Here is an obituary from the Beacon Journal about Akron’s “14th councilman” — a citizen who showed up to meetings and spoke his mind.
Our city’s political apathy is the reason the Good Ole Boy Network has let Stow’s finances fall this far. It would be wonderful if there were more people like Matthew C. Sibit in Stow.
I’m back in town after an exciting and stressful Moot Court competition in Madison, Wisc. We didn’t win, but the judges thought we performed very well.
I returned to see a letter to the editor in today’s Stow Sentry written by Janet D’Antonio. I pasted the content below:
As Stow City Council President, I feel I must set the record straight as to the March 21 Stow Sentry Letter to the Editor (“Says city officials in ‘state of denial’”).
I have no problem with the letter writer expressing his opinion, but I do have a problem with allowing inaccuracies to go unanswered.
The “one shot” infusion of $115,000 from “Columbus” (Ohio Department of Transportation) that was mentioned is not a cut — no one said it was. It is actually an infusion of money — and not a one-time infusion, or I, too, would not have found this as an acceptable solution.
First of all, the $115,000 we will receive back this year is probably a very conservative estimate. Also, we will receive a much larger return of ODOT money for the three years following 2010 as well, at which time we hope to have a better economy.
The union concessions, including the AFSCME five-day giveback in 2010 and the police and dispatchers return of their uniform allowance, add up to more than $50,000. The uniform allowance alone comes to more money than this.
The city is running lean and mean. We are down 27 employees and have made drastic cuts in overtime.
Also, there is no “call for a tax increase,” and the letter writer was also confused as to where we get our funds. Most of the city’s money does not come from property taxes. Instead, the bulk of city money comes from income taxes.
In addition, I did not hear Councilmen Joe Hicken, Matt Riehl or Mike Rasor suggesting the unions forego raises as did the non-bargaining personnel. Oh, wait a minute, I think that was Councilman Jim Costello and myself.
This letter was written in response to a letter from Peter Skurkiss, a Stow resident. I’ll paste that below, too.
A warning to the citizens of Stow. I believe our city government leaders are in a state of denial regarding the current economic climate as it portends to your future tax bills.
Stow Sentry reports the Council voted 4-3 to accept Mayor Karen Fritschel’s plan to cut $300,000 out of the proposed 2010 budget. I believe this is a pittance when you consider it is out of $61 million in total spending.
Furthermore, from the Stow Sentry’s report, I see that a large percentage of what are called cuts are not actually cuts. One “cut” is a $115,000 one-shot infusion of money from Columbus while another is $110,000 that comes from shifting of money from one account to another. Of all this “cutting,” only $50,000 came from union concessions.
I feel this is totally unacceptable. It can only set the stage for a much bigger budget crisis down the road. Because of inaction now, there will be calls for tax increases then. Especially as I understand property values are due to be re-evaluated this year. This will invariably result in home values being decreased on the tax rolls, probably by a double-digit percentage. This means less tax revenue for Stow in the coming years.
Yet in spite of this, our City Council still voted to maintain its costly cost structure as if everything is hunky-dory. It is exactly this irresponsible kick-the-can-down-the-road attitude by Washington that is bankrupting America.
In my view, the only Council members sensitive to government cost are Mike Rasor, Matt Riehl and Joe Hicken.
So Janet claims to clear up “inaccuracies.” In reality, her letter was biting and spoke down to Stow citizen (one who does not carry a Good Ole Boy nametag). And it added to inaccuracies.
Mr. Skurkiss is 100 percent accurate in everything he wrote.
There, in fact, has been a mention of a potential tax levy on Stow citizens. John Earle said that, the way the city is going, it would need to look at new sources of revenue, including a tax increase. We already saw the mayor’s attempt to tax landlords (and thereby, tenants).
Regarding the money from the federal government, it was part of the $300,000 taken from the budget, the amendment of which some members of council called “budget cuts.”
Janet and Jim may have suggested taking $50,000 from the unions (I can’t tell you for sure if that’s true), but council could not just make that happen. Sorry to oversimplify, but we have contracts with the union. Council can’t just tell the unions they won’t get their raises.
By contrast, Joe Hicken and I proposed five amendments to the budget that would have been actual cuts of half a million dollars. Janet voted NO to every single one of them.
Janet’s finishing sentence was inappropriately derogatory and sarcastic toward a citizen who simply wanted his concerns to be heard.
