Downsizing Council, financial common sense or retribution…
Is it surprising that the District Council members who did attend yesterday’s Charter Review Committee supported eliminating at-large council seats as opposed to their own? The initial reason the Mayor brought this suggestion up several months ago was felt to be based more on power than on financial sense. Three proposals are going to be discussed at public meetings held in each district:
Eliminating each of the six at-large council seats, creating an all-district council.
Maintaining the six current district seats and reducing the number of at-large seats from six to three.Leaving the six district seats in place and creating three “super-district” seats. Each super-district councilman would represent two districts.
Dave Schulz’s previous suggestion that was presented to the Charter Review Committee did not make it into final consideration, he proposed to eliminate all of Toledo’s at-large council seats and create two additional district seats, bringing the total number of council seats to eight. Many have spoken out on the proposed changes including Former Mayor Ford, who this summer when this topic was raised stated:
Councilman Phil Copeland said it best. A reduction from 12 to eight results in less representation for a number of people. And, let’s face it, it will result in less minority representation on council. But, maybe that’s what Finkbeiner wants.
I remember in 1991, I had to press Finkbeiner, John Block and others to agree to go to six council districts. Have we forgotten that quickly? Any minority who supports this new scheme of the mayor ought to have his or her head examined!
Each Council member earns $27,500 for what is supposed to be a part time position, but I think we all realize many of them put more than 20 hours a week into being a Council person. We have 12 council members right now, and how does that compare to other Ohio cities? Not all had salaries listed but what I discovered:
Cleveland – $67,735.92 with 21 Council members
Columbus – $37,710 with 7 members
Cincinnati – $55,701 with 9 members
Akron – has 13 members
Canton – $48,000 with 9 members
Findlay -has 10 members
Warren – has 10 members
Cutting Council members at the most if staff is cut as well, would save $100,000 to $200,000 depending on which option is selected. As a comparison, the Mayor could cut one Department head and with their salary and benefits it be similar to cutting three Council members. Who would really benefit from cutting six or three council members is the real question, even if you support the concept of a smaller government. The balance of the districts and the at larges was created to prevent parochiality becoming a problem as some all district councils have experienced and to have the districts to ensure that representation existed from all parts of the city.
If we can afford to pay one million dollars to temporarily purchase Southwyck, and we can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on beautification projects as well as investing tax dollars in things like the Erie Street Market, should we be focusing right now on cutting Council or on finding ways to cut costs that would have a larger impact, such as health care costs for City Employees, PERS contribution amounts, etc. The logic that we need less representation because we are a smaller city now only makes sense if you believe that when people move they take the roads, the crime, the sewers, the fires and the need for the police calls with them.
The at-large districts are up for election in 2009, Betty Shultz is term limited out and will not be running for re-election, if voters of Toledo believe that Phil Copeland, Joe McNamara, Frank Szollosi, Mark Sobczak and George Sarantou have not done a good job in representing the City, then vote for someone new. The reality is more voters pay attention and are more actively engaged in the process of electing at larges than they are district Council people. In November of 2006 when Joe McNamara won, 75,679 voted in that race, in November of 2005 when the other at large races were held 344,722 people voted for the 13 candidates. This compares to 40,067 voters who voted in all of the 6 District races this past November 2007. I do believe that people should pay more attention to the District Council races, but I’m not sure that eliminating the at larges is the way to accomplish that and I feel creating situation where you are pitting at larges against district Council members if this does come up for a vote before Toledo City Council could be destructive rather than productive.
I disagree on many of your points. Will post later….
February 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pmI’m sure you do, and that’s okay.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pmAs David is a republican, of course he’s gonna disagree with Lisa. I am surprised but not really that Cleveland has 21 council members when their population is far below 500,000. Isn’t time for them to start “trimming”?
February 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pmI was surprised their salary was that high, but that is low when compared to other cities like Philadelphia where council members make over $100,000 a year.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm1. I realize you are just reporting what others say that this attempt to reduce council size was political retribution. After working with the CRC, I think that this is not the case. It just doesn’t wash anymore. Some of the player and Carty opponents want to make it that way to stave off elimination from the public teat.
2. Actually, the all-district format has not been decided yet. The CRC just put that forward as one of three without attaching a number. Public feedback will determine that number.
