The Observation Deck

How about voting for someone who is honest and who cares about the city and not just themselves. They certainly couldn’t do any worse than the previous two mayors![/quote]

Good intentions and caring, absolutely, but if that’s the only qualifications needed to be a mayor of the City of Lakewood, as you pointed out, she will not do any better in solving the issues facing the city than the prior administrations.

Do you really think good intentions and caring can review departments budgets, say no, demand no cuts in service with fewer personnel and eliminate the totally bogus services that are already provided by the country? Many cities in northern Ohio similar in size have a smaller city government with less employees than Lakewood.

An example is the city trash service, the mayor and council reduced service by demanding that the residents take there garbage out to the curb on the pretense it would reduce the city’s expense for trash pickup. They bought new equipment and continued using city employees and management with their much higher wages, overhead and most important their cost of pensions for trash pickup personnel because they didn’t want to lay them off. What they didn’t do is contact private garbage companies to provide bids on picking up the trash which would be significantly less expense to the taxpayers.

The creation of a city financial department is another example, the math never came out of the city is what the extra cost would be to the taxpayers associated with that cronyism move.

The past mayor and city councils’ good intentions and caring has taken precedent over good business sense and their responsibility to the taxpayers. Lakewood doesn’t even provide its own potable water so why was trash pickup so important? Because the city government’s internal culture is that the bigger it is, the easier the councils and mayors can be manipulated and controlled by the claims that all departments and their expenses are essential.

A Democrat mayor and city council killed the golden goose with the hospital debacle that ended the days of wine and roses for the city. The question is, will the mayor and council continue to raise taxes or become accountable and do their duty to the city taxpayers?

Incidentally, your attempt to compare the actions of a Democrat mayor who acted in conjunction with a Democrat city council to President Trump was not the subject and the national economy is booming. You should also should do something about your inappropriate OCD Trump bashing.

Richard Baker wrote: Good intentions and caring, absolutely, but if that’s the only qualifications needed to be a mayor of the City of Lakewood, as you pointed out, she will not do any better in solving the issues facing the city than the prior administrations.

I voted for Ed Fitzgerald because I thought he would make some necessary reductions in the City work force. He did that. At least to a limited degree. I think he took some action to halt the relocation of Cleveland's homeless to Lakewood and he did try control the abuse of overtime by the Fire Department. I had hopes that he would stand up for the City. I was .. disappointed.

During the administration of Madeline Cain the City had over 800 employees. The number is now less that 600. Have enough cuts been made? No, I think you and I can agree on that. Tristan Rader and Megan George are a breath of fresh air but don't expect anything from them when it comes to reducing the cost of government employees.

Some Cities will soon be spending 50% of tax revenue on benefits for retired workers. School districts are passing levies under the slogan of "preserve and improve quality education" but increased funds are simply used to spend more money on retiree's. Don't expect anyone to take on that problem.

For what it's worth, I intend to vote for Megan George for the simple reason that voting for the likes of O'Leary and Bullock will continue the pattern of corruption. Don't expect miracles. The best we can hope for is something a little less corrupt.

I had hopes that he would stand up for the City. I was .. disappointed

No kidding.

He helped orchestrate the hospital departure and now he conveniently works for the developer who got the land for $1! Oh, what a coincidence?

Bill Call wrote:

Richard Baker wrote: Good intentions and caring, absolutely, but if that’s the only qualifications needed to be a mayor of the City of Lakewood, as you pointed out, she will not do any better in solving the issues facing the city than the prior administrations.

I voted for Ed Fitzgerald because I thought he would make some necessary reductions in the City work force. He did that. At least to a limited degree. I think he took some action to halt the relocation of Cleveland's homeless to Lakewood and he did try control the abuse of overtime by the Fire Department. I had hopes that he would stand up for the City. I was .. disappointed.

During the administration of Madeline Cain the City had over 800 employees. The number is now less that 600. Have enough cuts been made? No, I think you and I can agree on that. Tristan Rader and Megan George are a breath of fresh air but don't expect anything from them when it comes to reducing the cost of government employees.

Some Cities will soon be spending 50% of tax revenue on benefits for retired workers. School districts are passing levies under the slogan of "preserve and improve quality education" but increased funds are simply used to spend more money on retiree's. Don't expect anyone to take on that problem.

For what it's worth, I intend to vote for Megan George for the simple reason that voting for the likes of O'Leary and Bullock will continue the pattern of corruption. Don't expect miracles. The best we can hope for is something a little less corrupt.

Mr. Call, as a former public employee I will take issue with this point. As a public employee, I and others who served always understood that our rate of pay would always be below that of the private sector. We also understood that as a partial compensation for that deficit, there would be strong benefit packages. Even when I held senior government positions, my rate of compensation was about 50% below private sector compensation for similar legal professional work. That has not changed. What has changed is that government employee benefits coverage has deteriorated and eroded decade-by-decade as a matter of public policy. I lived this. I understand it.

