 |
| The budget-busting sentence from Sect. 87 of City Charter. The same language is used in Sect. 89 covering the Fire Dept. |
The article below was originally posted on May 5, 2011. Because our new city manager was not around three years ago to read it, I am reposting it so that our un-elected city manager can continue his on-the-job training. He recently complained about the difficulties of trying to balance the budget when the number of employees of both the Fire and Police departments are dictated by the city charter, as if no one had read the city charter before. A city manager has even less authority than the mayor under the previous system of city government had of changing that onerous provision of the charter. We are stuck with that provision and the city manager form of government, and for that we have the officious First Ward councilman Kevin Johnson to thank. R.F.
The Hill View Flyer: “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!”
Talking Point #1: The Title
The scare tactics begin with the typography of the title of the flyer, “Talking Points for the Police and Fire Levy.” The flyer’s title is not only in larger type, it is bolded, italicized, and underlined. Typographically, the title looks alarming. If you did it justice, when you read it aloud you would make it sound like a three-alarm fire. The title is designed to get the attention of the seniors at Hill View by all typographical means. In addition, the title is semantically misleading. Instead of calling a spade a spade, it calls it a heart. Instead of calling the proposed city income tax increase a tax increase, it calls it a “Police and Fire levy.” “Levy” sounds so much less onerous than “tax,” and mentioning the “Police and Fire” in the title introduces the issue of the Hill View residents’ safety. The purpose of the title may have been to alarm the residents of Hill View about crime and fire. The purpose of the flyer itself may have been to get the residents to vote for the levy as a way of protecting themselves against fire.
Talking Point #2
“2.8 Million Dollars will be raised yearly by the levy and directly fund the Police and Fire 5.5 year Levy.” Instead of being a damned lie, this talking point is a statistic, a misleading statistic. How much will be raised yearly by the increased income tax depends upon the economy, both nationally and locally. The worse the economy, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the revenue from the Portsmouth city income tax will be. Even when the national economy was booming, prior to the current Great Recession, Portsmouth remained in the same economic doldrums that it had been in for at least a quarter century. Will the economy be better in the future? Probably not. In keeping with the aims of the backers of the city income tax increase, the projected 2.8 million figure is probably inflated, or “Trented,” to coin a word, assuming City Auditor Trent Williams had anything to do with the projection. In the five and one-half year life span of the 2 percent tax, the annual amount will vary, at best, and for the next couple of years at least is likely to fall below the $2.8 million projection. And will the tax really end in five and a half years? And will Peter Rabbit stay out of Mr. McGregor's garden?
Talking Point #3
“6/10 percent increase, 1.4 percent now, brings us to 2.0%, New Boston is at 2.5”
Talking Point #3, like Talking Point #2, shows it is possible to mislead, if not lie, with statistics. What this cryptic talking point is saying is, “The 0.6 percent proposed Portsmouth income tax increase is small, and even when it is added to the city’s current 1.4 percent rate it only takes us up to 2 percent, which is still a lot less than the 2.5 percent income tax rate of neighboring New Boston.” What this talking point does not say is that the 2.5% income tax rate was one of the money-raising responses the village of New Boston made in response to the fiscal crisis it faced when the steel and coke plants closed. But New Boston not only raised its income tax, it seriously cut the costs of its government. New Boston laid off public employees, including police and firefighters, but Portsmouth has not. If comparisons of income tax rates between Portsmouth and other Ohio cities are relevant, then it is misleading to compare Portsmouth (pop. 20,000) to New Boston (pop. 2000) as it would be to compare Portsmouth to Columbus (pop. 787, 000), the state’s largest city. Yes, both New Boston and Columbus have 2.5% income tax rates, but it makes more sense to compare Portsmouth not with villages and metropolises but with mid-sized and small Ohio cities, most of which have income tax rates below 2%, such as Jackson (0%); Ironton (1%); Piketon (1%); Waverly (1%); South Bloomfield (1%); Findlay (1.25%); Ashland (1.5%); Circleville (1.5%); Lima (1.5%); Chillicothe (1.6%); Marion (1.75%); and Delaware (1.85%). As for a neighboring city in a neighboring state, Ashland, Kentucky, has close to the same population (22,000) and close to the same income tax rate (1.5%) as Portsmouth (1.4%).
