Some at city hall have recently expressed their confusion over some of my points regarding my opposition to Issue 10 and/or challenging my position, despite the fact that I made clear my points of view in both the written version, here:
https://ward1blog.com/2022/04/01/the-safer-whitehall-levy-proposal/?fbclid=IwAR3mUXJp7DGq27CTF-5yozmWLz8O1XKXANkv5wgs-wGxVRcPdB3o6RD4C9o

and the spoken version I made from the council dais, seen here (at the 14:04 mark):
https://youtu.be/pcIEZ49qSuo

I gave a great deal of time and thought to my decision (over two months) and so, when arrived at, I released it on this newly created councilor blog (show me where all the other councilors, outside of merely putting a sign in their yard, have offered equally thoughtful considerations of their views on this levy for the public’s consumption). I felt it was reasoned and thoughtful in its approach; having made considerations for other points of view and an understanding of the various sides and situations. I have been very well known for my thoroughness in important communication (to the point of irritating some and boring others), and so it seems disingenuous from city leaders to have not understood such short and clearly expressed views. As such, I’m simply not going to expend any more time repeating myself (for a third time) for the edification of city hall officials (who hold the opposing viewpoint) who would claim that it was somehow unclear.
Read it for yourself, listen to it via the council video.
What I will add is this: When the Mayor tersely addressed me this past Tuesday evening, it was a confrontation, not, as councilor Bailey characterized it: “…a conversation”. That confrontation I never had with them over this tax levy. As such, it felt I was on trial for my views. Given that, I feel justified to defend myself over a couple points that were leveled at me:
The mayor insists that if I have issues with her budget(s) I should then give a detailed list of what to cut. Having not been on council for the prior ten years of her time in office, it was not my business to do so (outside of giving my views on the matter from my place as a private citizen). As far as this just-passed budget, while I did indeed have a copy of it, I was yet to be sworn in, didn’t know the protocol for my input and so, let it alone, if I even knew about the impending tax levy in the first place. This is why I gave an overview and not line by line cuts. As such then, I will offer up my budgetary arguments from other writings (Aug. 2021) that spell out an overview of that which I took issue with…that which I gathered an opinion about, as did others:

“Let’s add to that the I.T. department which jumped from $362,554 in 2012, almost tripling now to an appropriated amount of $924,679 per year.

We now have a Recreation Superintendent that has been appropriated $70,250 in 2021.
The ‘recreation/park fund’ went from $98,992 in 2012 to being appropriated over $278,000 for this year. In 2018 it was $713,100!
Parks and Rec went from a cost of $760,000 in 2012 to $1,131,192 in 2021

The cost of the Mayor’s office has went from $484,000 in 2012 to $1,193,309 in 2021.
The cost of employee benefits went from $7,650,000 in 2012 to $8,046,450 in 2021.

A ‘public relations’ category was added in 2017. To date, including expected expense and appropriations, by the end of 2021, they’ll have spent $373,208!

Acting as if its still the 1950’s where the worker is king, benefits and raises were given out regardless of the economic storms that existed in the real world where benefits and raises are harder to come by. When its taxpayer cash flowing in though, there seems to be enough for everyone.

If you weren’t aware, the city is in the property acquisition business; buying up properties and maintaining them until they find a purpose or buyer…
Whitehall Community Improvement Corporation – Whitehall Means Business

https://property.franklincountyauditor.com/_web/search/commonsearch.aspx?mode=owner&param1=CITY%20OF%20WHITEHALL&searchimmediate=1
Since 2013 they have spent $19,118,721 of taxpayer money. Nearly 20 million dollars!!”
As well, there is alot of great information here:
https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2021/07/20/whitehalls-spending-number-for-the-last-10-years-or-so/

That was my point regarding spending in Whitehall. What specific cuts can/should be made; I leave for her to decide. It is my viewpoint that spending on a million other things (YMCA’s, Woodcliffe, splash pads, etc.), even with her claim that spending on police is the largest expense in the budget, isn’t jibing with the desperate call going out now that we have police needs which need attending to only through a permanent tax levy.
Analogy: If you’ve been having a nice steak dinner every week for the last year and now you have nothing left in the budget for the water heater you now have to replace, then sense says that you shouldn’t knock on the neighbor’s door asking them to now pay for that which you could’ve paid for by doing without the steak dinners once a week. As well, (the Covid-19 analogy) you didn’t expect that your child was gonna have a major illness or the roof was gonna need replacing or that your car would go kaput, any of a number of huge calamities that weren’t expected. I understand that no one puts aside huge amounts of money in case something massive befalls them but, we can decide then what we can do without and/or put aside so we can either pay for that which we need or, if not inordinately pressing, put aside until things calm down. That then is the question: is what you ‘need’ able to be put aside until things stabilize without unduly taxing people to the point that some may need to leave our community due to being priced out? It is my assertion that it can be.

So then I still say for now: vote no on Issue 10. Get rid of some fat in the budget, revisit it in two years when things have financially settled and see where we’re at, FOR the citizen’s sake and pocketbooks.

A final word
So then, despite covid 19 and the problems it has brought to Whitehall, I blame the mayor and those on council who approved all these things in the last ten years or so, thus bringing us to this ‘Sophie’s Choice’ we have before us. It is their spendthrift ways that have actually exacerbated the financial problem Covid-19 would cause, which we see now. That is the larger, more important picture I believe those in city hall, who so vehemently object to my position, are trying to obscure with these sorts of obfuscations. It is their protestations then that are the impetus for this writing and no other.
Now…go vote. Tuesday, May 3rd.

