June is fast disappearing, but not before two important public meetings

Someone said it: Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

The first six months of 2012 have moved pretty fast. In fact, I was just saying to Rick Williams today that the month of June has all but disappeared in the blink of an eye. Of course, as Rick reminded me, there's nothing I can do about it.

And, yes, this summer's Festival of the Bells is just 10 days away. Rick and the festival committee are promising yet another terrific event with great food, fun and musical entertainment. (And maybe a campaigning politician or two, but that's OK!)

As always, uptown Hillsboro will be the place to be over the July 4 weekend (July 5-7 this year). We'll see you there. I'll be having a ribeye or three from the cattlemen's grill.

* * *

Before the month of June does come to its inevitable conclusion, there are at least two pending public meetings of considerable interest. Both are scheduled for Wednesday, June 27.

The early meeting involves the Highland County Board of Commissioners and the Highland County Veterans Services. It will start around 8:30-9 a.m. at the commissioners' office in the administration building. Veterans (and taxpayers, for that matter) who are interested in how the Veterans Service Commission is funded should attend the meeting. It is open to the public and there's never been an admission charge to the best of my knowledge.

At issue, from the Veterans Service Commission's perspective is Ohio Revised Code section 5901.11, which states: "On or before the last Monday in May in each year, the veterans service commission shall meet and determine in an itemized manner the probable amount necessary for the aid and financial assistance of persons entitled to such aid and assistance and for the operation of the veterans service office for the ensuing year. After determining the probable amount necessary for such purposes, the commission shall prepare and submit a budget in the manner specified in division (C) of section 5705.28 of the Revised Code to the board of county commissioners which may review the proposed budget and shall appropriate funds to the commission pursuant to Title III, section 5705.05, and sections 5705.38 to 5705.41 of the Revised Code. The board, at its June session, shall make the necessary levy, not to exceed five-tenths of a mill per dollar on the assessed value of the property of the county, to raise the amount that the board approves."

In contrast with past county practices, the VSC this year has requested its budget to the full amount of allowable millage. The director has submitted the budget. It has had VSC board approval. The commissioners have not made a formal statement for or against the VSC budget. However, two commissioners have made public statements critical of either the VSC budget or alleged tactics by the VSC director.

County commissioners are understandably concerned with increasing the VSC budget to its full amount (not to exceed .5 mills). That difference is more than $100,000 annually. The money has to come from someplace. Still, past practices of funding the Veterans Service Commission at a lower rate may be coming home to roost – and in an election year, no less.

On the other hand, the veterans agency now has a director who has not shied away from this longstanding practice as it applies to local veterans. To the best of my knowledge, she's the first director to bring this to light – and I go back to Paul Maag and before, as far as reporting on veterans issues. No one ever brought this to my attention before.

The Veterans Service Commission Board has approved its 2013 budget and submitted it to the county commissioners. On June 27, those so inclined can witness firsthand the public discussion on the matter.

I would expect all discussion to be in open session as it would be somewhat difficult to categorize the meeting between the two boards as qualifying for an executive session.

Ohio Revised Code 121.22 (G) states:

The members of a public body may hold an executive session only after a majority of a quorum of the public body determines, by a roll call vote, to hold an executive session and only at a regular or special meeting for the sole purpose of the consideration of any of the following matters:

(1) To consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official, or the investigation of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual, unless the public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual requests a public hearing. Except as otherwise provided by law, no public body shall hold an executive session for the discipline of an elected official for conduct related to the performance of the elected official’s official duties or for the elected official’s removal from office. If a public body holds an executive session pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, the motion and vote to hold that executive session shall state which one or more of the approved purposes listed in division (G)(1) of this section are the purposes for which the executive session is to be held, but need not include the name of any person to be considered at the meeting.

(The June 27 commissioners' meeting is not a matter of personnel.)

(2) To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, or for the sale of property at competitive bidding, if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest. No member of a public body shall use division (G)(2) of this section as a subterfuge for providing covert information to prospective buyers or sellers. A purchase or sale of public property is void if the seller or buyer of the public property has received covert information from a member of a public body that has not been disclosed to the general public in sufficient time for other prospective buyers and sellers to prepare and submit offers.

(The June 27 commissioners' meeting is not a matter of property acquisition. Commissioners have already stated on the record they want out of the property business.)

(3) Conferences with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action.

(There's no known pending court action. The prosecutor has already addressed the legal request made by the former VSC board president.)