This tells me something though. The Good Ole Boys are losing this fight. They feel pressure never before felt. We need to keep on the throttle. Continue to tell your neighbors and friends what’s going on at city hall. Yes, you might be happy/angry about the healthcare bill, but there are decisions being made at the corner of Darrow and Graham that will affect you equally.
Two committees met last night. Not a lot to report…
The finance committee advanced out of committee a $15,000 payment to the large Cleveland law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey for our bond work. The consensus was, this was a good deal based on the firm’s expertise and willingness to help answer questions (without the traditional billing).
It also preliminarily approved the delegation of power to the administration to determine whether we advance sick-leave time to employees. Traditionally, city council has handled these matters. In fact, we handled one a month or so ago. Now the administration will do it. My concern is that this also applies to union employees. As we know, collective bargaining negotiations get heated, and I think there needs to be another safeguard for them against retaliatory rejection of a sick-leave advance.
Council will vote on both measures on Thursday. As I told you last week, I will have to miss that meeting because of my moot court competition (for which I have devoted hundreds of hours). Matt Riehl was kind enough to offer to say the prayer for that meeting in my stead.
With all of the bad financial news this city has received, it was due for some good news.
That came late Friday when Ron Marhofer (my uncle) received his letter from Chevrolet that his Stow dealership would be reinstated.
As you can read in Jim Mackinnon’s ABJ article, there has been a lot of uncertainty in the company in the past two weeks. At first, Marhofer heard it was in, then it heard maybe not. The wait was difficult.
But now, it’s certain that 80 good jobs will stay in the city. And that a business owner loyal to Stow will get to keep his dealership going, which it had been for almost a full century. It has been hard on the family, but I know the dealership will bounce back stronger than ever.
This is all due to Steve LaTourette. He sponsored a bill that required arbitration for these dealership closings. As we saw with the Marhofer decision, the closings were done arbitrarily in some situations.
With the federal money he has pulled in for Stow projects, the post office renaming and now this, LaTourette should be the most popular person in town. I truly admire the way he gets things done.
My challenge for the community is to help make Marhofer Chevrolet retake its position as one of the best in the nation.
I’m pleased to announce that Web traffic on this site has spiked. Hundreds of people per week are viewing this site for the first time.
My first goal in office is to make changes to the way the city spends money. My second goal is to educate people on what is really going on, and this Web site is my primary tool.
So thanks for stopping by. And keep sending me your thoughts.
On Friday, I received a phone call from a resident who was in attendance on Thursday. She showed up to protest the cuts to the parks department. We had a good conversation about where the city is headed, and we agreed on almost everything. She told me she likes Sara Drew because Sara seems nice. (Sara is nice, so I didn’t say anything.)
But it got me thinking… In her first four years on council, Sara Drew had only voted “no” three times on substantive motions* until Thursday, when she voted “no” on four amendments to the budget within 20 minutes.
Let that sink in: Four years — three “no” votes. Twenty minutes — four “no” votes … all in the name of protecting the Good Ole Boy Network’s irresponsible budget.
I’m not questioning Sara’s intelligence. She has her master’s degree. Behind the scenes, you can tell she’s smart. Here’s hoping that before the end of this term she breaks away from the mayor’s stranglehold and proves it to the rest of the city.
I will not be able to attend the Finance Committee meeting on Wednesday, nor the city council meeting the following Thursday. I apologize. I have two important obligations that were scheduled before my election in November. This week, I am going to Dallas to represent the Akron Law Review and train my replacement. Next week, I have my moot court competition in Madison, Wis.
Why am I announcing this? After all, few people would have noticed if I wasn’t at the meeting. It’s the same reason I give candid assessments of why I vote in a certain manner on each item. Because I want to be transparent. When there is transparency, the people can best inform themselves and become more involved.
* Council minutes from Dec. 13, 2007, available at http://www.stow.oh.us/Documents/documents/CityCouncil12-13-07 at page 18 (declining to reimburse a man who cut his foot on city property, also declining a zoning variance on a piece of property); Council minutes from June 11, 2009, available at http://www.stow.oh.us/Documents/documents/CityCouncil61109.pdf at page 22 (rejecting an ordinance regulating phone book distribution). Drew has voted “no” six additional times, but they were on procedural motions.
One highlight of tonight’s meeting was Shawn Porter (see above) getting an accomodation. Another highlight was about 40 people coming to talk about Fox Den, almost all of them opposing the sale. They made me look like the other guy in that picture. Just kidding.