3. Regardless of attempts to save their seats, some politicians are flying against strong public sentiment for a reduction. That is an irrefutable fact.
4. Your numbers on the voter turnout need to account for that in 2005 people could vote for 6 people so the real turn out was 79,000 or so. Of course, 2006 was a gubenetorial year. The question of turn out for district races is a concern because it is in an off year. They should have had the districts run with the Mayor and at-larges run alone but then again there are good arguments on both sides.
5. The last line of pitting councilmen against each other in a potential vote is kinda flimsy. Look at all the rancor of much less serious matters and the politicians with their heart in the right place will vote for giving the voters 2-3 options. What about trusting the people who put you into office in the first place to decide on their form of government? Whatever option gets a majority wins or the highest % if two or more win majority support. You hear all this talk about giving voters choices, etc. The rubber is going to meet the road here soon I think.
6. On a less serious note, look at how we could fund CareNet with the savings from this effort!!! woohoo. Seriously, Council budgets have increased dramatically over the years. I think the savings would be more substantial with further reorganization of staff in the council office due to these potential reductions.
7. Lindsay made a great point about past and current at-large residencies. The current at-large crop practically all live west of Douglas Road. How is that for representation. The super district idea proposed by Tom Waniewski has great merit and should be place in front of the voters with other options.
Rockets, great steretoyping of me as a Republican but I agree it is time to start trimming.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pmDavid, I am not stereotyping, but you are a registered Republican….right?
February 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm1. I do believe the motivation for eliminating council positions is not coming from one of the Mayor wanting to cut the budget. Do others have more “genuine” motivations? Of course.
2. I’ve been told that the plan that is the one most liked is the elimination of all at large districts and the creation of the three “super districts”. Two of the three plans would eliminate all the at large seats.
3. There was strong sentiment to return to the City Manager form of government as well, and the voting numbers support the position that people do pay more attention to the at-large races.
4. There were 6 district seats up for election, which means there were the potential for 12 to select from which compares to 13 open slots for the 6 at large positions. 40,067 voted for the 6 District spots, 344,722 voted for the 6 at large slots.
5. Considering the current division on Council, I don’t think it’s flimsy to expect this to ramp up the contention, especially since there is no scenario offered that would eliminate all of the district spots. Nor do I think any of the three proposals will get the 8 votes needed by Council.
6. I think as I stated there are lots of other ways that cuts could be made that would have a larger impact.
7. That’s up to the voters to decide, there have been numerous options for people to vote for at larges from other areas. As an example, you ran for at Large Dave, which means voters have had the option, they’ve just not taken it.
Your turn,
February 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pm344,722 voted for the 6 at large slots. – not that many people voted. Approx. 79,000 people voted up to the allowable 6 times.
Re: point 7. Thank you voters for allowing me to maintain my sanity. Humbly I suggest, that I helped rid the Toledo body politic of 2 miscreants; McCloskey and McConnell Hancock and was unsuccessful on a third. I was ahead of my time re: council size.
Returned serve…
February 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pmTo elaborate just a bit more on point 5, who’s in support of this? Did Mike Craig, Michael Ashford and Wilma Brown chime in their support of eliminating the at larges? Ashford, McNamara, Copeland and Szollosi have already gone on the record as far as being opposed to changes in the make up of Council when this was first brought up this summer.
Even if the Mayor could get Sarantou, Sobczak, and Shultz to agree to eliminate their own elected positions, with Webb, Waniewski and Collins that’s still only 6 votes. Not even a Mayoral tie breaker will get them to 8.
Which then begs the question…knowing we have some serious issues facing us as a community, the possible failure of the 3/4, the trash fee, unemployment and some huge issues as far as how we are going to fund our court system, which should be the priority as far as public hearings and council attention…
February 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pmDave, the total votes for all of the districts were 40,067. Which means even if you want to break it down to your number of 79,000 almost double the number of voters took part in the at large races as opposed to the district ones which still proves my point. We can’t really break that down though beyond an average since we don’t know if every voter voted 6 times and there were write in candidates.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pmRe-read your initial post. “in November of 2005 when the other at large races were held 344,722 people voted for the 13 candidates.” I didn’t dispute that less people turn out in an off year election.