Talking Point #3, like Talking Point #2, shows it is possible to mislead, if not lie, with statistics. What this cryptic talking point is saying is, “The 0.6 percent proposed Portsmouth income tax increase is small, and even when it is added to the city’s current 1.4 percent rate it only takes us up to 2 percent, which is still a lot less than the 2.5 percent income tax rate of neighboring New Boston.” What this talking point does not say is that the 2.5% income tax rate was one of the money-raising responses the village of New Boston made in response to the fiscal crisis it faced when the steel and coke plants closed. But New Boston not only raised its income tax, it seriously cut the costs of its government. New Boston laid off public employees, including police and firefighters, but Portsmouth has not. If comparisons of income tax rates between Portsmouth and other Ohio cities are relevant, then it is misleading to compare Portsmouth (pop. 20,000) to New Boston (pop. 2000) as it would be to compare Portsmouth to Columbus (pop. 787, 000), the state’s largest city. Yes, both New Boston and Columbus have 2.5% income tax rates, but it makes more sense to compare Portsmouth not with villages and metropolises but with mid-sized and small Ohio cities, most of which have income tax rates below 2%, such as Jackson (0%); Ironton (1%); Piketon (1%); Waverly (1%); South Bloomfield (1%); Findlay (1.25%); Ashland (1.5%); Circleville (1.5%); Lima (1.5%); Chillicothe (1.6%); Marion (1.75%); and Delaware (1.85%). As for a neighboring city in a neighboring state, Ashland, Kentucky, has close to the same population (22,000) and close to the same income tax rate (1.5%) as Portsmouth (1.4%).
Talking Point #4
“If [the levy] passes funds will establish the re-opening of Company 3.”
This talking point says that passage of the income tax increase will enable the fire department to reopen the Company 3 Hilltop station. If the levy passes the station probably will reopen. But what this talking point does not say is that it was the Fire Department itself, after discussing the matter with Mayor-unelect David Malone, who made the decision to close the Hilltop station. “That is the decision myself and the Mayor (David Malone) agreed on in trying to comply with Council’s demand we cut 20 percent out of the budget,” Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison told the Portsmouth Daily Times (3/11/11). The City Council had directed the mayor to cut the Fire Department budget by 20%, but such a sizeable cut would have required financial concessions by the fire fighters that they were not willing to make. Instead of layoffs, furloughs and other concessions, the Fire Department closed the Hilltop Station. The Fire Department had a choice: make financial concessions to ease the budgetary crisis or jeopardize the safety of those who live in the Hilltop area by closing the Hilltop station. They chose to jeopardize the safety of those in the Hilltop area by closing the Hilltop station. Is it possible, furthermore, that the Hilltop station was closed by the Fire Department because it could then be raised as a safety issue by firefighters in the door-to-door campaign they waged prior to the May 3rd primary? The flyer itself, assuming the Fire Department had something to do with its creation, is evidence of the department's dishonorable intentions.
This talking point says that passage of the income tax increase will enable the fire department to reopen the Company 3 Hilltop station. If the levy passes the station probably will reopen. But what this talking point does not say is that it was the Fire Department itself, after discussing the matter with Mayor-unelect David Malone, who made the decision to close the Hilltop station. “That is the decision myself and the Mayor (David Malone) agreed on in trying to comply with Council’s demand we cut 20 percent out of the budget,” Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison told the Portsmouth Daily Times (3/11/11). The City Council had directed the mayor to cut the Fire Department budget by 20%, but such a sizeable cut would have required financial concessions by the fire fighters that they were not willing to make. Instead of layoffs, furloughs and other concessions, the Fire Department closed the Hilltop Station. The Fire Department had a choice: make financial concessions to ease the budgetary crisis or jeopardize the safety of those who live in the Hilltop area by closing the Hilltop station. They chose to jeopardize the safety of those in the Hilltop area by closing the Hilltop station. Is it possible, furthermore, that the Hilltop station was closed by the Fire Department because it could then be raised as a safety issue by firefighters in the door-to-door campaign they waged prior to the May 3rd primary? The flyer itself, assuming the Fire Department had something to do with its creation, is evidence of the department's dishonorable intentions.
Talking Point #5
“If it [the levy] passes funds will increase manpower (2 currently retired and not filled, 1 projected).”