I have created this site to occasionally share with my constituents a more detailed understanding of my positions on topics related to Ward 1 and my service to them.
With this first post, I wanted to share with you my position on the ‘Safer Whitehall Levy’. That issue which needs money to fund not only an expansion of the police station but also the hiring of 6 new police officers. That issue which demands your consideration and attention on and before May 3rd, just a month away. The city has put up all the information on the levy for you to peruse. Those details are available here:
https://whitehall-oh.us/597/Issue-10—Police-Levy

After meetings with Mayor Maggard and Police Chief Crispen, I gave the heft of consideration due all the information proffered and available and, in the final analysis, have decided that I simply cannot endorse the passage of this tax levy, in its current form.
Here is why:

In the past I have made my positions clear on matters of budgetary spending. Since entering Whitehall government as your Ward 1 representative, I have had meetings with Chief Crispen, the Mayor and City Administrator Zach Woodruff on the matter of this levy. They have all made their cases for the need for and passage of the levy.
Chief Crispen sat down with me and also gave me a tour of the police station. There are many good reasons why the police station needs expansion, all of which I’m in agreement with. I also agree that given crime and the wants/needs of the citizens in their neighborhoods, that it would benefit the community to hire the additional officers. I am in alignment with the wants and needs of the police department, one hundred percent.

However, my contention with the mayor, which I discussed with her, is that there has been a lot of money spent on other things, those I describe as more of ‘wants’ than ‘needs’; policy decisions/philosophies on building and funding cities in regard to land buying, parks and recreation spending, salaries and benefits for those employed with the city, etcetera.
In our meeting, which was cordial and respectful, we spoke of all these things. She has a right, as the Mayor/the CEO, to allocate the money as she sees fit. However, when they are proposing a tax to pay for more things, particularly those traditionally paid for through the budget, you and anyone else (and in particular your representative on council) has a right and a duty to inquire and speak out against what is being asked if that is deemed what is necessary.
She spoke of the change, during the pandemic, of how people are now working from home and how that has changed income for the city. If they’re working from their homes which aren’t in Whitehall, the city doesn’t get that income tax. It is understandably vexing and alarming for the city’s budgetary considerations. Particularly in mind having large employers who operate within our city.
Her position too is that to be a desirable city to live, work and play in, you need competitive wages and benefits to lure good people and an inviting parks system to get people to recreate in. That is her position and one I’m not entirely opposed to.
My position has always been that the salaries, while commensurate with other municipalities, aren’t in keeping with the average income of the average Whitehallians. That it seems more lucrative to be employed by the City of Whitehall than to be its resident. As such, this area of spending, in my opinion, falls into the category of ‘want’ and not necessarily ‘need’.
So too Parks and Recreation. One can do as they see fit, as she does but, with some of the spending going to this and yet we need more police officers, one has to question whether her POV on P&R is justified and can really be considered a ‘need’ more than a ‘want’. It is up to each of us citizens to decide for ourselves, using the facts, which category that falls in to.
As for me, it feels like six of one/half dozen of the other, which I expressed to Mayor Maggard. Sometimes there are ‘Sophie’s Choice’ moments in budgetary considerations which make black and white pronouncements difficult, like this one. That is understandable.

So, one can say it’s a budgetary consideration, one can understand unseen situations forcing the city’s hand to find alternate means to accomplish what they need/want. For me, it comes down to this:
The hiring of more staff/police officers has always been done through the budget. Unless someone can prove me wrong on that point, that is my assertion. To then change that while keeping the budget exactly the same, and still getting what they want from the budget for other things, in my opinion, is unacceptable, particularly when you’re asking citizens to pony up more money. If you can’t afford to pay for your needs through the budget, you shouldn’t, outside of certain very important projects, keep going back to the tax well for more funding. That is my philosophy on public finance. If we don’t have the money to pay for what we need outside of the tax means we already have set up and can expand upon, then we either cut budgetary items to pay for more needs over wants or…we simply do without until better able to reach our need’s spending goals. The normalizing of hiring city staff through forever taxes levied on our properties is simply unacceptable in my opinion and is my number one reason in having to oppose both those needs which I would otherwise heartily endorse.
As well, to put those two needs together in one package does a disservice to our police department, forcing a ‘Sophie’s Choice’ on the taxpayers themselves who otherwise appreciate and want what is best for their vaunted police department. It is an unfair melding of things to ask the public to dig deeper into their pockets when the budget can/should be the source for one half of that levy and to keep from forever burdening the citizens with another ‘in perpetuity’ tax, like the utility surcharge already coming to our bills this year.
Were it ONLY a levy for the expansion of the police station, I would be 100% endorsing a yes vote on that levy. Their building is cramped and outdated to some degree, and I want them to have the space they need to properly and, with greater ease and efficiency, do their jobs. They deserve that.
Given these viewpoints then, it is my assertion that the police station expansion should be a separate finite levy, one which would have an end pay off date at which point the citizen’s financial burden for that project would be finished but, they want to include the hiring of more police officers in that tax levy, in perpetuity…forever and ever and ever, and it is that inclusion, IN the levy, that I simply can’t get behind.
Thank you for your time.