the pile melted. Since the manure pile was no longer a stable base, it promptly tipped to the side, causing it, and the farmer, to fall to the ground. The farmer sued the ladder company for damages and, surprisingly, won a settlement. The reason? The warning label on the ladder did not mention the danger of using the ladder on a manure pile.

At Yellowstone National Park a number of years ago, a man and his wife were taking pictures of the buffalo. He decided that the picture would be better if the buffalo was facing another direction. He started pushing the buffalo on the rear end to get him turned around. The buffalo didn't like it and gave him a kick that would have made a NFL punter blush with shame. The end result was that the Park Service was sued for damages. Now there wasn't any way that the Park Service could have been responsible for that one. Whose responsibility was was it? The idiot who was molesting the buffalo. But he sued anyhow. I don't know how that one turned out.

Where does blaming others for our problems end? When I was a youngster and tripped over a crack in the sidewalk, my dad would tell me to pick up my feet. Today the first thought seems to be a lawsuit.

You have to wonder if the problem comes from the contingency fee system used by lawyers in the United States. The way it works, the client pays the lawyer nothing unless he wins a settlement. The lawyer then gets, as a minimum, twenty-five to thirty-three percent of that settlement. The client jumps on it because he has no expense. If he loses, it costs him nothing. If he wins, he gets paid off. The lawyer likes it because, while he doesn't win them all, the cases he does win are lucrative. Which, incidently, explains the flood of mail from law firms wanting to represent you if you were in an accident.

To me, the only consistent winners are the lawyers. Maybe it is time to go to legal system in which set fees are charged in all cases. What would the case load be in the courts if plaintiffs knew that win, lose, or draw, they would be paying the full bill?

More Wage Increases Coming

Happy New Year. A couple of days late, but the thought of a new start for the city, both on the governmental side and citizen's side, lends itself to visions of new approaches to old problems. In this case, my concern is for the unfinished business of last year, namely contracts for city employees.

We are all aware of the two contracts which were made late last year, the Police and Fire Departments, which will increase city salary expenses by 16 percent in the next three years, but there are two more yet to come.

Contract negotiations will soon be underway with the AFSCME, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. These are the folks who do the work in the city, and, incidentally, do it well. I'm talking about the street department, the clerical staffs, maintenance folks, tree trimmers, sanitation department, the ones who make the city work. There is one clinker here, there always is, in that the folks that work for the Water and Sewer Departments, are paid out of the income from your water and sewer monthly bills. And with that in mind, you know what's coming with water and sewer rates.

Maybe with the start of a new decade, the administration will take a second look at the way these contracts are negotiated. The Police and Fire contracts were negotiated through what is called Interest Based Bargaining. The idea is great. Both sides, the city and the union, get together and put their cards on the table. The union presents its position, including salary, benefits, staffing needs, that sort of thing. Then the city presents it side, financial considerations, plans for future improvements, the ability of budgets to finance the operations of the city, changes in staffing, in short an explanation of what the city can afford. In theory, it is a way that both sides can present their agendas in a way that a compromise can be made so that both sides, by understanding the others position, can work out a financial plan that will benefit all three parties. Whoa. All three parties? Absolutely. The third party is the taxpayer, you know, the one who has to pay the bill.

Well, they tried Interest Based Bargaining for the first time this year. The end result were wage expense increases for the Police and Fire Departments of 16 percent in the next three years. The problem boiled down to gross inexperience in negotiations on the part of the administration. The unions were evidently better prepared and advised than the administration as the end results proved. The negotiations were carried out in secret. City Council was not kept abreast of what was being discussed until the deal was struck. By the time council got involved, it was too late to amend the agreements, and wage cost increases of 16 percent over the next three years became a fact.

More contracts are in the offing for the AFSCME members. The question is are the same mistakes made last year going to be repeated? Is inexperience again going to be pitted against professional union lawyers, and make no mistake about it, union lawyers were intimately involved in advising the union negotiators, or will the city hire lawyers who have the expertise in dealing with union lawyers and contacts? It is important that the city hire the best lawyer negotiators to represent them or these next contract talks will end as disastrously as the previous two. The city desperately needs competent representation in the upcoming contract talks. We cannot again afford representation in any labor negotiation which does not understand the total implications of what is being discussed. A representative who is unaware of the financial status of the city, one which does not make persuasive arguments supporting the city's position, one who does not understand labor law, should have no part in negotiations which are binding on the city.

The representation the city had in the last two negotiation periods, this latest and the 2007 contracts, was far from adequate. The cost of employing knowledgeable people in dealing with the unions will be far outweighed by the savings the city could enjoy. New Philadelphia can no longer afford the inability of representatives who are ineffective in its representation of New Philadelphia. If the Administration does not change its attitude, how long will it be until the city goes into receivership?

As citizens we should be outraged. But, apparently we're not. And that's the sad part. Our city is on the verge of financial collapse and the public doesn't care enough to attend council meetings. When taxes are involved, few if any, attend the hearings. When water, sewer, and sanitation price increases come up, as they will in the coming months, public comment to council and the administration will probably be none. Why don't you care? It is your city. It is your money. If you aren't working, have had your wages cut, had expenses increase, the government at any level doesn't care. They still are going to raise taxes. Citizens, you must get involved.