Rasor for Stow

I attended this morning’s Memorial Day ceremony at the cemetery. It was very well done by Mayor Fritschel, Sara Drew, Dr. Floyd Mault and the veterans. Dr. Mault, the reverend at the ceremony, mentioned the post office dedication, which we appreciated.

Jesus told his disciples that there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for friends. Unlike Christ, members of the military do not intentionally give their lives for their country, but they do take the appreciable risk that it will be taken from them. Given that most of our soldiers who are in combat are young, they also risk that they will sacrifice the chance to live a full life — or at least one without a disabling injury.

One such example is Stow’s own Joe Tomci. He died at age 21 while fighting men who want nothing more than to make America extinct. As a close friend of Joe, I can almost guarantee that he would have served the same, even if he knew his life would end Aug. 2, 2006 in Iraq.

There is no greater showing of love for one’s country, neighbors, friends and family than that.

Other notes…

– The post office dedication will happen on Thursday at 10:30 a.m. at City Hall. We are having an after-party at Roses Run Country Club starting at 2 p.m. During the after-party, there will be a silent auction, cheap beer and burgers, a cornhole tournament, live music and other fun events. As one of the directors of the Joseph A. Tomci Foundation, I have been working with my other high school friends to put this event together. It should be a fun day.

- Matt Riehl and I will hold our open hours tomorrow (Tuesday) at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall in the mayor’s conference room. I’m happy to have as many people there as possible. I like having supporters show up, but I would particularly like to see attendance from those who disagree with what I say and how I vote. If you talk about the issues with me, and you still disagree, then that’s OK. I’m not happy when people want to blindly follow the go-along, get-along group without educating themselves.

- It was a year ago today that I officially decided to run for city council. What has surprised me since then? 1) How many good people we have in the city of Stow. I was invited into dozens of homes while walking neighborhoods. I had hundreds of fruitful conversations with honest, hard-working people who felt their interests weren’t protected at City Hall. 2) How many politicians are dishonest. Lawyers have a bad reputation that I feel is mostly unearned. It is an ethical profession, full of diligent people who care about justice. Politicians, however, have a reputation that is wholly earned. The lies are blatant and yet, because they’re only called out on it 1 percent of they time, they get away with it.

But to tie it all back to Memorial Day … It’s the sacrifice of our troops that has allowed us to continue to elect our leaders democratically, not have them imposed on us. It’s the sacrifice of our troops that allow us the freedom of speech to effect change, rather than by violence. The people in place are not perfect, and they never will be. But our system of government affords us the most protection of our natural, God-given rights of freedom.

Here are my notes from tonight’s council meeting:

– City Engineer Bill Drew gave some updates on road projects. The timeline for the Kenneth/Samira project appears to be the end of July for completion. They’re looking at June 20 to finish the concrete work and June 25 for the asphalt. On the Seasons Road project, the water line has been installed. They began paving the east side of Norton Road.

– Police chief Lou Dirker confirmed that Sgt. Matt Reed was hit by a drunk driver last weekend while in his police cruiser, sitting at a stop light. He sustained some serious injuries (broken bones in his legs, feet) and will be out of action for six to eight weeks. The cruiser was totaled. The police department is now down five officers who were not replaced, and two officers are on light duty due to injury (including Reed). The fire department is also down five firefighters. But best wishes to Sgt. Reed to get well soon.

– We learned that Walmart has plans to extend it store on Graham Road.

– We voted on three separate ordinances regarding employee raises and promotions. They were easy decisions for the go-along, get-along group. Matt Riehl, Joe Hickin and I, however, struggled with the decisions. The ordinances pertained to three employees who all deserved promotions, but the ordinances treated the three employees differently. More importantly, none of the three was going to the rightful pay level, per the payroll ordinance:

No. 1) The employee was getting the promotion to a higher pay rate, but would not receive the money until further council action. (I know, I know. It still doesn’t make sense to me either.) No. 2) The employee was getting a promotion to a different position PLUS an additional boost in pay scale ABOVE what the new position normally pays. No. 3) The employee was getting a promotion but we weren’t giving her the total salary due for that position because the other employees with that title did not make as much as she would have.

