Unsound judgment on inspection fees
From former and current judges like Richard Davis, Bob McMullen, Darrell Hottle, Jim Hapner, Jon Hapner, Jon Crouse, Jeff Hoskins (yes, I like Jeff), Rocky Coss, Brett Spencer, Alan Foster, Conrad Curren, Bob Judkins, David McKenna, Kevin Greer, and probably a few others I can’t recall or have simply forgotten at the moment, I’ve found all of them to be a lot of fun, especially when speaking off the record. (A few have been a real hoot on the record!)
I do recall that Judge Greer was the first person to ever tell me, “Rory, you’re often wrong, but never in doubt.” Sounds like something my dad would have said to me. The best line Dad ever came up with for my relative shortcomings in life was this gem, “Rory, you could screw up an anvil.”
(And I could.)
But this column isn’t about judges. It’s more about judgment. Sound judgment. And the occasional lack thereof.
Almost everyone has fairly sound judgment after the fact. For instance, all football fans were confident on Monday that the Jets would beat the Bengals on Saturday. The day before the game, those fans were less confident.
Sound judgment before the fact has been a rare commodity in Ohio government. It’s been so rare, in fact, that it’s no small wonder that the state unemployment rate has escalated into double digits and the vast majority of well-paying jobs are government ones. In fact, the wage disparity between government jobs – on the high side – and private-sector jobs – on the low end – is at an all-time high.
In Highland County, which leads the entire state in unemployment, the wage and benefit disparity between private-sector jobs and public jobs is, in one county official’s words this week, “out of control.”
(I’d identify the county official, but was asked not to. I’m also not identifying a few others – just yet.)
The per-capita income and the average household income in Highland County combined are more than $10,000 less than the average annual pay of a single Hillsboro employee in its highest-paying department, which averages around $76,000 a year, per person, plus tremendous benefits.
But those taxpayers who fund the city’s ongoing largess don’t seem to care. You really don’t, do you?
Taxpayers don’t care that the average pay in this Hillsboro department was $76,000 a year in 2009. They don’t care that 2009 was described by many as the worst recession in the state since the Great Depression.
City “leaders” in 2009 obviously did not care. I don’t seem to recall one single letter from one single city official complaining about this obvious government excess. Nothing from the mayor or council that would cause taxpayers to think their money wasn’t being well cared for.
And this is not a criticism of the services provided – only the excessive cost and lack of oversight. From all indications, these city employees are among the absolute best in their respective field.
But if money doesn’t matter, why not just pay everyone $1 million a year, join hands, and sing “Kumbaya?”
Earlier this week, one former city official asked me to publish all city salaries for 2009. It’s easy enough, after all. The city auditor can provide the numbers. He can provide comparisons from previous years as well. The records belong to you. But does anyone really care?
Does anyone care that this one city department’s average wages almost double the average wages in the Highland County Sheriff’s Office?
Personally, I don’t think anyone cares. Nor do I think anyone really cares about this department’s latest attempt at “revenue enhancement” in the name of fire inspections, which will cost local businesses even more of their hard-earned dollars – this year and beyond.
It’s beyond comical that a department which could not pass its own building inspection in 2009 has now been given authority to charge fees to everyone else.
This same department, according to the city auditor, is more than $70,000 over budget for 2009. The auditor said it could be closer to $90,000 over budget when all the calculations are final.
Let’s take a rough guess at the number of businesses and other entities which must pay the new inspection fees. For every 10 businesses charged $150, there’s $1,500 in revenue enhancement. For every 100 businesses, there’s $15,000 and so on...
Will even more overtime be required to complete these tasks?
The city may want to reconsider its $10 fee for a copy of the report, however. That appears to be in conflict with Ohio law. A public office cannot charge for the inspection of public records and a public office is limited in the amount it can charge for copies. It may only charge its actual cost of producing the copy. The Ohio Attorney General recommends about 4 cents per page. So, unless each report is 250 pages, $10 seems a bit excessive. But excessive is nothing new here...
As mentioned, we’ve been asked to publish all of these Hillsboro salaries, particularly those above $75,000 a year. But we might not publish them, either. What’s the point?
At a time when many people are “fortunate” to make $17,000 a year, most of us are too busy trying to survive to seriously examine government spending.
Obviously, it’s OK for some to capitalize during a recession while others find themselves taxed and regulated out of business.
Of course, I can already hear the administrative justifications. In fact, I’ve heard them all before. But their math is tricky and it doesn’t always compute.
This week, two candidates running for state representative both insisted Ohio needs to be more “business friendly.” Does that include all of Ohio? Just curious.
I yield back to the court of public opinion.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.
P.S.
*** The following is an excerpt from a column I wrote in November 2007. I do tend to repeat myself a bit, or so it seems. But so does our history!
Prior to the November 2007 mayoral race, the incumbent talked about substantial savings in expenses, in the neighborhood of $750,000, because they were reining in overtime. Maybe they did (that's debatable) for an election year, but not for long. As I wrote three years ago, much of the alleged "savings" were based on false assumptions of 40-hour work weeks.
The trouble then, as now, with these figures is that few people in the department are paid 40 hours per week. In looking at real dollars, one ought to examine the year-end W2s of each employee. (That's how we prepare budgets in the private sector.)
In defending the ever-increasing wages in the city fire department, Mayor Zink asked voters, rhetorically, if paying a fireman $17 an hour was too much for saving someone's life. The answer, analytically speaking, depends.
If Carl Lindner and I were in the same burning building when firefighters arrived, Carl might say: "Save me and I'll give you $1 million." Whereas, I might respond: "Save me and I'll give you everything I own." The smart firefighter would save Carl.
The mayor plays to emotion when he continues to raise the $17 an hour argument. If firefighters are savings lives each and every hour they are paid, then $17 an hour is not enough. Nor is $50 an hour or $100 an hour. The more important question is: "How much can taxpayers reasonably afford?"
We also must ask the city leaders to explain statements that a firefighter works 5,000 hours a year. The firefighter may be PAID for 5,000 hours, but it would be almost criminal mismanagement by the city mayor, safety and service director and fire chief to permit anyone to work 5,000 hours a year.
If anyone cares to do the math, this would be a 13.7-hour shift, seven days a week, 365 days a year. (And at $17 an hour, a $95,000-a-year firefighter would have to work 15.3 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.) The mayor and others are very disingenuous when they continue to use these misleading figures.
Moreover, if citizens' well-being is the ultimate objective, as is so often stated in support of these extravagant wages for a small, southern Ohio city, maybe the city leaders would be wise to read reports by "The New England Journal of Medicine" and other reputable sources regarding the effects of extended work hours. The Journal, citing a study by numerous doctors and scholars, concluded that extended work shifts by interns significantly increased sleep and decreased attentional failures during night work hours.
A Harvard Medical School study found that medical school interns work too many hours and suggested that their shifts be reduced by half. Christopher Landrigan, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, said: "Staying awake for 24 consecutive hours induces decrements in human performance similar to a blood alcohol level of 0.1 percent. That's high enough to get you arrested for drunk driving in most states." Yet, the city of Hillsboro continues its practice of letting firefighters choose their own hours and then city managers champion their efforts, stating unequivocally that they work 5,000 hours a year... (Once again, the issue is not about how hard anyone works. It's about maintaining a fiscally sound budget. Many county offices do it, including the HCSO whom we trust to put their lives on the line, too. We need to get past the emotion and look at the economics of city revenues and expenses.)
It's time for city council to take a serious look at the overtime issue. On any given day, it is cause for alarm. Let's look at any given day, say Dec. 3, 2009, for instance. One firefighter was called in three times that day. His actual time worked, according to payroll logs available at the Hillsboro City Auditor's office, was: 7 minutes for the first call-in; 4 minutes for the second call-in; and 30 minutes for the third call-in. For a grand total of 41 minutes worked, he was paid 6 hours in overtime at between $35 and $40 per hour. That same day, another firefighter was called in 7 times at an average call-in time of 38 minutes worked. The pay? 14 hours. Roughly $500 in overtime for less than 5 hours worked. That's how annual pay averages more than$75,000 in the department. This is incredible mismanagement by the city. Not by the firefighters; they play by city's rules.
Thus, the old argument about annual hours worked is a bit of a misnomer. A more correct phrase is annual hours paid. That's a point that council needs to understand if there's any hope of balancing the 2010 budget.
[[In-content Ad]]