I am not going to publicly count votes by name but I think that there are potentially 7 yes votes, 3 no votes and 2 swingers. I think there are enough options to get 8 votes.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:32 pmAll I can say on this issue is I am VERY interested to see how it turns out. These public meetings should be quite a show to watch. Count me in.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pm(Ding Ding Ding) Lisa 1…David 0….Now onto Round Two!!!!
February 1st, 2008 at 2:34 pmDave, from what I know, it will be impossible to get to 8 given the motivation behind this is not going to be lost on those who are insiders. Betsy, it will be interesting this summer. Rockets, there are no winners or losers in a discussion like this, just differing view points.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:41 pmLisa, don’t make me take that point away from you.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pmIt smacks of retribution. But define “strong public sentiment” (for reduction of council). What does that mean? 30% of voters, 50% of voters? & Based on what polls & paid for and conducted by whom? Agree with Lisa’s #6 – there are lots of other ways. A smaller council could be more easily manipulated and controlled by a strong mayor. And the results of a strong mayor system are increasingly generating voters’ remorse on that issue (based on conversations with almost any Toledoan these days). Other than cosmetics & histrionics, strong mayors have not done a lot for Toledo. This current economic downturn could have been predicted by a halfway alert high schooler 6 years ago, but the powers in Toledo twiddled their thumbs until things got desperately bad. At one point (in better economic times) Mayor Finkbeiner went up to Dearborn, Michigan, stood on the steps of their City Hall, and for some unexplained reason railed against Michigan in general for stealing workers from Ohio. Dollar for dollar, council members in general appear to spend their taxpayer-paid time better than that. The current size of council is needed to counter any strong mayor.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pmI am the suspicious type. I have to wonder why any businessman would want to be on a council where he can only make $27,000 a year? Unless he is trying to get legislation that helps his business I would think that it wouldn’t be in his self-interest. I would say the same about any councilman who is also on the executive board of a union. I mean if we were paying our councilman a living wage I could see why they would run, but we aren’t. So why would we assume that would be so damn altuistic that they wouldn’t try to get their nests feathered. So if we reduce the size of council because of costs we should expect that a smaller number would be able to conspire together to pass legislation in their interests. If we pay them more we might get some “professional” councilmen who would answer to their constituents. But that won’t happen either. Well, I look forward to future Blade articles about how our “reduced fat” council conspired to enrich themselves.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pmI’ve given the whole Council Size thing a long look and feel strongly that both sides, thus far, have not found the right combo. For the most part, it’s the “At Larges” that are a thorn to Finkbeiner. So it has been with both Ford and Fink. So, from my vantage point, Fink’s desire to reduce is primarily connected to his ambition to hold nearly soul control of the city. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
The juvinile antics of the overgrown kiddies on Council is very frustrating to both progress and perserverence. They all need a big gulp from the “Get over it” cup!
I agree with OldSouth on the pay factor. I feel strongly that the Council positions should be “Full Time” and paid as such. I also feel strongly that it should be reduced to 8 positions, 7 districts. I feel strongly that the council members should be required to live within the district they represent. The “7th” district would be bordered by Cherry, Collingwood, Star Ave, and Courtland. This would be the “Downtown” and be serviced by 2 Council Persons.
As for “Strong Mayor”, well if he wants that title he needs to start living up to it. A strong Mayor would would appear personally for any and all Council meetings sitting in his own chair and not sending some other team member on a regular basis to cover that end of his job. That’s not deligation, it’s delinquent. If you are going to be setting policy and driving the city as a singular function, then you need to be in possesion of all the facts and be on cue to answer to the Council and other interested parties as to the who, what, why and where. A strong mayor knows everything that is going on in his administration at all times and is fully capable of delivering the information personally.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:43 pm[...] 2nd Update:Lively, constructive, insightful discussion occurring on Lisa Renee’s Glass City Jungle regarding the reduction of council issue in Toledo. Please read! Look at the total [...]
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 am“I have to wonder why any businessman would want to be on a council where he can only make $27,000 a year?”
Purely from a job stand point, 25 or 27K a year for part time is not bad.
The members have day jobs in addition.
“If we pay them more we might get some “professional” councilmen who would answer to their constituents.”