(4) Preparing for, conducting, or reviewing negotiations or bargaining sessions with public employees concerning their compensation or other terms and conditions of their employment.

(Again, the June 27 commissioners' meeting is not a matter of personnel.)

(5) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal law or regulations or state statutes.

(Fortunately, I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea whether that section applies. But it doesn't.)

(6) Details relative to the security arrangements and emergency response protocols for a public body or a public office, if disclosure of the matters discussed could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the security of the public body or public office.

(Nope, no reason for an executive session there.)

(7) In the case of a county hospital operated pursuant to Chapter 339. of the Revised Code, a joint township hospital operated pursuant to Chapter 513. of the Revised Code, or a municipal hospital operated pursuant to Chapter 749. of the Revised Code, to consider trade secrets, as defined in section 1333.61 of the Revised Code.

(Ditto.)

One other thing, when a public body holds an executive session to consider any of the matters listed in divisions (G)(2) to (7) of this section, the motion and vote to hold that executive session SHALL state which one or more of the approved matters listed in those divisions are to be considered at the executive session.

I bring this up only in reference to a Clark County Board of Commissioners' meeting earlier this year during which two commissioners walked out of the executive session. See: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/county-official…

A final comment or two on the VSC budget issue. As I've said for several weeks now, I think the county commissioners should have done a better job of communicating with the VSC, and I think the VSC should have done a better job of communicating with the commissioners.

Commissioners should have been more forthcoming with public record related to this issue (i.e. former VSC board president Richard Kisamore's letter). Two commissioners jumped the gun on their public criticism of the VSC director (one of them, to his credit, publicly retracted some of his initial statements).

With all this said, there are very competent and concerned public officials on both sides. For anyone to suggest anything to the contrary, well, you probably don't see these people as often as I do. They all have difficult jobs; jobs made even more difficult by the current economy and by relative inaction by some previous public officials. (Yes, I know; for the private sector, budget cuts are 2007 headlines).

Let's keep that in mind and let's encourage them to work together on an agreeable budget.

* * *

On Wednesday, a special meeting of Hillsboro City Council is scheduled. I will repeat: This is a meeting of Hillsboro City Council. City Council called this meeting. City Council has ownership of its agenda. In other words, City Council is in charge of the meeting – and they should act like it. Anyone not on City Council ought to come to the meeting with his hat in his hand.

City Council will likely be addressing the proposed fire and EMS contract with the Paint Creek District.

I was asked by a member of council for my thoughts on the issue:

This was my response:

1. For the city administration, that is the mayor and safety/service director, to enter into a proposal with any other fire/EMS district without first having the advice and consent of Hillsboro City Council is, in my opinion, a bit heavy-handed.

2. For city council to then sign off on this proposal, without having had direct input prior to its creation, tells me that the mayor can do as he pleases because council has no backbone.

3. From a financial perspective, had the Hillsboro Fire Department walked off the job or gone on strike during contract negotiations, I think most reasonable minds would agree that the city administration had no alternative but to join the Paint Creek District. But to the best of my knowledge, Hillsboro firefighters have not gone on strike. The current contract with Hillsboro firefighters ends next year (I think). Wouldn't a more above-board approach from the city be along the lines of: "Listen, we are in a severe financial shortfall to budget. We can no longer afford the perks included in previous contracts. We have X amount for departmental expenses. We are offering X in terms of the next contract. If the firefighters decline the offer, let it be known that we will be joining another fire/EMS district."

Frankly, that would be the more honorable approach. To arbitrarily disband the Hillsboro Fire Department in a proposal that (apparently) was presented to the Paint Creek Fire District BEFORE Hillsboro City Council smells of a rather unpleasant odor.

Lastly, how many alarm drops does Hillsboro Fire and Rescue cover each month for the hospital, factories, schools and colleges? The majority of these alarms, thankfully, are not serious. But for liability purposes, let's assume that there is not sufficient staffing to cover them. Then, let's assume a potential business or manufacturer interested in relocating or expanding in Hillsboro, asks this question: Tell me about your local fire department.

What will you say?

After six years as a college trustee, one of the best pieces of advice I received from longer-serving board members was this: Let's be careful not to saddle future boards with a rushed decision. In other words, let's consider the longterm impact of today's actions.

Reasonable minds might think that the mayor's weekend meeting in Greenfield was a rushed decision. Whether it was or was not, City Council will need to explain prior to its vote.

Collectively, members of City Council have lived in Hillsboro more than a century (or two). They don't have the luxury of not knowing their city neighbors.

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.