IS CONLEY OPPOSITION A "KILLER" FOR COMMISSIONER PROPOSED 1/2 CENT INCREASE IN SALES TAX?

 

On the heels of a smashing defeat at the polls in November 2009 of a December 2008 "imposed" 1/2 cent sales tax levy split between a countywide 9-1-1 rehab and the county general fund, Stark County commissioners started talking about forming a group of Stark County citizens (April, 2010 - Commissioners Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) "to review county government operations and make recommendations to the Stark County Commissioners (sic) and other elected officials."

Among those asked to and agreeing to serve was the leader of the repeal movement:  local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (who, if not the formal leader of the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee was clearly the de facto leader).

At the time, the Stark County Political Report mused that putting Conley on the committee was an attempt to co-opt his opposition.

Well, if it was:  it did not work.

On Friday, Conley sent Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson a letter.

In the hand-delivered letter, he tells them that he opposes their proposed 1/2 cent sales tax increase for the following reasons:

• "[W]ay too generous and actuarially unsustainable retirement and health care benefits,"
• "no mention [in area media reports] of wage or benefit decreases,"
• [the use of] "the usual scare tactic that, without the sales tax, criminals will be free to rape, pillage, plunder and murder."

Conley's opposition has to be terrible news for commissioners.

While he is just one person; he is a person of enormous influence in certain sectors of the Stark County population.  The only good news coming out of the Conley missive was a no-mention of the revival of the Vote No Increased Taxes Committee to join him in a formal way in opposing the sales tax increase.

It could be that he did not take this extra step  (reconstituting "Vote No") because (in the words of the communication) of his happiness that the "Board [including new commissioners Bernabei and Creighton and carryover Ferguson] implement[ed] a new era of openness and dialogue in County government and for steadfastly refusing to impose any sales tax."

The SCPR believes that had Conley done so (rebirthed "Vote No"), then the defeat of the sales tax issue would be guaranteed.

Nonetheless, many Stark Countians are telling the SCPR that the 1/2 cent sales tax has no chance whatsoever to pass.

What would it take to turnaround the thinking of the likes of Conley and get the attention of Stark Countians, generally that the county is serious about getting the expenditure side of its budget in proper Conely-esque proportions?

In conversations with Conley, The Report recalls his mentioning that it would be better for Stark County employees to agree to a 20% decrease in their wages than to risk losing their jobs altogether.  Moreover, he has repeatedly talked about getting benefits trimmed to match those of the private sector.  His focus has been on the benefits that unions get.

In fact, in his letter to the commissioners he attached a copy of an editorial from the Wall Street Journal (A City Unended by Unions - CLICK HERE TO READ) as "succinctly set[ting] forth the true cause of political subdivision budgetary problems.

The SCPR believes that the current board of commissioners (as Conley says) have opened a "new era of openness and dialogue in County government."

However, they are still saddled with county officials who have not bought into their new standard and Conley's standards.

County officials have pledged an all-out-effort to convince Stark Countians to vote yes on the 1/2 cent proposed increase.

But to what avail?

What may work is for county officials to get to work between now and November in implementing Conley's prescription for what ails Stark County government!

RECEIVABLES OF THE STARK COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS: ??????? WHY DIDN'T THE CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THIS "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?"

A reader of the SCPR has e-mailed The Report with the claim that the Stark County Clerk of Courts has receivables of about $12 million.

Yours truly is highly skeptical of the reader's claim, but as The Report does, the obvious question was asked of Clerk Nancy Reinbold.

The response?  Dancing around the the direct question.

So after she appeared before the Stark County commissioners this past Tuesday to report on the activities of a Citizens Review Committee task force as its chairman, The Report revisited the topic with Clerk Reinbold.

The response?  Nobody really knows what the receivables are.

Really?

As readers of The Report know, yours truly is highly skeptical of the meaningfulness of the Citizens Review Committee (CRC) formed last year and staffed by some of Stark County's most powerful people from the private sector.

The SCPR does think the examination as far as it went is a good thing to be done.  It will produce more efficiency in Stark County government at "the nickel and dime level."  But tackling the "really" big deficiencies of Stark County government?  That it will not do and is not designed to do.

A good example of the limitations of the CRC is evident in its examination of the Stark County clerk of courts office, to wit:

 

The CRC noted a "failure to collect," but failed to recommend that the Clerk establish a definition of the amount of money owed Stark County taxpayers.

Reinbold told the SCPR that it she simply does not have the personnel to comb through all of the court's records (going back years) to determine how much taxpayers are owed.

The Report believes her.  However, there are alternatives.  How about asking civic organizations to provide volunteers to go through the records and gather data and compile it so that Stark Countians do know what we are owed?

Yours truly asked Reinbold why she could not set up a system beginning today (i.e. developing data from this day forward) to keep track of bills sent out, but which remain uncollected upon?  She should set a standard as to when a billing becomes "past due."

Answer:  she would need at least two computer programmers to develop a program to process such data.

How about the $10 per case technology fund assessed in each new case file?  Answer:  it's not enough.  She does say that there is some movement in the Ohio General Assembly to increase the fee to $20.

Well, why don't county officials put pressure on the likes of area legislators Slesnick, Schuring, Oelslager and Snitchler to get the increase done?

Moreover, why doesn't someone in Stark County government get creative in finding an effective way to collect the money we taxpayers are owed?

Idea?  Have a designated Stark County prosecutor (civil division) to do nothing but pursue the non-payers and give the prosecutor's office a percentage of the collections to pay for the dedicated position plus provide an amount over the position cost for the general operational cost of the prosecutor's office?

Cost cutting is all well and good.  But to make money, sometimes requires spending money.  Providing an incentive mechanism to collect what is owed Stark's taxpayers is something that county officials need to pursue.

But will they?

Probably not.  They seem so focused as does the CRC on saving nickles and dimes that the "elephant in the room" is being missed.