To me, the decision came down to voting “no” only on the ordinance(s) that amounted to a raise. In this economy, voting to give raises is unacceptable. Contrast that with promotions, which are necessary because of the massive amount of employees who took buyouts. That meant voting “no” on ordinance No. 2 (above).

Matt Riehl abstained on all three. I don’t blame him. We have a pay ordinance for a reason. It’s to treat people who are in similar situations (education, experience, tenure) similarly. When we make all of these exceptions, it’s disconcerting.

And it is particularly troublesome when we discuss it in executive session. We are not acting illegally, but we are violating (in my opinion) the spirit of Ohio’s Sunshine Laws by going behind closed doors to discuss giving raises. Sunshine, of course, is the best disinfectant for government.

– Here is another reminder the Stow Post Office will be renamed after my childhood friend Joseph A. Tomci, a Marine who died in Iraq on Aug. 2, 2006. The dedication will happen on Thursday at 10:30 a.m. at City Hall. We are having an after-party at Roses Run Country Club starting at 2 p.m. During the after-party, there will be a silent auction, cheap beer and burgers, a cornhole tournament, live music and other fun events. As one of the directors of the Joseph A. Tomci Foundation, I have been working with my other high school friends to put this event together. We also have a golf outing planned for Aug. 21. I’ll have more on that later.

Threatened with layoffs, Stow firefighters agreed this week to concede $62,000. The union gave in because a majority of members felt they could not afford to lose any firefighters.

We have a council meeting tomorrow at 7 p.m.

The Planning Committee and Finance Committee met last night. Here are my notes:

– In the Planning Committee, we heard a presentation from Rob Kurtz about the “Safe Routes to Schools” program. It’s a collaboration between city, school and state officials to facilitate grants from the federal government that will encourage elementary students to walk to school. It’s a nice program that Sara Drew spearheaded on council’s side, especially if we can get some extra sidewalks out of it. I am a firm believer in the value of sidewalks.

– In the Finance Committee, we discussed giving a service employee a raise. This person was promoted to a job that paid only slightly higher than his old position. Because of the person’s qualifications, the administration believed he was worth more than Step Two pay. So they were proposing Step Three pay, which is $1.08 more per hour. We discussed this in executive session two weeks ago. And that’s why I protested. Regardless of whether the person deserves the raise in this economy or not, it’s not a secretive matter. I applaud Finance Committee chair Jim Costello for bringing this up for public debate. Now that it has had a public debate, I’m fine with suspending the rules.

– We got an update on income tax receipts from John Earle. He told us to expect a 3.6 percent loss in revenue, down about $425,000. Expenditures were about what we expected, but we spent a little extra on overtime for snow plowing — probably based on the weather.

– In this year’s budget, we assumed $50,000 in concessions from the firefighters union. Quite presumptuous, huh? I asked John Earle about it last night. Well, it’s May 25 and we haven’t seen any of the money. The same goes for the $750,000 that we expected from the courts. Apparently we are looking to hire a negotiator for contract negotiations. I’m going to need a compelling argument to allow that.

– We have two committees meeting on Wednesday at 5:30, then a council meeting on Thursday.

Also this…

– In the meantime, I’m looking at the list of streets that need repaired in the city. Take a stab at how many are rated “poor” or “very poor.” Have a guess in mind? The answer is 150. I will write more about that in the coming weeks.

– As you probably know, the Stow Post Office will be renamed after my childhood friend Joseph A. Tomci, a Marine who died in Iraq on Aug. 2, 2006. The dedication will happen on Thursday, June 3 at 10:30 a.m. at City Hall. We are having an after-party at Roses Run Country Club starting at 2 p.m. During the after-party, there will be a silent auction, cheap beer and burgers, a cornhole tournament, live music and other fun events. As one of the directors of the Joseph A. Tomci Foundation, I have been working with my other high school friends to put this event together. We also have a golf outing planned for August 21. I’ll have more on that later.