Or we could get people that want the salaries first, but the voters would decide that.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 am1. I voted against the strong mayor form of government because I believed the “strong mayor” would result in more political patronage. Look at who gets these key jobs. You won’t eliminate patronage with any system, but the strong mayor system, IMO, means less “professionalism”, at least in Toledo.
2. I could never understand 12 council members. It should have been an odd number just to eliminate the possibility of ties – although ties could still happen if council members are absent. Nonetheless, it would happen less often and keep the Mayor where he should be as executive of the city and not tie breaker for council.
3. I understand the argument on both sides of the compensation issue. I favor paying council members (and for that matter school board members) a living wage to be a full time representative. When you need a job to pay your bills, all kinds of conflicts can occur (look at Sobczak and his day job). Their attention has to be on other matters as well as their responsibilities as council members. It is also easier in my mind to hold elected officials accountable when they are in fact paid a fair wage to do a job. However, I do think any pay raises for the council members should go before the voters for approval – none of that voting a raise for yourself stuff.
4. I agree with Lisa about the parochial interests of district council members. I can see an all district council as one big financial disaster as they trade their votes for projects in their districts. I’ll support you and you support me – not that this does not occur to some extent now. I believe there should be some balance and at large council members will have a more global, big picture perspective.
5. Anyone that does not see this as retribution or an attempt to control by the Mayor is avoiding the issue for other reasons. That of course does not mean it is not a valid issue to discuss.
6. Any changes that result in lowering the cost of city government is good in my opinion. I have no problem with debating the issue and moving on it but Lisa is right this is a proverbial rain drop in Lake Erie.
7. While we have all been “trusting” our government leaders and/or blithely ignoring what our elected official are doing, items like the city paying the full cost of the employee’s portion of their retirement contribution has added significant costs and increased employee compensation without the howl that goes with a higher salary component. One of the real issues is the role of public service unions in the political processes that elect their bosses. I’m of the opinion that some real changes are needed regarding the role of these unions in the political process. This is a much bigger issue than the size of city council.
8. Lisa is right that there are bigger problems that require current and longer term effort. This debate diverts our attention.
9. Did I miss this in the discussion? No one has mentioned how the African American community will view this as another effort to reduce their potential participation and representation in government by eliminating at large council positions.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 am“5. Anyone that does not see this as retribution or an attempt to control by the Mayor is avoiding the issue for other reasons.”
So, what, then is the basis of the attempt to downsize the council?
Effective response and communications with less council members?
“”The sense I get is people are not in favor of an all at-large council,” committee member David Lemon said. “I don’t think there’s any support for it. I think people like having someone accountable” for the interests of individual communities.”
And when the members for the district fail to respond, one then can turn to the At-Large members.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 amNC:
“So, what, then is the basis of the attempt to downsize the council?”
I was speaking only of the Mayor’s intentions. I was not implying that others such as Schultz don’t have their reasons. I don’t read minds, but the Mayor has a history and IMO you only have to look at the timing of when the Mayor addressed the issue to suspect there were other much stronger motivations for suggesting council be downsized.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 amI, for 1, never take my eyes off the mayor. He simply cannot be trusted.
The Pers is crap…and should be downsized. Live like the rest of us folks..then you’ll get the picture.
Agree with Flagg on the fact that if a council member or school board member isn’t making a living wage from the task, then their other life jobs may be a conflict..and mostly, they are. By Council having outside jobs, be it unions, lawyers, whatever, they are obligated to be involved in those jobs too much, taking them away from the job at hand. For any size body to be effective, it must be present!
As for the racial makeup of the governing bodies, well, put candidates up that are reasonable and they will be considered. If ya don’t run, you cannot be considered.
There’s a far stretch from what Carty says should be cut and what the rest of us would cut. Just as Lisa stated, there are many areas within the administration that could be reduced and the savings would be far greater than a few missing from Council. Catch 22, if you reduce council, then the remaining will need more support staff. The Mayor’s personal budget for just his wing is outrageous.