The people present were concerned about 1) the course becoming a housing development, 2) Stow getting a bad deal on the course.
On the first issue, we can rezone the property, insert a restrictive clause into the deed, or have the contract give the city the right of first refusal on subsequent sales. Rezoning the property for greenspace-only is probably the easiest. The restrictive covenant would be enforceable in court by injunction, so residents don’t need to worry about it a subsequent owner breaking it. The third option is an added layer of protection. We can do all three of these to protect nearby homeowners.
On the second issue, you’re misconstruing my plan. I only want to see bids. I’m not up for selling at half-price. Is there any harm in fact-finding?
Despite ALL of the comments tonight, nobody answered my challenge. If someone did, and I missed it, please contact me. The challenge: One legitimate reason why it benefits the average Stowite to have Fox Den be owned by the city, rather than a private party.
But enough about the course… Tonight was proof that the Good Ole Boy Network is engaged in serious fear mongering. People approached the meeting, convinced that I want to close Bow-Wow Beach or the senior citizens center. I have been the most transparent councilman in this city’s history. Do you remember me ever saying anything like that?
No. But Sara Drew, the mayor and her friends are lying to people, unnecessarily stirring up their emotions. I honestly felt bad for a lot of people, especially the ones with whom I spoke during a break in the meeting. They were tricked into becoming angry at a straw person.
Drew took her lies public when she accused me of issuing a press release about money I was saving the city. She said I’m about “showmanship, not leadership.” Before hearing that, I didn’t intend to bring up my proposals that Jim Costello refused to present in committee — cutting council pay and manager’s salaries. At that point, I had to reveal that I wanted council to be leaders by cutting their own pay before looking to the unions. Same with managers.
Then we had the mayor tell a whopper of a lie, saying she helped come up with the idea for fundraising to buy/train Colt, the new police dog. Whatever. Nothing that comes out of her mouth surprises me anymore.
These people are shameless in lying to folks. But I’ll move on…
Council passed the budget tonight. It was a 4-3 vote. I voted “no,” along with Matt Riehl and Joe Hickin.
They struck down three of my five amendments: 1) 3 percent cut to parks (dickered down from 10, because I could tell that wouldn’t get four votes). 2) 3 percent cut to golf course expenditures. 3) Moving $100K from the Lodging Tax fund to the general fund to avoid using unencumbered funds. As to my other two amendments: 4) Janet refused to entertain my voluntary pay cut for council. 5) I didn’t bother with the manager pay cut, because it was apparent that we’d see another 4-3 vote, and it was too complicated to present orally.
At the end — after they shot down all of our cost-saving ideas, without presenting any of their own — Hickin proposed a 1 percent across-the-board cut of expenditures. Still, four members of council opposed it.
Sara Drew has no ability to think for herself. I’ve given up on her. Costello and D’Antonio seem like they want to cut costs, but they simply need to take a stand somewhere. I’m confident it will come.
In the end, this will probably wind up being a $500K deficit, and $1.5 million if you include the money taken from the roads fund. It’s a sad day for the future of the city when THIS is the best that our elected officials could come up with.
Please know that I am fighting for you. I’m fighting for the over-taxed Stow resident, who loves the city but cannot bear the next time the city asks for money. I’m fighting for the family whose road is deteriorating. I’m fighting for the people on cul de sacs, who wait and wait and wait to get out of their homes on some winter days. I will fight until the voters tell me to stop.
We lost today, but it was only the first round of the fight.
Since Monday night, I have received multiple nasty anonymous e-mails from people who say they are city employees. I even received a phone call traced to a pay phone at Kent State University.
First, I challenge you to actually provide some contact information so I can respond. Second, when you call me “immature,” yet your message lacks substance and includes only personal attacks, I have to ask which person is immature. Third, your premises are completely inaccurate: My plan includes no layoffs.
If you are a city employee, you must ignore the fear-mongering from the Good Ole Boy Network. Below, I pasted the EXACT wording of the amendments I’m proposing for the budget. No one’s job is mentioned.
1) Withdrawing $100,000 from the Lodging Tax fund to offset the use of unencumbered funds.
2) Reducing the Golf Course expenditures by $38,994.18 (3 percent).
3) Reducing the Parks and Recreation total expenditures (including funds for Administration, Recreation, Facility Improvement, and Parks Maintenance) by $158,553.60 (10 percent).
4) Otherwise reducing the total budget expenditures by $69,357.81 — cuts to be spread equitably across salaries of employees (non-union, non civil service, non-contract, and non-elected) earning in excess of $60,000.
5) Resolution agreeing among city council members to reject $1,660 each in 2010 earnings (10 percent).
Yes, I am proposing cuts to managerial salaries. Below, I will copy and paste the salaries that will be affected:
PS-City Engineer 100,796.80
Planning-Director 100,796.80
PS-Assistant City Engineer Road 95,035.20
PS-Assistant City Engineer Water 89,689.60
PS-Assistant Director 88,046.40
PS-Dep. Engineer Plans Examiner 83,158.40
Planning-Assistant Director 81,515.20
Finance-Deputy Director 79,497.60
PS-Superintendent Water 79,497.60
P&R-Director 77,958.40
PS-IS Project Manager 72,384.00
PS-Senior Engineer Storm 68,931.20
Planning-Economic Development 68,140.80
P&R-Manager 67,371.20
PS-Chief Inspector 67,371.20
Finance Coordinator-IS 67,371.20
Law-Deputy Director 67,246.40
PS-IS Network Administrator 63,668.80
PS-Superintendent Bldg. Main’t 61,172.80
Law-Asst. Director of Law 60,923.20
P&R-Supervisor Recreation 60,590.40
Police-Youth Services Coordinator 60,590.40
PS-Coordinator Comm. Information 60,590.40
PS-Superintendent Road 60,444.80
For employees making more than $80,000, the cut is 5 percent. For between $79,999 and $70,000, it is 4 percent. For between $69,999 and $60,000, it is 3 percent.
Council members (i.e. D’Antonio, Costello) talk up and down about fairness, fairness, fairness. I can’t speak on behalf of the administration, but I’ll be shocked if they don’t ask the unions to give up some money at the upcoming negotiations. Is it fair that a street worker has to give up money, while an employee making upwards of six figures does not? Absolutely not!
I feel that this government is top-heavy. Managers must take a pay cut, just like the unions did. I think it would be a travesty if city council did not chip in, as well. That is the reason I am proposing a 10 percent cut for council. (And yes, I’m fully aware of the charter provision preventing this. This should not prevent council from doing the right thing.)
City council seems content to push off today’s problems to next year. It seems not to care that we are taking $1.1 million from our roads fund to offset irresponsible spending. It wants to ignore this courthouse transfer that is speculative at best. I learned yesterday that NO BILL is currently being considered by any committee in the Ohio General Assembly. And yet the mayor thinks the bailout is coming. This is the sort of “positive thinking” that has compounded our problems.
I might not win this fight, but I’m not going to give up. If the people don’t like it, they shouldn’t have elected me. You have two years to put up with me questioning expenditures, asking the tough questions and presenting solutions.
And if you have something nasty to say, at least have the courage to give me a chance to respond. I have tough skin, and I’m not vindictive. These drive-by comments don’t help.
In other news…
The Finance Committee will meet at 6:15 tomorrow to discuss the budget. The mayor has asked the Booster Club to attend in order to protest my proposals regarding Fox Den. Below is the message to the club:
As you may have read, the City of Stow is currently wrestling with how to address a current budget shortfall.
One of the most highly contested means of reducing the City’s budget would be the sale of Fox Den Golf Course. Whether you initially supported the City’s purchase of the golf course, or rejected the concept from the start, the current reality is that the City owns this asset, and a sale at this time would likely result in a significant financial loss for the City.
As the home course for the Stow-Munroe Falls High School golf teams, Fox Den serves as a wonderful resource for both the girls and boys golf teams, and represents the best alternative for these teams. Further, when one considers the current state of our School District’s financial situation, the current mutually beneficial relationship that exists between the District and the City in support of our golf teams generates a win-win-win situation that goes well beyond the dollars-and-cents calculation, but strengthens our sense of community as well.
Mayor Fritschel, long a supporter of our Booster Club, has requested that the Club lend its support in favor of keeping the golf course, as opposed to selling this asset, in an effort to meet short-term municipal budgetary objectives. The Booster Club is being asked to show its support in favor of keeping Fox Den by attending the Stow City Council Committee meeting this Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers located at 3760 Darrow Rd.