I stopped by the Charter Review Commission tonight. Matt Riehl was the final councilman to testify. He stated his positions in favor of terms limits, maintaining two-year council terms and the election of the law director and finance director.

He also aptly pointed out that people with finance degrees similarly should be capable of running for finance director.

Because I was the first person to testify, I also wanted to speak a bit to the commission regarding what has transpired during their meetings in the past few months.

Here is the gist of what I said:

– Everyone agrees that term limits should be consistent across the board. Of course, the GOBN (mostly) is in favor of no term limits. That is the opposite of how most citizens of Stow feel (as elections over the years have shown). We need to present the issue clearly — once and for all. Here is how I would do it:

Issue 1: Should there be terms limits that consist of the following:

4 terms (eight years) for city council
2 terms (eight years) for law director, mayor and finance director?

If Issue 1 and Issue 2 both pass, only the initiative receiving the most votes will be implemented into the charter.

Issue 2: Should term limits be abolished for mayor?

If Issue 1 and Issue 2 both pass, only the initiative receiving the most votes will be implemented into the charter.

It doesn’t have to be complicated. Unlike last time, let’s not trick people.

– I also let the commission know my stance on whether council “shall” put proposals on the ballot. It is this: I won’t vote “no” on a proposal on policy grounds. I’ll let the people decide that. I will, however, vote “no” on any matter that has been asked and answered repeatedly. I will vote “no” on any matter that is confusing to voters. I think council should respect the job that the Charter Review Commission has done. It’s a similar situation to recommendations from the Planning Commission, where we review their conclusions and follow them 99.9 percent of the time. I do disagree with the law director’s opinion that we “shall” vote in favor of each proposal. The charter puts these proposals before council, and we will not be used as a rubber stamp. We WILL NOT be held to the fire to vote in favor of anything. That is a violation of the separation of powers that the charter clearly establishes.

– I do not think council terms should be extended to four years. It deprives citizens of half of their chances to remove bad leaders and replace them with better ones. Even if that puts my job on the line, so be it. I have faith in democracy. Nor do I buy this argument that “council members are still basically learning their jobs their entire first two years.” I have held a lot of jobs where I haven’t learned the procedures and practices quickly, but I can’t say this is one of them. Being on city council isn’t as complicated as they’re making it out to be. You answer phone calls, ask a lot of questions, do your homework and have the guts to vote your conscience. If you’re willing to work hard, it’s not very complicated. The GOBN, however, wants to tack on another two years to ease this “learning curve.” Stow residents have not bought that in the past, and I’ll actively campaign against it if it shows up on the ballot.

– Overall, I think the Charter Review Commission has done a great job. Kudos to Mayor Fritschel for picking a great group of leaders who are quite intelligent and forward-looking.

Jim Ruttenberg, a Stow firefighter and EMT for 40 years, lost his battle with cancer on Tuesday. I didn’t get a chance to know Jim, but he was well-liked and admired by all accounts. My prayers are with his family.

Below is an obituary from the Stow-Munroe Falls Chamber of Commerce:

James F. Ruttenberg, age 60, passed away on May 18th, surrounded by his loving family, after his courageous battle with cancer. He will greatly be missed by his devoted wife, Debbie, of 34 years and his twin sons, Matthew (Niesha) and Bradley, as well as his older brother, Don (Lori). Jim will be remembered forever by all the lives he touched with his warm smile and positive attitude towards life. He was preceded by death by his loving parents, William and Helen Ruttenberg.

Jim grew up in Stow, Ohio and graduated from Stow High School in 1968. He furthered his education at both Tyler University and Akron University. Jim was a “career agent” and Financial Planner with Prudential Insurance Company for 36 years as well as Ruttenberg Financial Inc. in Stow, Ohio. One of the most important jobs he did was being an active firefighter and EMT with the Stow Fire Dept. for almost 40 years. This part of his life meant so much to him. He loved saving lives and keeping everyone safe.

