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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.