Mark I read your comment in blue and Bill's comment in blue and I don't see anyplace where Bill said that government employee pensions are/were unfairly earned and perhaps should not be paid in full. What he did say is that government employee pensions are causing many (if not most) states and municipalities severe financial distress. Especially those that are losing population and whose state/municipal work forces are dwindling. Detroit comes to mind. One would have to be living under a rock not to know this. And what Bill (and Richard) suggested, I think, is that there inevitably will come a time that Lakewood's mayor will have to confront the issue head on. And that said mayor will need all the business and negotiating experience he/she can muster. And some very thick skin. Being nice won't be enough. And as a lifelong small business owner in an incredibly volatile industry, I agree. This is a zero-sum game.

Tim Liston wrote:Mark I read your comment in blue and Bill's comment in blue and I don't see anyplace where Bill said that government employee pensions are/were unfairly earned and perhaps should not be paid in full. What he did say is that government employee pensions are causing many (if not most) states and municipalities severe financial distress. Especially those that are losing population and whose state/municipal work forces are dwindling. Detroit comes to mind. One would have to be living under a rock not to know this. And what Bill (and Richard) suggested, I think, is that there inevitably will come a time that Lakewood's mayor will have to confront the issue head on. And that said mayor will need all the business and negotiating experience he/she can muster. And some very thick skin. Being nice won't be enough. And as a lifelong small business owner in an incredibly volatile industry, I agree. This is a zero-sum game.

Mr. Liston, yes, I recognize your point and I do not want to be unfair to Mr. Call, but I did want to emphasize that deferred public benefits have already been eroded by policy-makers and that public employee compensation was well-below private sector rates.

Ms. George has entered public service and holds her first elective office. I highly commend her for that. Given her likely opponents in the coming mayor's race, her professional experience is at least equal to theirs, perhaps better.

There is almost no contradiction between nice and tough. A professional is both. Ms. George has the right stuff.

I look forward to supporting her.

Mr. Call, as a former public employee I will take issue with this point. As a public employee, I and others who served always understood that our rate of pay would always be below that of the private sector. We also understood that as a partial compensation for that deficit, there would be strong benefit packages. Even when I held senior government positions, my rate of compensation was about 50% below private sector compensation for similar legal professional work. That has not changed. What has changed is that government employee benefits coverage has deteriorated and eroded decade-by-decade as a matter of public policy. I lived this. I understand it.

With all due respect, your experience is in conflict with reality: As of May 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that on average, workers employed by federal, state and local governments made more than those employed by the private sector. Private sector employees in all industries reported an average salary of $44,600 per year. During the same period, government workers reported an average annual salary of $51,840 -- $7,240 per year more than private-sector employees. Although the report is dated the gap between government and the private sector has been increasing. Additionally, the government employee benefits [including pension] are 52 percent higher than the private sector. Why, because it easy for elected officials to spend other people money. The major expense is for the generous pensions and that has many cities in financial trouble.

Richard Baker wrote:Mr. Call, as a former public employee I will take issue with this point. As a public employee, I and others who served always understood that our rate of pay would always be below that of the private sector. We also understood that as a partial compensation for that deficit, there would be strong benefit packages. Even when I held senior government positions, my rate of compensation was about 50% below private sector compensation for similar legal professional work. That has not changed. What has changed is that government employee benefits coverage has deteriorated and eroded decade-by-decade as a matter of public policy. I lived this. I understand it.

With all due respect, your experience is in conflict with reality: As of May 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that on average, workers employed by federal, state and local governments made more than those employed by the private sector. Private sector employees in all industries reported an average salary of $44,600 per year. During the same period, government workers reported an average annual salary of $51,840 -- $7,240 per year more than private-sector employees. Although the report is dated the gap between government and the private sector has been increasing. Additionally, the government employee benefits [including pension] are 52 percent higher than the private sector. Why, because it easy for elected officials to spend other people money. The major expense is for the generous pensions and that has many cities in financial trouble.

Mr. Baker, let me gently remind you that I am something of an antique dinosaur and that I speak of times long past.

My first public sector jobs were in the 1970s and I haven't been a government employee since 1991.

Recent compensation gains for public employees are long overdue and generally do not make-up for career losses and benefit erosion for those who began public careers earlier.

My observations stand for the period that I describe. Like I said, I lived this.

Please also see the article in Sunday before last's Plain Dealer by Mark Naymik that described seriously below-market compensation for lawyers employed by the City of Cleveland.

So, there is some good and recent documentation that under-compensation of professional public employees is still a problem in the 21st Century.