To try to meet the 20% budget reduction set by the council, the Fire Department agreed that three retiring members would not be replaced. But Talking Point #5 promises to restore those three eliminated positions if the levy is passed. If the residents vote for the levy and the positions are restored, the residents would get increased protection from fires and they would be getting it free, because they would not be paying any city income tax. The people who have jobs in Portsmouth will be the ones paying for the additional fire protection for the residents at Hill View, who will be paying nothing. (See Talking Point #7, below.)
To try to meet the 20% budget reduction set by the council, the Fire Department agreed that three retiring members would not be replaced. But Talking Point #5 promises to restore those three eliminated positions if the levy is passed. If the residents vote for the levy and the positions are restored, the residents would get increased protection from fires and they would be getting it free, because they would not be paying any city income tax. The people who have jobs in Portsmouth will be the ones paying for the additional fire protection for the residents at Hill View, who will be paying nothing. (See Talking Point #7, below.)
Talking Point #6
“$50,000.00 yearly income $25,000 yearly income
$300.00 increase yearly $150.00 increase yearly
$23.00 increase monthly $11.50 increase monthly
$00.83 increase daily $00.42 increase daily”
Talking Point #6 uses statistics to suggest that the income tax increase will cost wage earners relatively little, but it does so by calculating only the increase, without saying what the total city income tax for an individual wage earner would be. For someone in Portsmouth earning $25,000 a year, the total city income tax would be $500, not $150, and for someone earning $50,000, it would be $1,000 a year, not $300, which is not small change, even to someone earning $50,000 a year. But how many people working in Portsmouth, outside of the city government, make $50,000 a year? The estimated median income in Portsmouth in 2009 was not $50,000, and it was not even $25,000: it was $20,909. If the city was the only entity that wage earners had to pay taxes to, that would be one thing, but they also have to pay state and federal income taxes as well as property taxes to the county (of which the city gets a cut) if they are home owners.
Talking Point #7
“Fixed income residents will not be affected (Social Security, Retirements, Disabled).”
As an indication of its importance, Talking Point #7, like the flyer’s title, is bolded, italicized, and underlined. Why? Because it is a reminder to Hill View residents that if they vote for the levy and it passes they will not have to pay for it. This talking point reassures Hill View residents that, though raising the city income tax will benefit them in terms of increased fire protection, that increased protection will cost them nothing. This talking point is factually accurate but morally questionable. Should Hill View residents get the benefits of increased fire protection without having to pay for it? Should someone who has a job in Portsmouth that pays $25,000 but who lives out of the city have to pay $500 a year to reopen the Hilltop station to provide increased protection for the residents of Hill View, a high end retirement community that people live in by choice? And it is not just those earning $25,000 who would have to pay 2% of their pay to provide additional protection for the residents of Hill View. So would those working at McDonald’s earning not much more than half that. A cashier at McDonald’s makes about $16,000 a year and a crew member even less.
As an indication of its importance, Talking Point #7, like the flyer’s title, is bolded, italicized, and underlined. Why? Because it is a reminder to Hill View residents that if they vote for the levy and it passes they will not have to pay for it. This talking point reassures Hill View residents that, though raising the city income tax will benefit them in terms of increased fire protection, that increased protection will cost them nothing. This talking point is factually accurate but morally questionable. Should Hill View residents get the benefits of increased fire protection without having to pay for it? Should someone who has a job in Portsmouth that pays $25,000 but who lives out of the city have to pay $500 a year to reopen the Hilltop station to provide increased protection for the residents of Hill View, a high end retirement community that people live in by choice? And it is not just those earning $25,000 who would have to pay 2% of their pay to provide additional protection for the residents of Hill View. So would those working at McDonald’s earning not much more than half that. A cashier at McDonald’s makes about $16,000 a year and a crew member even less.
Talking Point #8
The statistics cited in Talking Point #8 may have been intended not just to inform but also to scare, as mentioned earlier in Talking Point #6. Even if the statistics are not misleading (and I would argue some of them are), they are tied to the closing of the Hilltop station, on 17th Street, which the Fire Department itself decided to do. If the firefighters had been willing to pay a higher percentage of their health benefits, pensions and forgo cost of living increases, it probably would have been possible to the keep the Hilltop station open and the statistics shown above would not apply to Hill View residents. Am I being cynical in thinking the Fire Department may have closed the Hilltop station partly to provide statistics that could be used to frighten Hill View residents into voting for the city income tax increase?
Was the closing of the Hilltop Fire Station calculated to scare the hell out of Hill View residents?
Talking Point #9
“Population: No Decrease since 1987. As per the 2009 Census, Portsmouth population was 20,354.”
Talking Point #9 is not just misleading, it is dead wrong. Census records show there has not been a decade since 1930 that the population of Portsmouth has increased or even held its own. Since 1930, Portsmouth has steadily lost more than half its population. The assertion that there has been no decline since 1987 is not true. Why does the Hill View flyer make a false claim about Portsmouth’s population not decreasing? The flyer is apparently trying dispel the common sense notion that a city that has lost half its population in the last eighty years probably needs less, not more, firefighters. It would be useful for purposes of comparison to know how many firefighters there were in the Portsmouth Fire Department in 1930, when the population was about 42,000, or how many there were in 1950, when the population was about 37,000. Has the Fire Department increased in number as the population has decreased? I don’t know, but I do know from census records that the population has shrunk drastically. As for the claim that there has been no decrease in population since 1987, census figures show there were 25,993 in 1980; 22,676 in 1990; 20,909 in 2000; and about 20,000 in 2010. That is a loss of about 6,000 people in the last four decades. 1987 was no exception to the rule that Portsmouth has been in a steady population decline for a long time.
Talking Point #9 is not just misleading, it is dead wrong. Census records show there has not been a decade since 1930 that the population of Portsmouth has increased or even held its own. Since 1930, Portsmouth has steadily lost more than half its population. The assertion that there has been no decline since 1987 is not true. Why does the Hill View flyer make a false claim about Portsmouth’s population not decreasing? The flyer is apparently trying dispel the common sense notion that a city that has lost half its population in the last eighty years probably needs less, not more, firefighters. It would be useful for purposes of comparison to know how many firefighters there were in the Portsmouth Fire Department in 1930, when the population was about 42,000, or how many there were in 1950, when the population was about 37,000. Has the Fire Department increased in number as the population has decreased? I don’t know, but I do know from census records that the population has shrunk drastically. As for the claim that there has been no decrease in population since 1987, census figures show there were 25,993 in 1980; 22,676 in 1990; 20,909 in 2000; and about 20,000 in 2010. That is a loss of about 6,000 people in the last four decades. 1987 was no exception to the rule that Portsmouth has been in a steady population decline for a long time.
Insulation, Solicitation, Obfuscation
On May 4th, the day after the primary, I emailed John Prose, the CEO of Hill View, asking him about the flyers and about reports I heard that two members of the Fire Department had spoken to Hill View residents on the eve of the voting on the income tax increase. I suspected there might be some connection between the flyers and the appearance of the two firemen. Mr. Prose replied promptly to my email, but instead of an explanation, he responded with an obfuscation. To obfuscate is to be evasive, unclear, or intentionally confusing. Obfuscating is something politicians routinely do in responding to questions they don’t want to answer. So it is still a mystery to me, and to some residents, how the flyers got into the Hill View mailboxes. Under U.S. Code for crimes and criminal procedure (Chapter 83, Title 18, Section 1725), it is unlawful for anything, including political flyers, to be put in mailboxes if it lacks U.S. postage and has not gone through a U.S. post office. The law stipulates that nothing should be put in, on, taped, or tied to mailboxes. Fines may be as high as $5,000 for each violation for an individual and $10,000 for an organization.
I am told Hill View has a policy of not allowing political solicitation or the circulation of petitions. But it appears that policy is not being administered equitably. When he was councilman for Ward 3, Bob Mollette told me he more than once was denied permission to speak to Hill View residents, even though he was their elected representative. Why then would two members of the Fire Department be allowed to speak to Hill View residents on the eve of the primary in which the so-called “Police and Fire Levy” was on the ballot? Prior to the recall election of Jane Murray, Mr. Prose distributed a letter to Hill View residents that seemed to me clearly political in nature. I wonder if those managing senior housing centers in Portsmouth have an obligation to perform like those late nineteenth-century political ward heelers who influenced immigrants to vote for candidates approved by the party bosses.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” That’s what politics in America often boils down to, and nowhere more than in Portsmouth, as the Hill View flyer may illustrate.