Jim was an avid golfer, an accomplished pilot, and he loved boating. He and his wife recently moved permanently to Cape Coral, Florida to be near his sons and be able to continue his passions. Jim was a long time member of the Stow Rotary as well as the Stow-Munroe Falls Chamber of Commerce. He gave back to community in many ways his entire life. He was a member of the Hudson Community Chapel in Hudson, Ohio where he served as an usher for many years.

There will be a “Celebration of his Life” and memorial service on Thursday, May 27th, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. at the Hudson Community Chapel at 750 West Streetsboro Street, Hudson, Ohio.

In lieu of flowers, the family has set up a foundation in Jim’s name at Stow Monroe Falls Foundation, 44 Munroe Falls Avenue, Munroe Falls, Ohio 44262 where Jim had expressed wishes that the donations go to providing heart defibrillators for the City of Stow where they are needed. You may also donate to Hope Hospice, 2430 Diplomat Parkway East, Cape Coral, Fla 33909. Thank you in advance for all your thoughts and prayers to the family.

Firefighters are exposed to a lot of carcinogenic chemicals and materials. To raise money for cancer research, many Stow firefighters will be participating in the Relay for Life this weekend. To contribute, contact Stow Firefighters President Mark Hodson at mghstowfire101@aol.com.

The Charter Review Commission has begun the process of narrowing possible amendments to the charter. At this point, there is no verbiage, but the commission has identified nine possible amendments. A majority vote of the commission next week will carry each passing amendment on to council and — presumably — the ballot.

Click here (Charter Review Commission Minutes 051310) to read the minutes from Thursday’s meeting, but I also posted them below:

1) Term Limits for Council
2) Council Term (two years versus four years)
3) Section 3.05 and 3.06 and Section 4.04 (pertains to the rules when council president becomes acting mayor)
4) Add section on the CIC to Charter
5) Under Outside Counsel, wording should say that outside counsel reports to Law Director. Law Director should have an approval piece to say who is hired as outside Counsel?
6) At Large Council members run for each seat not just top three vote totals
7) Put on ballot whether Council should put all recommendations from Charter Review on Ballot?
8 ) Planning Commission – Parks Board Member to Serve
9) Repealing Residency Requirements (that are unconstitutional anyhow)

I think the most contentious provisions will be Nos. 1 and 2. I don’t think many people will care either way on Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 8. No. 4 is dangerous for everyone — whether you’re in favor or opposed to the CIC. I don’t know what No. 6 means, and the minutes indicate that Charter Review is still hammering it out, too. No. 9 is a waste of everyone’s time and probably should be excised under the Law Director’s inherent power to bring city law into state and federal compliance.

The next meeting is Thursday (tomorrow) at 7 p.m. in the Boards and Commissions Room at City Hall.

If the blind followers of the GOBN needed any more conclusive proof of how bad the court decision was, the Beacon Journal provided it Sunday on the front page.

Take a close look at what other cities thought about Stow taking over the municipal court:

Cuyahoga Falls mayor Don Robart:

Over the past 20 years, the court spent over $12 million more than it raised in operating court costs. The other communities in the court district covered $4 million of this deficit through their fine revenues, leaving the remaining $8 million to be paid by Cuyahoga Falls through its fine revenues and taxes.

With such a track record, Stow had little reason to expect a different outcome, especially after the court moved into a new, stand-alone building that could only be more expensive to operate than its former accommodation here in Cuyahoga Falls.

Munroe Falls mayor Frank Larson:

[Mayor Fritschel] was so excited to get the court, she didn’t do due diligence. Now she wants everyone else to pay for it.

Both of these men are right. Brief history lesson: Early last decade, Judge Hoover presented a plan to Stow’s council to move the court. Council ordered a financial analysis, at which point the council decided it was not economically feasible. Several years later, the same opportunity presented itself — with no changed facts — and Stow willingly moved the court. When a skeptical citizen warned council about the financial ramifications, councilman Ron Alexander told the citizen to talk to Judge Hoover if he didn’t believe council’s prediction that it would work out OK.

The mystery, to me, is whether council knew this would be a financial loser, and still went forward — or whether the administration hid the ball and rammed it through a willing “go-along, get-along” council. I used to think it was the former. After seeing how the administration plays with numbers at the mayor’s instruction, I’m starting to think it’s the latter.

Regardless, the Beacon Journal pointed out to the community that Stow has a SERIOUS problem on its hands. It also dispelled the mayor’s statement on Thursday that Stow taxpayers have not been made to bear the burden of the court yet. (In fact, even after the $750K bailout, taxpayers footed $150K of the 2009 bill.)

The article also addressed why Judge Hoover lowered the fees: “We were informed that the fees charged by our court exceeded the average of other courts,” the judge said. “Our present court costs are currently slightly less than average.”

If THAT is the reason why Judge Hoover lowered fees, what logic would there be in him raising fees simply because Stow council asks him to? Is the underlying problem vanquished? In other words, will Stow Municipal Court now have “average” fees if they are raised to $54 per case? Doubtful.

So where do we go from here? I am in favor of Mayor Fritschel’s plan to change the fee structuring in Columbus. I don’t think it’s fair for the municipal court district’s deficit to be borne only by one city. So in that regard, I disagree with Mayors Robart and Larson. But the two mayors are absolutely right when they talk about the recklessness in which Stow pursued the court relocation.

And I can see why Robart butts heads with Judge Hoover. The judge looks out for his court. He wanted a new building, and that is fine. He was elected to do just that. But at no point should we assume that Judge Hoover is looking out for Stow’s interests. The history behind the move to Stow should prove that.

I’m looking forward to the day when politicians in Stow start acting honestly and with only one motive: improving their communities at the lowest cost to taxpayers.

I meant to post this last night, but I’m graduating this weekend. With that comes all the pageantry and, of course, the celebrating. Anyhow, here are my notes from the meeting:

– We passed a commendation for Stow Youth Services, which is celebrating its 35th anniversary. As I said during the meeting, this is a valuable program for many reasons. Most young people find themselves in a bad situation at some point in their lives. Making poor decisions can have a lasting effect on their futures if they go through the normal court procedure and find themselves with a record. SYS diverts a lot of kids and plays a role in their rehabilitation. This is a worthwhile investment in this generation and I believe it helps to prevent crime.

– Then came the mayor’s report. Unprovoked, the mayor spoke about how great a decision it was to bring the courthouse to Stow. In fact, it was “necessary.” She assured everyone that taxpayers aren’t paying for the building. She said, when you make a big move like this, “there’s always issues.” And the courthouse “has not cost the citizens money yet.” Further, “it would be irresponsible for the court to put the burden on Stow citizens.”

Why was it necessary? The mayor spoke about the compliments she receives from lawyers (etc.) about how beautiful the building is. Also, when the court was in Cuyahoga Falls, there was no way to separate the defendants from the regular public. There’s also the economic development from the court.

My response: Compared to the giant deficit, who cares what service we provide for the lawyers? WE REPRESENT CITIZENS OF STOW, not lawyers from out of town. Who cares about the defendants getting close to other people? OUR JOB IS TO SOLVE THE CITY OF STOW’S PROBLEMS, not the problems of the municipal court, which is a collaboration between 16 communities in the area. And finally, what economic development can you possibly be talking about? You’d have to be blind to ignore all of the vacant commercial property. In the past 12 months, three restaurants closed down.

The problem is, the GOBN is determined NOT to let its legacy be defined by the worst mistake in our city’s history. They want to solve the problem (and rightly so), but in the mean time, they refuse to admit just how badly they screwed up. If you speak candidly with some members of the GOBN, they’ll acknowledge it’s a big-time error. But publicly, it’s all sunshine, rainbows and lollipops over at Stow Municipal Court, where the building is beautiful, but court fees are sky-high and the city of Stow pays the $1 million deficit.

Look, I’m tired of talking about whether the court was a good decision or not. Really, I am. But we have a mayor who just can’t let it go. She went on this long diatribe, then concluded by saying it is “irresponsible” to make Stow citizens pay, rather than defendants at court. Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but if we’re going to be calling someone “irresponsible,” shouldn’t it be the people who got us in this giant mess — and, at the time, shouted at citizens who dared to question whether the court would cost taxpayers anything.

Truth is, it has cost us money. A lot. Look at last year’s budget. The court chipped in with a $750,000 check, but Stow taxpayers covered the remainder. That was at least $200,000 that could have gone toward fixing your roads, toward improving your parks, toward snow plowing. Rather, it went into this vacuum, never to be seen again. But believe the mayor when she says it was “necessary.”

Why all of this court discussion? Because Judge Hoover wants Stow City Council to pass a resolution to ask him to raise minor misdemeanor fees from $24 to $54. If this sounds strange to you, you are not alone.

By my records, Hoover was elected to be a judge, who by Ohio law set fees. I don’t think I’m surprising anyone when I say that judges are elected to make decisions, often unpopular ones. Apparently, he won’t “go alone” on this. But in late 2008, Hoover did go alone; he did not include Stow City Council (or anyone at Stow) in the decision to lower fees to $24. It’s anyone’s guess why he did it.

He “went alone” when he was the good guy. Now he wants a partner in being the bad guy. Clearly, he has no uncertainty of what the administration wants. He already has heard from Mayor Fritschel, who has expressed her deep desire to more than double the fees that accompany a traffic ticket, among other offenses. Janet D’Antonio said that we shouldn’t let one columnist decide what happens at the court. Heaven forbid our decisions have to be scrutinized. If there is a good reason for raising fees, then the judges can call this evil columnist and plead their case, if they are so afraid of the backlash.

The resolution was a waste of our time. It was just a political game. And I refused to participate. The best part about being a councilman is seeing the change come, albeit slowly. The worst part is the small-town politics. It’s disheartening.

So, as you probably guessed, I voted NO on the resolution. It passed 5-2.

– I did, however, change course on the court technology fee. But it was mostly out of sympathy for Chris Grimm. He is a hard-working man who will do his best to cut down costs at the clerk’s office. He needed the extra boost in technology fees to do it. He presented a detailed budget on what money this fee would bring in, and what he would spend it on. It passed 6-1.

– If you were listening at home, you might be wondering why I voted not to suspend the rules on a few employment matters in the past two weeks. It has to do with the necessary evil called “executive session.” State law allows council to go in a private room when discussing a certain employee’s compensation. There are times when it is appropriate. There are times when it is legal, but not appropriate.

We discussed three employee raises in executive session. I will vote YES on all three, eventually. The problem is, we should have discussed those raises in an open meeting, not behind closed doors. To cleanse the legislative process, I will vote NO on suspending the rules each time it happens. Our charter requires three readings, unless the rules are suspended.

It’s not a game. It’s my way of controlling what little I can control as a city councilman in the minority. If the administration wants things to get done faster, we can discuss this stuff in public. Otherwise, the employee raises will have to wait another month or so.

I want to distinguish this from some scenarios where employee privacy is at stake. For instance, if we are deliberating on giving an employee added sick time when she has cancer, that medical information should, in my opinion, be kept confidential. To illustrate the point, I voted YES on suspending the rules on a employee-health situation on Thursday.

I am a HUGE advocate of government transparency. The executive chamber room, although sometimes necessary, is the antithesis of transparency.

– We do not have meetings next week, but we do have committee meetings on the following Monday and Wednesday, with a council meeting on Thursday, May 27.

– I’ve talked to some really great people who are interested in running for office in 2011 — people who will put the taxpayers above their friends and above small-town politics.

I am exhausted after a 3.5-hour committee meeting tonight. We went over a lot of interesting issues. Here are my notes:

Planning committee

Mike Weddle, Brian Reali and Ken Trenner gave a nice presentation on what the CIC is, what it is not, and its core functions. Click the link below for his powerpoint presentation. I think it is a valuable economic tool. It has capability to do things the city cannot do. Plus, it capitalizes on the private-sector expertise of its members.

CIC Informational Presentation to Council – KEB 5-10-10

I do have concerns, though. First, I want each member to sign a statement disavowing any conflicts of interest. A lot of these people are interconnected (and that’s not a bad thing). But here’s a hypothetical: What if a member of the CIC owns a manufacturing company, and the CIC gives out a loan to a struggling company, and the CIC member’s company does business with the loan recipient? What if a bank has a vested interest in keep a company alive, and the bank has a representative on the CIC?

Second, the current “plan” allows the CIC to persist for a certain period after council disbands it. I can’t ever imagine disbanding the CIC, but if the time comes for that, then the CIC should not be permitted to continue business as usual for a given time.

We also got some negative economic news. Davey Tree is moving its Stow operations to Kent. That will cost us between 50 and 60 jobs.

Janet D’Antonio made a motion for us to go into Executive Session on Thursday to discuss employee compensation. I was the only “no” vote. Sure, it might be uncomfortable to speak in public about individual employee’s pay, but I refuse to keep the public’s eye away from our discussions on employee compensation. As former Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said: “Sunshine is the best disinfectant for government.”

Roads & Safety

We talked about the residential lighting proposal, which would make it illegal to directly shine a light onto another person’s residence in a way that takes away the person’s right to enjoy his/her property. I spoke with six classes of seniors at Stow High School today. We all discussed the issue and “voted” on it. Out of the six classes, only a handful of students thought the ordinance was a good idea. Turns out, city council agreed. No one on the Roads committee made a motion to move it forward to the council meeting. Thus, it dies; the high school students were prophets. The reasons? Much like the high school students said, it’s not enforceable, it’s vague, and it’s not the proper role of government.

We were visited by three residents who serve on the Hunter’s Crossing Homeowners’ Association. They showed us pictures of how bad their roads are. The mayor said, “because of the recession,” we don’t have money to fix their roads. As you all know, that is false. I don’t know how someone can say — with a straight face — that the economy is what forced us to cut the roads fund. As I’ve said a million times, these problems are man-made. When you expand government without expanding revenue, you’re going to make cuts. When you make GIANT cuts to roads, without really touching the parks, no one should be surprised when residents come to meetings, carrying bags full of pieces broken off of their roads.

Assistant service director Mike Miller said, “There is a point where we’re not just repairing streets; we’re replacing from base-up.” As you might have guessed, that is more expensive. At least we own a golf course.

Finance

I feel bad for Chris Grimm. He is the former Tallmadge mayor, who serves as the deputy clerk of courts at Stow Municipal Court. He came before council today to ask us to — OK, get this — pass a resolution to support the clerk in raising technology fees because Judge Kim Hoover “didn’t want to take the rate increase alone.” Only in politics can you have something so convoluted. Let me translate: Judge Hoover doesn’t want to get grilled in the media for raising fees, so he wants OUR council to pass a resolution supporting it. Thus, he won’t have to “take” the heat alone. Unbelievable. Gina Mace’s article in Sunday’s paper describes what’s going on.

I favor Grimm raising those fees from $3 per case to $7 per case. His office uses antiquated technology, like typewriters and floppy drives. There are boxes and boxes of documents that need transferred to microfiche. He wants to go paperless — a move that will probably allow him to downside the staff and save the city of Stow money. Yet Hoover stands in his way. Because Hoover wants to play political judo with this fee increase.

It doesn’t stop there. Apparently, Stow Municipal Court cut its misdemeanor fees from $54 to $24 sometime before 2008. We also have to “request” that Hoover reinstate the higher fees because, as you know, the courthouse is costing the city its shirt. I asked, “Why would they cut fees from $54 to $24?” And nobody seemed to know. I wouldn’t be shocked if that was also politically motivated. Why can’t people just govern their jurisdictions in the RIGHT way, rather than playing political games?

But maybe we can make a deal with the judges. If Hoover lets us control his budget (and judicial salaries), then we’ll take the heat from fee increases he “doesn’t want to take alone.” As of now, I intend to vote a resounding NO on both fee increases. It’s political. It’s cheap.

Even worse… We found out that the mayor’s budget assumed that this fee increase ($24 to $54) would occur. Therefore, if it doesn’t, then our budget deficit will be even higher. What a meeting.