Stow City Council
Vote Nov. 8th!

It came up in the meeting that people are dissatisfied with my comments on this blog. Specifically, they say I blamed council for the economic downturn. That is untrue.

WHAT I SAID: Stow’s budget crisis was “caused in 2009 by a $1 million drop in revenue, and to be amplified in 2010 by a $2 million increase in expenditures.”

WHAT THEY ATTACKED: They said it was “irrational” and “overly simplistic” to blame council for the economic downturn.

Let me explain further. There are two parts of the equation. First is the revenue. We agree: Council largely cannot control that tax revenue falls in a recession. That is obvious. I have never disputed that, never will. Second is the expenditures. The council CAN and DID affect our problem (see the golf course, courthouse, and multiple raises granted in 2009).

They attacked my stance on the first issue, which I never even addressed. It is very easy to attack someone if you can use your imagination to create things that he never said.

You, the voter, are wondering, Why is a candidate for council being attacked during a council meeting? It’s simple. They are worried. They don’t want debate on all expenditures. They don’t want me to break up the Good Ole’ Boys network at city hall. These small-town politics are ugly. Stowites should know that this leads to inefficient government.

I have almost five years of experience as a professional blogger under my belt. I’m telling you that it is very rare that a site sees more new visitors than old visitors on a given day, except when a site is in its early infancy. That is the trend that MikeRasor.com is seeing.

It is an indication that Stow citizens are ready for change. They see two members who have held office for a combined 28 years. They want new ideas. They see a third member who contributes very little. They want a plan.

I met another 30-some residents in Bayside Lake today. Very positive responses. If you are visiting MikeRasor.com after seeing my note on your door, I’m sorry I missed you. I will be happy to come by your home and meet you at a more convenient time if you contact me through the button above.

In case you’re interested, my conservative estimate is that I’ve knocked on 525 doors since I started walking six days ago. If I keep this pace, I have a chance to knock on about 3/4ths of the doors in the entire city. My opponents are planning to combine forces and outspend me. That might happen, but they won’t outwork me.

Tonight, the city government met to discuss the “financial crisis.” John Earle and John Baranek seem determined to fix this problem, caused in 2009 by a $1 million drop in revenue, and to be amplified in 2010 by a $2 million increase in expenditures.

I have spoken enough about the past expenditures. You know where I stand there. I only speak about them to draw the contrast between me and my opponents — that I will analyze all evidence before deciding to buy a golf course or move a courthouse.

Ron Alexander’s decisions are a major cause of these problems. But I want to give him credit. He seems determined to fix this budgetary problem. There is no questioning his intelligence. Janet D’Antonio also asked questions today, and she wants to solve the problem. There is no questioning her passion for the city.

Sara Drew? We didn’t hear from her the entire meeting. We rarely hear from Sara Drew. If she has great ideas, we will never know.

Here is my plan to fix the financial crisis:

• Cut high-end salaries. No city employee should earn more than $80,000 except the mayor, police chief, and fire chief. Why? These are public servants. If you want to make the big bucks, that’s what the private sector is for. MONEY SAVED: At least $200,000 annually.
• The city council should earn much, much less. If I’m elected, I will propose a 40 percent cut. Also, it is not enough for council members to “donate” their raises to a charity. They must refuse them — put them back in the people’s hands. MONEY SAVED: $46,200 annually.
• Eliminate cost-of-living increases for non-union employees. Is it unfair that non-union employees don’t make as much? Maybe. Is it city council’s duty to right a political wrong? No. MONEY SAVED: $110,000 this year, more in 2010.
• No more rubber-stamping of the mayor’s expenditures. When she asks for a bus that costs $100,000, debate it. The mayor is not wasteful, but there should be a system of checks and balances. How do we know this bus is necessary? The council simply voted “yes,” and that was the end of it. I’m only using the bus as an example. It’s quite possible it was a reasonable expenditure. But the council did not do its due diligence to find out for sure. MONEY SAVED: Immeasurable.

TOTAL MONEY SAVED: At least $350,000 annually.

Stow is looking at a $594,000 deficit in 2009. My specific plan provides for an extra $350,000 that could be put back into the budget to fix our streets or hire additional police officers.

City council members proposed renegotiating with the unions. I do not approve of that. The city made a commitment to its employees at the bargaining table. Coercing them to take less is not right. If the city was prospering, how would council feel if the unions demanded a renegotiation? When you make a contract, you accept the risk that circumstances may change for the worse. I want unionized employees to know that I stand behind them in this regard.

Along with fixing this financial crisis, we must be mindful of the lessons to be learned. We must profit from this crisis by using it to avoid the next one. Toss out the council members who have become complacent, who do not analyze data, and who are not fit to make decisions with our money.

As I have written, many people are uncomfortable with me challenging the city government. Know that I challenge the government out of passion for my city (like D’Antonio’s). I do this because I see a wonderful community that is slipping. I do not do this to make people angry, but if anger is the byproduct of truth, so be it.