A strong showing of Booster Club support at this meeting sends a very important message to the leaders of our community, and reinforces Booster Club’s role as a civic organization in the greater Stow-Munroe Falls community. Please give every consideration to attending this meeting to either express your thoughts on keeping this valuable community resource, or as a demonstration of mass support for this effort. Parents, Coaches, student athletes, fans and supporters of our teams, are all encouraged to weigh in on this very important issue.
Thank You,
Stow-Munroe Falls Booster Club
The Finance Committee met tonight to discuss the budget.
Beforehand, John Earle presented several ways to avoid spending a total of $300,000 from the unencumbered fund. Although these ideas are helpful, they mostly amount to moving money from one account to another or allocating revenue previously expected for 2011 into 2010′s budget.
First, the amended budget pays for Rob Kurtz’s salary (with benefits, totaling $110,000) out of the Lodging Tax money, which is simply using a different fund to relieve pressure on the operating budget. It’s a zero sum gain. Second, the city is due a reimbursement from the federal government on a road project. If we do things in a timely manner, we can get that $114,000 at the very end of 2010, rather than 2011. Of course, that’s money that cannot be allocated to 2011, so it’s another zero sum gain. The remaining money is speculative ($50,000 from potential fire union concessions) and in small amounts ($5,000 from canceling events that won’t make money; $10,000 from council’s contingency fund).
My solutions
I proposed several more ideas to fully eliminate the deficit, and to supply $163,000 to buying new snow plows and/or paving the roads. My cuts add up to about $378,525 in overall savings.
1) Taking another $100,000 from the Lodging Tax fund. Admittedly, this is another zero-sum gain, like moving Kurtz’s salary. However, it makes sense to use the money, rather than let it sit in a fund not being used. The fund will still have about $250,000 at the end of the year. Savings: $100,000
2) A 10 percent cut of the Parks and Rec Department. I am not afraid of making difficult decisions. When choosing between keeping roads safe and having 10 percent more money for the parks, it’s not even close for me. Savings: $158,553
3) A 3 percent cut in golf course expenditures. The course used to be profitable, this is a step toward making it profitable again. (As you know I support selling or leasing the course, but that won’t affect the 2010 budget). Savings: $38,994
4) Managerial salary cuts. Council only has authority to affect those salaries of employees who are 1) not in a union, 2) not under contract, 3) not civil service hires (i.e. police/fire management), 4) not protected by the Charter (i.e. elected officials). For employees making more than $80,000, a 5 percent cut. For employees making more than $70,000, a 4 percent cut. For employees making more than $60,000, a 3 percent cut. For council, I propose a voluntary 10 percent cut (amounting to $1,600 per member). Savings: $80,978
Total savings: $378,525.59
This extra money will allow us to: 1) Eliminate use of the unencumbered funds. 2) Put $163,000 back into the capital improvements fund (allowing us to resurface the roads that are in worst condition).
Jim Costello said that he won’t support my managerial salary cuts. He said that managers have given up enough by not getting their cost-of-living raises. I respectfully disagree. You aren’t giving up anything by not getting a raise. In the private sector, people are taking pay cuts. Raises are nearly unheard of. If you need evidence, look at how our income tax totals have tumbled. If we want to take our duties to the people seriously, we must take every measure necessary to operate more like a private business.
John Pribonic talked about not wanting to make cuts, but rather focus on economic development. I respect John’s opinion, but practically, we have not been ignoring economic development. What new things can we do that will turn everything around? We can sing about economic development all day long (see Sara Drew), but the problem won’t go away until we pursue it from both angles. Like Joe Hickin said, this government has outgrown its population. It needs to shrink–no question about it.
But since we are talking about economic development, consider that Stow is robbing the capital improvement fund by $1.1 million. The capital budget is what drives commerce. And that’s not good enough, so we’re robbing the unencumbered funds by $515,000 (or $215,000) after pilfering $585,000 last year and $128,000 in 2008. When will city council finally admit that the problems are in the mirror? We outspend our means. And we have made a habit of it. Plain and simple.
The Court issue
Here is another HUGE problem that we uncovered. The budget presumes a $750,000 transfer to help pay for court expenditures. What was hidden from council, however, is that the money is not expected to fully come from the judges’ special projects fund at Stow Municipal Court. Rather, the budget assumes that we will have a long-range solution from Columbus–that our lobbyist will fix the problem before 2010 closes, and the Ohio General Assembly will bail us out.
It is one thing to assume we are getting money (between $375,000 and $500,000) from the judges, whom we know to be helpful. It is entirely another to expect the 99 state reps and 33 state senators in Columbus to somehow craft legislation that takes between $250,000 and $375,000 from surrounding communities (or wherever they get it) and puts it in Stow’s lap. And it all must happen within nine months. How unrealistic!
For this reason, we have to be even more conservative with our projected spending. What happens when the $250,000 never comes? Or even worse, if the judges tighten up and we lose out on the full $750,000? We don’t have a commitment from them, so anything is possible. I can tell you what will happen. Council will have to dig into the unencumbered funds again. If council doesn’t consider this likelihood, we are dreaming.
Three members of council (Drew, Pribonic and D’Antonio) committed tonight to voting for this budget, which presumes a court-related bailout, runs a $215,000 deficit and robs the capital fund of $1.1 million. Costello did not commit publicly, so I hope he is open to putting more flexibility into the budget. This will determine whether I was correct in saying he’d make a good mayor.
On Thursday, I will present my amendments to the Finance Committee, which will meet at 6:15 before the council meeting. Whether the budget passes out of committee and gets a vote on the floor of council, I have no idea. But I promise I won’t vote for any budget that takes so many liberties in assuming revenue that may never come and does not address our serious needs.
This city’s problems are much bigger than I ever thought during the campaign.
Golf course
By the way, it has been 11 days since I challenged the Good Ole Boys Network to come up with a reason why it helps the average Stow resident for Fox Den to be government-owned, rather than in private hands. Until today, I only received support for selling/leasing the course. Today, I heard from two people who did not want to sell the course, but neither person answered my challenge (i.e. Why does it help Stow to own Fox Den?).
On the other hand, I received a call from a potential suitor for the course. That makes two interested parties. If you want to contact me, use the button above. I’d love to hear any proposals that I can present to council.
But as to my challenge, that is 11 days and counting. You know where to find me.
For those of you who want to hear about the budget, the Finance Committee will meet sometime after 6:15 tomorrow.
I can’t give you an exact time, because the meeting will start immediately after the Planning Committee, which starts at 6. Before getting to the budget, the Finance Committee will discuss eight other items. Realistically, you’re probably OK if you arrive at 7, but you also might not get a seat, because I have heard that the mayor is trying to jam the council chambers with her people.
Other notes…
– In today’s Stow Sentry, Mike Lesko did a nice job breaking down the numbers of Fox Den in his article.
It has been 10 days since I challenged the Good Ole Boy Network to give me a single benefit that Stow residents get from having the course owned by the government, rather than a private owner. I know of some illegitimate benefits, such as their friends maintaining cushy jobs with public pensions, but I have not heard anything that helps the average Stow resident.
I will continue to count the days until we pass an ordinance seeking bids from a private party wishing to lease or buy the course.
– It is looking good for Ron Marhofer to keep his Chevrolet dealership at the corner of 59 and 91. This is great news. The dealership has been in the family since 1919. Congressman Steve LaTourette worked hard to overcome Barack Obama’s “car czar,” who pressed to close Marhofer Chevrolet. Here is a Beacon Journal story about it.
– This week was the second-highest total of Web traffic since I started this site in July. Election week was the only seven-day span that surpassed this one. It encourages me even more to read everyone’s positive e-mails. As a result, I will try to remember to post one per week on the site. Here is the first.
Thank you for standing up to city council regarding selling Fox Den Golf Course. The city never should have purchased it to begin with. Not one person I have talked to in this city feels the city should have purchased it and totally agree with you that if it is between selling it or raising taxes what is there to think about? This city has made very poor choices the past several years and now you want the taxpayer to bail you out. Well, we don’t have the extra money anymore. The mayor of this city has to start being held accountable for all her boneheaded decisions.
Thank you for standing up for us – FOX DEN SHOULD BE SOLD.
Two weeks ago, I used Facebook (as young people do) to invite Shawn Porter to come to our meeting so we could honor his accomplishments in boxing. He will be there this Thursday, and the city will soon erect signs around town with his name on them.
Porter won the junior middleweight title last month in Cleveland. The 2006 Stow High grad is undefeated (13-0) with 10 knockouts.
By the way, it has been eight days since I challenged the Good Ole Boy Network to present a reason why the city should own Fox Den, rather than a private party. Still waiting.