The Mayor doesn’t need 20 lackies doing redundant jobs. I can come up with 4 or 5 individuals that are paid nearly 100k that he could learn to live without. Fancy printed invatations..he can live without. Flowers and bikepaths and mall real estate he can live without. He spreads the money too thin to be effective. Pissing on a forest fire isn’t going to solve anything. Imagine the cost savings if he just went to paper than is printed off a regular computer rather than gold embossed letterhead that looks really nice but still only letterhead.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 amIf Toledo were ever to switch to a full-time council they would regret it forever. You would get a LESS professional council, not more professional. Factory workers, small businessmen/women, attorneys, etc. would NOT give up their jobs or businesses to pursue council jobs. The tradeoff would absolutely not be worth it financially. You would get full-time professional politicians, or starter-job politicians.
Further the answer to “why” people want these part-time council jobs is so simple, but nobody came up with it. These jobs provide free insurance benefits for entire families (paid for by Toledo taxpayers). That one HUGE benefit enables many on council, as well as their spouses, to pursue whatever job or career they wish without worrying about insurance. You could reduce the amount paid to Toledo council people to, say $10,000 a year, and you would still have many eager applicants, and many of them consummate professionals. Because of the insurance and the degree to which that gives them great freedom in choice of livelihood. Council seats are also used as springboards to better paid full time government jobs for those whose bent is government service. But I contend it’s the security of having free insurance benefits.
In a similar manner, many small businessmen/women, including attorneys, are able to have their own businesses because their spouse covers the entire family with insurance from one of the local corporations. I had an attorney tell me this directly and frankly many years ago. His wife lost her corporate job in downsizing, and he was forced to seek a government job and close his private practice. This, by the way, is why universal health insurance is a big issue in the national election this year, and should be a bigger one than it is. You listen to the debates, especially pared down now, and you get a lot of heat and little light. The reason Kucinich’s plan is so important – and he continues to work on it as a Congressman – is that it SHUT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT. Single payer meant our taxpayer dollars would cover us taxpayers directly, with no hog trough for insurance middle men, and would save billions. Do you hear that coming out of the mouths of Hillary, McCain, etc., who get their own insurance paid for by taxpayers, and have for decades? Of course not.
I know that appears to combine two different issues, but actually, not. All politics is local, and IT’S THE INSURANCE, period.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 pmInsurance for City Employees is over the top by comparrison to the rest of the population. I have no problem with them having insurance, good insurance even, but they should be required to pay their share as the rest of the working world does. I know several people making less than 20k a year that have to pay $100 or more per month + co-pays. I make in the 50-60k range and pay nearly $300 a month along with co-pays. I have decent insurance that covers medical, dental and vison. 80/20. Each year, the costs and co-pays go up and the care and coverage go down.
Insurance paid for by taxpayers should not be greater than what tax payers have…period! There isn’t an elected or hired employee of the city that should recieve completely paid for insurance if you and I do not recieve that same deal.
Health care and Risk mgmt. are the 2 largest expenses most employers have. If we are to get anywhere, we have to cut the taxpayer burden to these 2 offices. People just have to come to terms that we must trim down, sacrifice the full coverage and take up each’s share. I’ts likely cheaper to cut healtcare all together and pay each employee another $500 a month so they can buy their own insurance.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm“The Pers is crap…and should be downsized.”
There have been attempts to do away with system and all have failed with no support from the legislatures.
“The Mayor doesn’t need 20 lackies doing redundant jobs. I can come up with 4 or 5 individuals that are paid nearly 100k that he could learn to live without.”
And how many of them are doubling dippers?
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm“*****with no support from the legislatures.”
Of course not. That’s why it needs to go on the ballot for the voters to decide. Clearly, they will not vote against themselves.
To have happy employees, you have to have happy customers. To expect deluxe treatment and wages without offering deluxe service, performance and sacrifice for the good of all is outrageous. Even the apathetic voters are not that stupid.
For the good of the City, the Administration must cut itself, the wage/benny package, the redundancy, the overpriced paperwork and the unfundable beauty packages. Beauty comes from within and the core of Toledo is showing serious signs of decay. Planting flowers and laying a bike path through and around it isn’t going to make it less so. It just slightly masks the reality of decay and the “Development Free Zone”.
While these jackels on Council go round and round with Fink. & Company, we the long suffering public fall further into social and economic decline. But hey… we own part of a dead mall…that’s a start, right?
After all, it matches our ESM and Steam Plant. Such a trilogy of success…my goodness, how do we thank that, Honorable Mayor?
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm