Monday, March 21, 2011

Petition Opposing The "City Income Tax Increase" a.k.a. "The Great Bailout"

I have started a petition to send to the mayor's office, city council, city auditor, State Representative, Terry Johnson and the State Auditor's Office; showing that the citizens of Portsmouth, Ohio are not in support of the proposed tax increase that will be on the ballot in May 2011.

This will send a message to all of the above mentioned elected officials that the people of Portsmouth, Ohio have had enough of the incompetence that is rampid in our city government.

It is time, for the elected officials of our city government to understand that the people of Portsmouth, Ohio do not exist or serve them so, they may have titles and treasures; but they are to serve the people of Portsmouth, Ohio.  Although, many of the elected officials have not been elected into their positions in office.  It is time to remind them that ultimately the people; will and do have the final say!

This petition's details are listed in the petition itself.  I will try and seperate the registered and unregistered voters in my final reports.  But, please sign the petition even if you are an unregistered voter and are a citizen of Portsmouth, Ohio and over the ae of 18 years old.

If you are not a registered voter; please go to the county court house and register to vote!  It takes about 5 minutes and is painless!  At your local level is where any voter can make a direct impact on the lives of your family and community.  You can see and feel the results of your vote personally.  If you vote for only one thing in your life; please register to vote against this "Income Tax Levy" or "Safety Levy" they are disguising it as!

To Sign The Petition
Go To:

Vote "NO" or "AGAINST" The
  • Proposed Income Tax Levy
  • The Safety Levy

Whatever They Are Trying To Call It Now!

Some Of Our Elected Officials Are:
State Bound And Going Down!

In the words of several local area sports teams!

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Poll Results On "City Income Tax" and "Trent Williams

The Bailout

On Feb. 3rd, I posted a poll on the "Proposed City Income Tax Bailout."  The results of that poll were,  74% Against and 25% Supported the Bailout!  The Portsmouth Daily Times ran a comparable poll of it's own on it's on-line website too!  They also, found very similar results.  Then the mayor-select, Malone announced a $22,000.00 media campaign to support the Proposed City Income Tax Increase," the so-called "Safety Levy!"

Then the firefighters decide to send their poster-child, Tony Hamilton; to the mayors offices and tell them that we will give back to the city of Portsmouth!  We will give back $200.00 a month per Fire Dept. employee!  Nice try!  Not enough though!  You greedy little men have demanded and twisted the arms of all the citizens of Portsmouth for far to long!  You have used scare tactics and even let a business burn to the ground in the 70's to get your point across and your way!  The city's government employees and incompetent elected officials have been a burden fiscally - not a service to this community for far to many years!  $200.00 a month is just the beginning of what you should really be paying for your benefits!  Get over yourselves; you will lose this vote on the "Bailout!"  And, some of you will lose your jobs!  The people of Portsmouth have had enough of your greedy manipulated personalities!

Trent Williams

On Feb. 17th, I also, posted a poll on whether you would support Trent Williams in the next City Auditors election.  63% No and 36% Yes.  Now, Trent has another deficit budget on his hands.  The state will be coming in!  But, only if you vote AGAINST the "City Proposed Income Tax Increase", backed by the unions and used to Bailout the poor performance of our elected officials.

So, I will post two other polls now.  Both questions are still the same!  But, now you have had much information and data provided to you to make a much more informed decision!  The polls are posted to the right of the page and will be posted till April 1, 2011.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Portsmouth Fire Dept. - Show Me The Money!

This article will show the base pay of all of the employees within the Portsmouth Fire Dept.  This data is for the years of 2008, 2009 and 2010.  I will also, compare 22 of the Portsmouth Firefighters employee's mean wages with the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Areas mean wages.  All information showed in this article was gathered from two sources.  The Southern Ohio Non-Metro Areas data was gathered from the US Department of Labor.  The data can be seen here: . 

The Fire Depts. wage and salary data was gathered from former Mayor Murray's proposed 2010 Budget.  The budget that the 4 councilmen of; Haas, Albrecht, Malone and Basham fought her about all year last year!  The same budget suggestions that councilmen Haas, Albrecht and Basham are now so enlightened to!

Anyway, here is how much the Portsmouth Fire Department's employees make.

Portsmouth Fire Dept.
By the city's own Charter; the Fire Deptartments staffing level should be at 44 employees.  Basically, the Fire Chief and 43 other officers.  This includes: firefighters, dispaterchers and any other employees.

2008 - 47 employees, 2009 - 48 employees, 2010 - 47 employees.  So, when the chief and other firefighters claim they have never had 44 employees!  A lie.

Fire Chief (1)           2008         2009                                  2010
Annual Salary:            $51,996        $53,556 ($1,556) 3% Increase       $55,163 ($1,607) 3% Increase
Monthly Wage:          $4,333          $4,463 ($130) 3%                          $4,596.92 ($133.92) 3%
Weekly Wage:          $999.92        $1,029.92 ($30) 3%                       $1,060 ($30.09) 3%
Hourly Wage:            $25              $25.75 ($.75) 3%                           $26.52 ($.77) 3%

Assistant Chief (3)    2008         2009                                   2010
Annual Salary:            $48,659.33    $50,119 ($1,459.67) 3%                 $51,622.66 ($1,503.66) 3%
Monthly Wage:          $4,054.94      $4,176.58 ($121.64) 3%                 $4,301.89 ($125.31) 3%
Weekly Wage:           $935.76         $963.83 ($28.07) 3%                      $992.74 ($28.91) 3%
Hourly Wage:               $23.39           $24.10 ($.71) 3%                           $24.82 ($.72) 3%

Captain (3)               2008         2009                                   2010
Annual Salary:               $45,543.66    $46,910 ($1,366.34) 3%                  $48,317.33 ($1,407.33) 3%
Monthly Wage:             $3,795.31      $3,909.17 ($113.86) 3%                  $4,026.44 ($117.27) 3%
Weekly Wage:              $875.84         $902.12 ($26.28) 3%                       $929.18 ($27.06) 3%
Hourly Wage:                $21.90           $22.55 ($.65) 3%                            $23.23 ($.68) 3%

FPO (1)                     2008          2009                                   2010
Annual Salary:               $43,056          $44,348 ($1,292) 3%                       $45,678 ($1,330) 3%
Monthly Wage:             $3,588            $3,695.67 ($107.67) 3%                  $3,806.50 ($110.83) 3%
Weekly Wage:             $828                $852.85 ($24.85) 3%                       $878.42 ($25.57) 3%
Hourly Wage:               $20.70             $21.32 ($.62) 3%                            $21.96 ($.64) 3%

Lieutenant (9)          2008           2009                                   2010
Annual Salary:              $42,165.66      $43,430.66 ($1,265) 3%                  $44,733.55 ($1,302.89) 3%
Monthly Wage:            $3,513.81        $3,619.22 ($105.41) 3%                  $3,727.80 ($108.58) 3%
Weekly Wage:            $810.88           $835.21 ($24.33) 3%                       $860.26 ($25.05) 3%
Hourly Wage:              $20.27             $20.88 ($.61) 3%                            $21.51 ($.63) 3%

Firefighter 5 (19-21) 2008 (19)     2009 (21)                            2010 (21)
Annual Salary:              $40,173.37        $41,421.14 ($1,247.77) 3%            $40,619.90 ($801.24) -2% Minus
Monthly Wage:            $3,347.78          $3,451.76 ($103.98) 3%                $3,384.99 ($66.77) -2%
Weekly Wage:            $772.56             $796.56 ($24.00) 3%                      $781.15 ($15.41) -2%
Hourly Wage:              $19.31               $19.91 ($.60) 3%                           $19.53 ($.38) -2%
  1. It appears that 21 Firefighters took a reduction of 2% in pay in 2010.  This reduction is 2% lower than the 2009 pay scale.  Add to the fact that they would have gotten a 3% raise in 2010.  So, in all actuality; this group of firefighters, which is the largest group by classification; took a 5% cut in pay.  Notice all firefighters above them received their 3% increases.
  2. Could this have been the "3% concessions" the unions were suppost to give back?  Were they going to let this one group of firefighters take the hit in pay for the rest of the department?  $16,826.04 total reduction in this position.  $801.24 x 21 =$16,826.04.
  3. Reminder:  The 2010 numbers were proposed budget numbers.  This would be what the department heads of each dept. recommended.  So, the Fire Chief would have made these recommendations or even worse the unions!
Firefighter 1 (2-1)    2008 (2)            2009(1)                            2010 (1)
Annual Salary:               $32,148                  $33,113 ($965) 3% Raise             $68,205 ($35,092) 206% Raise
Monthly Wage:             $2,679                    $2,759.42 ($80.42) 3%                $5,683.75 ($2,924.33) 206%
Weekly Wage:             $618.23                   $636.79 ($18.56) 3%                   $1,311.63 ($674.84) 206%
Hourly Wage:               $15.18                     $15.92 ($.46) 3%                        $32.19 ($16.87) 206%
  1. It looks as if they are charging for two employees in 2010; when there was only one employee at this Firefighter level.
  2. Could this be an attempt to recover a portion of the "3% Concessions" and some!  A phantom employee.
Lead Dispatch (1)     2008                   2009                               2010
Annual Salary:            $31,574                     $32,205 ($631) 2%                     $33,172 ($967) 3%
Monthly Wage:             $2,631.17                  $2,683.75 ($52.58) 2%               $2,764.33 ($80.58) 3%
Weekly Wage:             $607.19                     $619.33 ($12.14) 2%                   $637.92 ($18.59) 3%
Hourly Wage:               $15.18                       $15.48 ($.30) 2%                        $15.95 ($.47) 3%

Civilian Dispatch (6)  2008                   2009                               2010
Annual Salary:                $27,650.17                $28,203.17 ($553) 2%                $29,049.33 ($846.16) 3%
Monthly Wage:              $2,304.18                  $2,350.26 ($46.08) 2%               $2,420.78 ($70.52) 3%
Weekly Wage:               $531.73                     $542.37 ($10.64) 2%                  $558.64 ($16.27) 3%
Hourly Wage:                 $13.29                       $13.56 ($.27) 2%                       $13.97 ($.41) 3%

Part-Time Dispatch (1)   2008               2009                               2010
Annual Salary:                      $12,501                $12,751 ($250) 2%                     NA
Monthly Wage:                    $1,041.75             $1,062.58 ($20.83) 2%               NA
Weekly Wage:                    $240.40                $245.21 ($4.81) 2%                    NA
Hourly Wage:                      $12.02 (20 hrs)      $12.26 ($.24) 2% (20 hrs)           NA

Admin. Assistant (1)    2008                  2009                               2010
Annual Salary:                   $28,768                   $29,632 ($864) 3%                     $30,521 ($889) 3%
Monthly Wage:                 $2,397.33                $2,469.33 ($72) 3%                    $2,543.42 ($74.09) 3%
Weekly Wage:                 $553.23                   $569.85 (16.62) 3%                     $586.94 ($17.09) 3%
Hourly Wage:                   $13.83                     $14.25 ($.42) 3%                        $14.67 ($.42) 3%

Below is the total cost of just wages.  This does not include any other benefits or overtime.

2008 - $1,833,200.00.  Divide that by the number of employees for this department in 2008 (47) and the average Mean Salary is: $39,004.26 each.

If you just total the wages of the firefighters.  The wages are: $1,584,741.94 or 86.45% of the budgeted wages.  Divided by the number of firefighters, (Not dispatchers and administrative assistants.) which is 38.  The average Mean Salary is: $41,703.74.  Dispatchers and administrative assistants make a total of $248,458.06 or 13.55% of the overall budget for wages.

A few weeks ago we heard the Fire and Police Chiefs complaining that the dispatchers shouldn't be taken from their budgets.  Each department wanting the other to absorb this cost to their budgets.  Really, firefighters are not happy with 86.45% of the total money; they want it all!  And, folks... this is just the figures from 2008; the dollar amount raise each year that they get and they still want more!  This group of city employees would eat their own and throw everybody else under the bus - if it meant more money in their pockets!  State Rep. Johnson; is this the idiots you were talking about fighting?  That you support over everybody else!

2009 - $1,890,441.00.  Divide by the number of employees for 2009 (48) and the average Mean Salary is:  $39,384.19 each.

Firefighters wages only:  $1,682,824.00 or 89.02% of the budgeted wages.  Divided by 39 firefighters and the average Mean Salary is:  $43,149.33 each.

Dispatchers and other employees wages:  $207,617.00 or 10.98% of the budgeted wages.

2010 - $1,962,474.00.  Divided by the number of employees for 2010 (47) and the average Mean Salary is:  $41,754.77 each.

Firefighters wages only:  $1,724,486.00 or 87.87% of the budgeted wages.  Divided by 39 firefighters and the average Mean Salary is:  $44,217.59 each.  And, this was with 21 firefighters taking a cut in pay as proposed by the department head or agreed upon concessions with the unions!

Dispatchers and other employeeswages:  $237,988.00 or 12.13% of the budgeted wages.

2010 also brought out the "Phantom Firefighter"; according to the proposed budget.  This could have been an attempt to recover the 3% concessions!  For whatever reason they felt the need to do this is beyond me!  But, under Firefighter 1 above the wages for one firefighter jumped from $33,113.00 in 2009 for 1 employee to $68,205.00 in 2010 for 1 employee.  Just so happens, that the amount proposed would be the exact amount if there was 2 employees in this position; with even a 3% raise!

The Comparison - 2009

Below, is a comparison of the 21 firefighters in the Portsmouth Fire Dept., that are classified as Firefighter 5 and Firefighter 1 in 2009; against the Mean Wages of other firefighters in the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Areas in 2009.

Southern Ohio Non-Metro Areas - (Firefighters Only)

Employment    Hourly Mean Wage    Annual Mean Wage
560                  $15.27                      $31,760.00

Hourly Percentile Wages
10th          25th          50th          75th          90th
$7.93         $10.46       $14.21        $18.98       $24.73

Annual Percentile Wages
10th                 25th                    50th                  75th                  90th
$16,490             $21,770               $29,550              $39,470              $51,430

Portsmouth Fire Department - (Firefighters 5 & 1 Only)

Employment    Hourly Mean Wage    Annual Mean Wage
21                   $19.91                       $41,421
1                     $15.92                       $33,113

The Difference

Portsmouth Firefighters make more money than any other firefighters in the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Area!  How much more is listed below.

Hourly Mean Wage          Annual Mean Wage
$4.64 more                      $9,661 more  (x21 employees)
$.65  more                       $1,353 more  (x1 employee)

And, this does not include the overtime that we have to pay them because of the way they choose to work their schedules.  They work 24 hour work days.  Most of these 24 hour work days are paid in overtime wages.  Which in 2009 it was budgeted for an additional $40,000 and in 2010 at $90,000.

How about working 3 shift days and eliminating most if not all the overtime!  When this is mentioned to the firefighters they get all upset; they say no!  This is the way it has always been; and that's just the way it is!  So, who's the boss here?  Firefighters or the taxpayers?  How about you do as your told.  Other fire department across the nation use the shift schedule to cover their cities.

Portsmouth Taxpayers Pay

Portsmouth taxpayers pay $204,234 more for a total of 22 firefighters than the Annual Mean Wage is for the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Area.  Portsmouth firefighters are paid between the 75th and 90th Hourly and Annual Percentile Wage.

Now, take that off the budget deficit!  Take $204,234 and the $50,000 of the overtime (2010) paid and you could cut $244,234 off the deficit!  Now, tackle the extravagant benefits and pensions that they receive and you could probably come up with another $200,000 dollars!

Wow!  Just one department being paid the fair market value and look what you can save the taxpayers!  Folks, these firefighters are really being grossly overpaid for this position!  Now, before someone says; they risk their lives for our safety!  This is true... but they risk their lives by driving to work like everybody else.  Besides, $29,550.00 a year is a good living for the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Area.  Other firefighters in this area have to live by it.  Why shouldn't ours!

Mutual Aid
Let's not forget either folks.  Our fire dept. is no better than any other fire dept. in the state of Ohio.  Or, for that matter our area!  Other fire depts. come running when the tone is dropped!  New Boston was the first truck on the scene a couple of weeks ago to a fire in Sciotoville.  There might have been a Portsmouth firefighter there, but the truck was not there first!  If 2 firefighters are at the Sciotoville station then, why was a firefighter not there with the truck?  Maybe, that firefighter was out running some errands or doing something else!

You see, this is the type of things that may or may not be going on that someone needs to be watching!  If there is suppost to be 2 at the station; then there should be 2 always.  Not, 1 for a 23 hours - 24 hours!  If you don't roll up on the truck when the tone is dropped; then you were not at the station!  But, was getting paid for it!

Vote "NO" or "AGAINST"
The Proposed City Income Tax Increase!

It is a union-sponsored tax increase!
It's pay raises for city employees!
None of the money will be used to improve or add any new services!

City employees all ready get 90% of each departments budget for wages and benefits!

Now!  They want to bleed you for more!

For Corrupt Local Government or Greedy Unionized Employees!

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Policemen-Patrolman Occupational Data - US Dept. of Labor Statistics

This article will give detailed information on Labor Statistics on two occupational fields - policemen and firefighters.  All information can be found at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics under Occupational Employment Statistics.  The website address is as follows:

Police - Patrol Officers

Note:  The statistics provided in this article only pertains to "patrol officers."  It does not include data for administrative positions in the overall occupational field.  Those figures would be completely seperate from what is provided here.

Statistical Reference

These statistics are for May 2009 and are a national comparison to the state of Ohio statistically.

National & Ohio Estimates for Police-Patrolmen - Comparison

The employment numbers for this occupation nationally were 641,590 employees, and the mean hourly wage was $26.53, and the mean annual salary was $55,180.

The employment numbers for this occupation in the state of Ohio were 24,380 employees, and the mean hourly wage was $25.11, and the mean annual salary was $52,240.

The Difference

Ohio patrolmen made a $1.42 (5.35%) less on the hour, and made $2,940 (5.33%) less on the annual salary than the national averages.

The employment numbers for this occupation in the city of Portsmouth were 26 patrolmen.

Portsmouth Police-Patrolmen made $18.89 mean hourly wage, and $39,292 mean annual salary.

Portsmouth patrolmen made a $7.64 (24.77%) less on the hour, and made $12,948 (24.79%) less on the annual salary than other Ohio patrolmen.

Note:  Employment numbers for this department were reported as follows for the years; 2008 and 2009.  2008 - 46 employees, 2009 - 46 employees.  Proposed for 2010 - 49 employees.  In 2008 & 2009 the department was overstaffed by 2 employees.  In 2010, it would have been 5 employees.

These figures do not include things like; Acting Pay, Shift Differential Pay, Longevity Pay, Overtime, Court Time, In-Service Training Pay, Vacation-Holiday Buy Back/Comp Time, Holiday Pay, Hospitalization Waiver/Payments and Special Duty Pay.

National & Ohio Percentile Estimates for Police-Patrolmen - Comparison

The percentile estimates will be for the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentile ranges in hourly and annual wages.


Hourly wages:  10th: $15.09, 25th: $19.45, 50th: $25.58, 75th: $32.69, 90th: $40.17.
Annual wages:  10th: $31,400, 25th: $40,450, 50th: $53,210, 75th: $67,990, 90th: $83,550.


Hourly wages: 10th: $14.03, 25th: $20.11, 50th: $26.04, 75th: $31.12, 90th: $34.72.
Annual wages: 10rh: $29,180, 25th: $41,830, 50th: $54,170, 75th: $64,720, 90th: $72,220

When looking and comparing the National percentile estimates to the Ohio percentile estimates notice the differences at the 25th and 50th percentile estimates.  Ohio's estimates are actually higher than the National estimates in these two percentiles.  Why?  Opinions differ as to why, but most believe that it is because 90% of all patrolmen fit into one of these two percentile ranges.  Once, above this stage many become administrative or investigative officers.  So, in a strictly numbers comparison; Ohio's patrolman are paid higher than the National percentile estimates, in the 25th and 50th range.  Where most patrolmen in the state are at in their payscales.  I am very certain that this is most likely arranged this way by unions and the collective bargaining unit.

You can set the 75th and 90th percentile at what ever dollar amount you want; truth is, only a small portion of the actual employees of the department will make those amounts at any given time.  But, the majority of the employees will fall between the 25th and 50th percentiles.  So, unions arrange for the larger increases to be focused on where the greatest number of employees are in the department.

Now, where does the city of Portsmouth's Police Department fit into these percentile estimates.  That data is not available!  But, according to the Ohio percentile estimates; I think it would be a safe assumption to believe; that the city of Portsmouth, Ohio is parallel in it's data as well.

The percentile estimates for Ohio can be found here:

But, wait a minute.  There was data collected that is specific to our region.  In fact.  The area name mentioned is called; "Southern Ohio Nonmetropolitan Area." 

This data can be found here: 

This Occupational Employment Statistic data was performed in the same year and month of the above metioned data.  The U.S. Department of Labor breaks the data down to even local regions to be considered.

The employment numbers for this occupation in a Southern Ohio Nonmetropolitan Area were 1,010 employees, and the mean hourly wage was $18.36, and the mean annual salary was $38,180.

For the city of Portsmouth, the mean hourly wage is $18.89, and the mean annual salary was $39,291.

Portsmouth patrolmen made $.53 (2.88%) more on the hour, and $1,111 (2.90%) more on the annual salary than other patrolmen in the Southern Ohio Nonmetropolitan Areas.

Ohio & Southern Ohio Nonmetropolitan Areas Percentile Estimates for Police-Patrolmen - Comparisons

The same percentile ranges apply with this data has in the ones mentioned above.


Hourly wages:  10th: $14.03, 25th: $20.11, 50th: $26.04, 75th: $31.12, 90th: $34.72
Annual wages:  10th: $29,180, 25th: $41,830, 50th: $54,170 75th: $64,720, 90th: $72,220

Southern Ohio Nonmetropolitan Areas

Hourly wages: 10th: $10.36, 25th: $12.78, 50th: $17.20, 75th: $23.35, 90th: $28.68
Annual wages: 10th: $21,550, 25th: $26,580, 50th: $35,770, 75th: $48,560, 90th: $59,650

The average mean hourly wage for a Portsmouth-Patrolman is $18.89, and the average mean annual salary is $39,291.  This would put most patrolman somewhere between the 50th and 75th percentile in mean hourly wage.  They are paid above the hourly average mean wage than, other patrolmen in the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Areas.  Portsmouth patrolmen also enjoy above average mean annual salaries as well.  Somewhere, between the 50th and 75th percentiles.

Portsmouth patrolmen make $1.69 (9.82%) more on the mean hourly wage at the 50th percentile than than the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Area patrolmen.  On the mean annual wage; Portsmouth patrolman make $3,521 (9.84%) more at the 50th percentile, than the Southern Ohio Non-Metro Area patrolmen.  An extra $91,395.20 more per year than the southern Ohio Non-Metro Areas would for 26 patrolmen.

This is just with the wages that are received on the checks each payday!  If 10 of the 26 patrolmen were at the 25th percentile scale; that would be an additional $127,110 savings.  For a total of $224,505 savings.  Almost a quarter of a million dollars off the budget deficit right there!  And, basically all your doing is putting a stop to overpaying the patrolmen in their wages; and bringing it more in-line with what the rest of the Southern Ohio Non-Metropolitan Area patrolmen are making.  Pensions and benefits are a whole other areas that also, needs severe reform measures taken!

Again, these figures do not include things like; Acting Pay, Shift Differential Pay, Longevity Pay, Overtime, Court Time, In-Service Training Pay, Vacation-Holiday Buy Back/Comp Time, Holiday Pay, Hospitalization Waiver/Payments and Special Duty Pay.  These are also, areas that I'm sure have been exploited by the unions and the employees too!

The data above is just on the 26 patrolmen on the Portsmouth Police Dept..  The Chief, Captains, Lieutenats, Sergeants, Administrative Assistant, Records Clerks, and Code Enforcement Officers could all be subject to the same data compasrisons in their Occupations as well!  And, I would be very sure that some sort of reform could be done to their occupations too - wages, benefits, pensions etc.  My bet, they are being over compensated as well.


Here is a thought on pay scale and percentile wages.  What if police officers who are not doing any actual patrols; are only paid at the 50th percentile of their occupational field.  For example.  We will use patrolmen statistics because they are what is being used in this article.

If a patrolmen; for whatever reason cannot actually go out on patrol like the rest of the patrolmen; he is payed at the 25th percentile for hours worked.  Whether it be for medical reasons, court, sick leave pay - whatever!  If he is not patrolling the pay is reduced.  If doctors say he needs to be assigned to a desk for overweight issues or diabetes, heart conditions then, he receives less pay.  Even better, so that discrimination issues are not brought up because of physical disabilities - re-classify the patrolman to another ocupational field and pay them then at the 50th percentile of that particular job classification.

This type of pay scale and classification pay scales would be easy to implement at any level within city government.  Call it hazard pay or whatever you would choose.  End results; taxpayers are not forced to pay overpriced wages, balanced budgets, state auditor not in your caboose and everyone still makes a great living!  Unions might get a littled pissed but, who cares!  Often, unions claim that they help to keep people off of the system - like welfare and public assistance!  I believe union know better than anyone on how to - use public assistance!

What do we have proof of in all of this?  We know that the Portsmouth Police Dept. was over-staffed in 2008 and 2009.  We know this because of the 2010 Projected Budget Proposals from former mayor, Jane Murray.  In 2008 & 2009 the department had 46 employees and in 2010; it was proposed that there was going to be 49 employees.  These are in direct violation of our city's charter.  We are only supposed to have a total of 44 employees in the Police Dept.; that includes the chief and 43 other officers - this includes even the dispatchers and assistants!

We also know that our patrolmen are being extremely over paid for their occupation in southern ohio.  If proper reform would be implemented and adhered to; the budget deficit could be reduced by about $224,000 alone just on the patrolmen's wages.  Not counting making cuts in benefits and pensions.

Our councilmen asked all the department heads what percentage of their budgets are employee wages and benefits.  There answers were all pretty much the same; 90% of their budgets.  The Police Depart. stated it was more like 93% of their budget.

Folks this means that every tax-dollar that you give the city of Portsmouth, Ohio; $.90 cents of that dollar goes to employee wages and benefits.  Only, 10% covers everything else; including services that we are suppost to be getiing.  Councilman Albrecht said; We will have to cut services to the people of Portsmouth!  So, he recommends that they cut our services back even more than they already are.  The Portsmouth Police Dept. uses about 7% of their budget to actually fight the crime in our area!  Wow!  No wonder we have such a bad drug problem in our city.

Folks, Vote "NO" or "AGAINST" The Proposed City Income Tax Increase!

Take back the city!

This Time It's Personal!

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Malone: Campaign for Income Tax Increase Not Taxpayer Funded

The Great Bailout

One thing is for certain.  When a city official makes a short statement about a topic; that is as critical and important to the citizens of Portsmouth - as the "Proposed Income Tax Increase."  Citizens best be cautious and gaurded about what is not being said.

With the exception of former Mayor Murray's administration; citizens of Portsmouth, Ohio have been treated much like the same process that one would use to grow mushrooms.  Kept in the dark, and feed shit!

Mayor Malone said; "the cost of the campaign to pass the city income tax increase is not being paid for by the taxpayers."  That is a good thing to hear.  This means, and is later confirmed in the article; that it is being funded by outside sources.

The Campaign

The campaign amount to promote this city income tax increase is $22,000.00.  More than what most folks make in a year in the city of Portsmouth.  What is really interesting about this announcement is; if taxpayer dollars are not being spent on this campaign, and outside sources are funding this effort.  Then, why is a city official making statements about the campaigns funding and about it's committee?  I mean, couldn't one of the committee members came forth and said the same statement?  Instead of the Mayor's office.  If Frank Lewis would have had a brief flash of investigative reporting come over him; he might have been able to ask a question directly to a committee member; about the funding or committee.

The Committee

The committee is working with outside sources to fund the campaign.  Does this committee have any city employees, labor union officials/members on the committee?  Are any of the local city employee unions donating funds towards this campaign?

If the answer to any of these questions are "Yes;" then this proposed income tax increase - is the direct result of unions and special interest groups!  City employee union contracts are about to expire, and they want more of your money!

The Reason Why

At least, we now know more than we did before.  Or, at least confirmed our suspicions!  This proposed income tax increase is nothing more than a wage and benefit increase for the unionized city workers!  But, there is one other really big reason that they want this to pass!  And, that's to keep the State Auditor's Office from coming in, and doing a full-scale audit on the city.

The "Big Audit"

This means that every fund, account, and transfer of funds; over the past several years - will be looked at with extreme circumspection!  This could also lead; to the state to take a hard look at some other things too.  Things like; Amerisco and the SOGP's involvement with the city of Portsmouth - there's just no-telling where this could take them.

It could lead to other state agencies coming in as well.  If warranted; to open their own formal investigations.  Sort of a "Political Colon Cleansing."  A "Local Government Enema."

It's a good thing that SOMC is putting in those grinders!  I got a feeling something is about to hit the fans!

Worried Looks & Sleepless Nights

Elected officials are starting to show signs of being worried too.  In fact.  They even have publicly commented on their concerns about the State Auditor coming in.

When they come in; they will require some "big time" answers for some "big time" problems!  Questions... that I'm sure most of them don't want to answer either.

In the next, few months to come.  Watch to see if anybody steps down or resigns.  I bet several late-night paper shredding parties will be of the norm.  Maybe that's, what is meant by "burning the midnight oil!"

How Can The Voter Help?

By voting NO on the proposed city income tax increase!  By voting no on this union sponsored city income tax increase; you will be helping our city get the expert help that is needed - to get us back on track to fiscal responsibility!  By providing the city auditor, council, mayor, and department heads; the tools needed to be proper and good stewards of the taxpayers dollars.  By voting NO or AGAINST the income tax increase you will be helping them and in return helping yourselves!

They will be shown how to make do with what they have and how to get things done properly.  And, also, this help will be continued for over a one to two year period.  They will come down every couple of months and do a check and balance type audit just to make sure the ship is still sailing and not sinking!

Where Do We Draw The Line?

When is it enough folks?  Look at what we as taxpayers have been asked to pay for; just over the last several years.
  1. Martings Building Purchase (Money went to a local developer for strip malls.) ($2,000,000.00 of your tax dollars spent.)  (Got us a great deal there too, didn't they?)
  2. Martings Building Renovations  (We had to vote it down "twice" to get them to understand.)  (Wanted the taxpayer to spend another $2 to $4 million dollars to fix it up!)
  3. Adelphia Building (Full of black mold and very expensive to renovate and clean.)  (City forgave the owner of back taxes for the building.)
  4. Amerisco Fiasco (Project not completed and has never been monitored to show any savings as promised.)  (They were real responsible with that $9,000,000.00 of your tax dollars, now wasn't they?)
  5. Water & Sewage Increase (6 or 7 times in over the last 10 years!)
When is it enough people?  If you let this income tax increase pass; you will be getting alot of the same and it will keep getting worse and worse!  Stop the bleeding NOW!  Now, they want you to give them more of your money to mis-use and get their butts out of hot water with the State Auditor's Office.  And, to give to the city employees.

Here's the thing.  They can't explain or show you anything good about the 5 things listed above!  Not one!  Everything mentioned above cost the taxpayer money.  Not one thing have they done in 20 years to bring a good solid viable business into the city.  Not one!  Name a strong, viable, heavily employed business they have brought in themselves?  Kings Daughters came to the city and told them they were thinking of coming to town.

Dragging Up & Leaving This Town

When is the last time the city ever gave the citizens any good news on industry coming to town?  The fact is; none of them are doing one thing to try and bring any new industry to the city of Portsmouth.  Nothing!

And, we are in such a bad shape now; we have to give everything just get anyone to come!  And, then they still don't want anything to do with this place.

Some folks think that it might be because there are certain people and organizations within our city - that actually make more money and a healthy living; by keeping our area economically distressed.  They profit from your town being broke and having high unemployment rates!

In the last 20 years or so who has left and packed up their bags.
  1. Mitchellace.  Used to employ several hundred people.  Left to Costa Rica to set up main production operations.  Why?  This will get you!  Because the unions were trying to take over!  This man still sits on many committees within the city!
  2. Dayton Foundary
  3. Lute Supply  (Tax abatements run out so, they set-up just outside of town.)
  4. Lewis Furniture (Not really a big employer but, a staple of stability in our community.)
  5. Martings Department Store  (Employed a good amount of people.) (but, they got their share of the pie and some.)
  6. Maurices (In New Boston now.)
  7. Patterson Box Company  (Not really a large employer but, a staple.)
  8. Coke Plant  (Unions basically shut them down too.  They were striking right before they closed.)
Not to mention the Steel Mill in the 80s!  Now, what's coming in?  Nothing!


Mayor Malone and the entire city government from the bottom floor to the roof; are for the union workers too.  Just like Rep. Terry Johnson.  The deplorable oppressive thing about this whole proposed city income tax is; none of this money will go to benefit anything for the taxpayers!  It will all go for city employee's benefits and wages.

The City of Portsmouth's Proposed Income Tax Increase Is

The Great Bailout!

Vote "AGAINST" The Income Tax Increase



Saturday, March 5, 2011

Fiscal Emergency or Fiscal Watch - The Fact Sheet

Local Government
Fiscal Emergency/Fiscal Watch Law Fact Sheet

The original municipal fiscal emergency law was enacted in 1979 as a response to a financial crisis in the city of Cleveland. Since that time, financial planning and supervision commissions have aided over 50 governments declared in fiscal emergency.
In 1996 fiscal emergency protection was extended to counties and townships through a law (House Bill 462). HB 462 modified the fiscal emergency statute to create the "fiscal watch" status to provide early warning to faltering entities whose finances are approaching emergency status.
Entities now enter fiscal watch when essentially a deficit is in existence in the General Fund or other funds and such deficit exceeds one-twelfth of total General Revenue Funds - the previous marker for fiscal emergency.
Any One Factor Needed for the Auditor
of State to Declare Fiscal Watch

  • The existence of either of the following:
    • All accounts that were due and payable from the General Fund for more than 30 days, less the year-end balance of the General Fund, exceeded one-twelfth of the General Fund budget for the year.
    • All accounts that were due and payable from all funds for more than 30 days, less the year- end balance in these funds, exceeds one-twelfth of the available revenue for the preceding fiscal year from these funds.
  • Total deficit funds, less the total of any balances in the General Fund and in any special fund that may be transferred to meet such deficits, exceeds one-twelfth of the total General Fund budget for that year and the receipts to those deficit funds during that year (other than transfers from the General Fund).
  • Money and marketable investments, less outstanding checks, less total positive fund balances of general fund and special funds, exceeds one-twelfth of the total amount received during the preceding fiscal year.
  • Based on an examination of a financial forecast approved by the legislative authority, the auditor of state certifies that the general fund deficit at the end of the current fiscal year will exceed one-twelfth of the general fund revenue from the preceding fiscal year.
To determine if an entity qualifies for fiscal watch or emergency, the Auditor of State would conduct an initial review of entity finances. This analysis would commence upon the written request of the entity or at the initiation of the Auditor of State. If an entity is under "fiscal watch" the Auditor of State may provide technical and support services to the entity. Costs for this support would be borne by the state.
Any One Factor Needed for the Auditor
of State to Declare Fiscal Emergency

  • The same first three conditions as fiscal watch, with the exception that the fraction is changed to one-sixth, with the added requirement that the condition must continue to exist at least four months after the end of the fiscal year.
  • Failure, for lack of funds, to make all payroll to employees that continues beyond 30 days, or a period of agreed-upon extension that can not last more than 90 days from the original time for payment.
  • Default of payment on any debt obligation for more than 30 days. County budget commission increases the inside millage which results in a reduction for one or more other subdivisions or taxing districts.
  • An increase in the inside millage resulting in a decrease to any of the overlapping governments.
A declaration of fiscal emergency can result at the time of review if any of the six conditions are met. Entities declared in fiscal emergency come under the oversight of a financial planning and supervision commission.
Members of the Financial Planning and Supervision Commission
  • Treasurer of State (or office designee).
  • Director of state office of Budget and Management (or office designee).
  • For municipalities, the mayor and presiding officer of municipal legislative authority.
  • For counties, the president of the board of county commissioners and the county auditor.
  • For townships, a member of the board of township trustees and the county auditor.
  • Three appointed members chosen out of five names provided to the Governor by the mayor and presiding officer of municipal legislative authority; or by the county board of commissioners or board of township trustees. These individuals must be residents of the declared government (by home or office address) with at least five years private-sector business/financial experience.
Responsibilities of the Commission
  • Approve a financial recovery plan containing action to essentially eliminate fiscal emergency conditions, balance the budget, avoid future deficits and market long-term obligations. The plan must be submitted to the commission by the mayor, board of commissioners or board of trustees within 120 days of its first meeting. The commission can either accept or reject the plan, listing reasons if rejected. The above officials then have 30 days to resubmit a plan, and the process is repeated until a plan is accepted.
  • The commission, has widespread authority to review all revenues and expenditures estimates to determine whether they result in a balanced budget; require the government by ordinance or resolution to establish monthly levels of expenditures and encumbrances consistent with the financial plan; to approve and monitor these levels; to approve the amount and purpose of any debt issues; to make and enter into all contracts and agreements necessary to the performance of its duties and to make recommendations for cost reductions or revenue increases to carry out the financial plan.
Termination of the Commission
  • An effective financial accounting and reporting system is being implemented, with expected completion within two years.
  • All fiscal emergency conditions have been or are in the process of being eliminated, and no new emergency conditions have occurred.
  • The financial recovery plan objectives are being met.
  • The entity has a five-year financial forecast which the Auditor of State determines "nonadverse".

* This information is available at the following web-site.

State Rep. Johnson Favors Unions - Over Everybody Else!

State Rep. Terry Johnson has publicly announced that he is for the "Union Worker."  And, we hear you loud and clear sir.

I would like to now, take a look at Rep. Johnson's comments in the article; "Johnson: "I'm in Favor of the Union Worker'," that was in the Portsmouth Daily Times recently.

The article can be found here on-line:

Playing Dumb or Stupid - Or Both

Rep. Johnson, we all know that S.B.5 has not made it to the House of Representatives yet.  Come on!  The citizens of the 89th District are not as dim-witted or doltish as some would like for us to be.  Rep. Johnson has received hundreds of emails asking him to vote in favor of the House Bill version of the S.B.5.  To further explain to the freshman representative what this means - don't vote in favor of the unions!  Just in case that you might be confused about the matter.  In favor of voting to reform the state's "bargaining unit."

Idiots?  Hmm!

I think it takes alot of nerve and very little brains; to call the people of Portsmouth, Ohio idiots!  I mean especially, from a doctor turned politician.

Calling people who are standing up, and speaking out for what they believe is right... idiots!  Because these citizens are not liking the way the local government is being run by the elected officials.  They're idiots

How about when the city council and other elected officials, department heads, and union leaders opposed every thing former Mayor Jane Murray tried to do.  Blocked her and presented hurdles at every corner.  Are they idiots too?  What about Tom Bihl and his organizers to recall Mayor Murray - all idiots too?  I certainly don't want to get into the U.S. involvements in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe, the only real idiot is... a politician who makes those types of comments about the voters in his district.  Then again, maybe the voters are idiots - for voting for this type of person to be their representative!

Meet with Union Apprenticeship Program

The 2nd meeting with union members or officials.  The 1st meeting mentioned in this article was when Rep. Johnson traveled to Columbus to support the unions at the Senate hearings.  All on taxpayer dime!  Unions already costing the taxpayer money.

Many members present and past talk about learning their trade skills on the job from other tradesman... not this program!  They also talk about how it takes 40 to 45 years of working to get 30 good years counted towards retirement.

By Rep. Johnson saying; "The project-labor agreement actually does bring a job in more efficiently and at a greater value to the taxpayer.  Why should I be against that?  On the hand, if it doesn't do that, why would you be for it?"

Well, Rep. Johnson.  Let's just take a look at the other hand then!  It's called the "Davis-Bacon Act."   Of course, I don't have any fancy credentials hanging on the walls or nothing.  Just plain 'ole common sense.  It sits right there next to "Give-A-Damn."  Dust it off and give it a try!

What the Davis-Bacon Act has Done

The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates. This shields unions from competition on federal construction projects. It will also add $10.9 billion to the deficit in 2011.
Given that the federal government is already running historic and unsustainable deficits, federal policy should not unnecessarily inflate the cost of federal construction projects. Congress should repeal the DBA.
Unsustainable Spending
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government will run a record $1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 and that the national debt will double over the next decade.[1] Higher government spending is driving these historic deficits.[2] To avoid national bankruptcy, Congress must sharply reduce federal spending and eliminate nonessential programs. Congress should begin by first eliminating special interest handouts. One such unaffordable handout is the DBA.
DBA Restrictions Increase Costs
Under the DBA, contractors on all federally funded construction projects must pay their workers at least prevailing market wages. However, the Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. The Inspector General has criticized the DOL for:
  • Using a self-selected sample instead of a scientific random sample to estimate DBA rates;
  • Allowing 100 percent error rates in audited samples of returned DBA surveys; and
  • Permitting long delays in updating DBA surveys.[3]
These errors cause DBA rates to bear little relation to actual prevailing wages. Table 1 displays DBA rates and market wages estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for five American cities. As the table shows, DBA rates are well above market wages in most (though not all) cities.

The DBA effectively requires federal contractors to overpay their workers. Sheet metal workers on Long Island earn $31.37 an hour at market rates, while the DBA requires federal contractors to pay $48.15 hour—a 53 percent premium. Nationwide, DBA rates average 22 percent above market rates.[4]
These inflated wages unnecessarily increase the cost of federal construction projects by 9.9 percent.[5] Repealing the DBA and paying market wages would have saved taxpayers $10.9 billion in 2010.[6]
More Infrastructure and Jobs
Alternatively, if Congress is not willing to reduce construction spending, suspending the DBA would make each public construction dollar go 9.9 percent further. This would create more bridges and buildings at the same cost to taxpayers. It would also employ 155,000 more construction workers.[7]
Unlike increasing government spending, suspending the DBA would create, on net, new jobs. These new jobs would not be offset by private-sector job losses because their funding does not come from the private sector. Instead, the government would simply be using the money it has already appropriated more efficiently. Suspending the DBA means hiring five workers at market rates instead of hiring four workers at a 22 percent premium.
Union Opposition
The government should always spend tax dollars wisely, but this is especially important in a recession. Workers on federally funded projects should not earn artificially inflated wages at the cost of keeping others unemployed. Sound public policy would not spend tax dollars to pay electricians on federal projects in Philadelphia a $12.59-per-hour premium.
The DBA remains on the books because labor unions successfully lobby for it.[8] Labor unions’ interest in preserving DBA should come as little surprise: DBA rates typically match union wage scales.[9] The requirement that federal contractors pay DBA rates prevents non-union firms from underbidding unionized companies. DBA restrictions mean less infrastructure and fewer jobs in America but more jobs and higher pay for union members.
Repeal the Davis–Bacon Act
America can no longer afford such special-interest handouts. If Congress is serious about reducing spending or lowering unemployment, it should repeal the DBA. Congress should also reduce the amount it contributes to state construction projects by the amount the DBA inflates costs. This would ensure that the federal government realizes the full $10.9 billion in savings in 2011. Congress should stop requiring the federal government to hire four construction workers for the price of five.

James Sherk is Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

References in this report

[1]Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021,” January 2011, at (February 10, 2011).
[2]Brian Riedl, “New CBO Budget Baseline Reveals Permanent Trillion-Dollar Deficits,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3121, January 26, 2011, at
[3]See James Sherk, “Davis–Bacon Prevailing Wage Determinations Need to Be Calculated Scientifically,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2111, March 3, 2008, at
[4]Sarah Glassman, Michael Head, David G. Tuerck, and Paul Bachman, “The Federal Davis-Bacon Act: The Prevailing Mismeasure of Wages,” Beacon Hill Institute, February 2008, at (February 10, 2011).
[5] Ibid.
[6]Heritage Foundation calculations were determined as follows: Census bureau data on total public (federal, state, and local) construction spending data in 2010 was used as the baseline for 2011 public construction spending. From this was subtracted stimulus construction spending, all of which is covered by the DBA. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2001 that 32 percent of public construction spending was covered by DBA restrictions (see ibid.). The conservative assumption was made that the expansions of the DBA since then have not increased this percentage. The value of the stimulus construction spending in 2011 was added to 32 percent of non-stimulus public construction spending. That yields an estimated $120.4 billion in the total construction spending covered by DBA restrictions. Adjusting this for the DBA-induced 9.91 percent cost increase yields $109.6 billion in construction costs without the DBA. This represents cost reductions of $10.9 billion, after rounding.
[7]Heritage Foundation calculations based on the finding that each $1 billion of construction spending directly employs 14,300 workers. See Stephen Fuller, testimony before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, January 22, 2009, at (February 11, 2011).
[8]AFL-CIO, “Building Trades Secure Legislative Victories on Davis-Bacon and PLAs,” January 26, 2010, at (February 11, 2011).
[9]This happens because DBA survey participation is self-selected. Most private-sector contractors do not take the time to fill out the complex survey forms the Department of Labor sends them, and the Department does little follow-up. Union firms have staff trained in answering the DBA wage surveys and almost always return them. Consequently, the wages paid by union firms disproportionately influence final DBA rates.


So, by the facts and data provided above; anyone - even a doctor turned politician can see - that his statement concerning what is a greater value to the taxpayer; Is Wrong!

This would mean one of two things.  You really just don't have a clue; or your for the unions and special interest groups.  And, not for the economic welfare of the taxpayers!  Not, for creating jobs!  You may want to stick with the "clueless" defense.  And, to think that this man is now in the business of making laws.  Interesting.

Double Talking

Rep. Johnson said; "Those people that are working, they pay taxes.  Those people who are not union people pay taxes.  I'm for all of them.  I'm looking out for your dollars."

If you come out and make a statement like Rep. Johnson did in the headline of this article; "I'm in Favor of the Union Worker."   How in the world can you say you are "for all of them?"  He can't be!  He just stated that he is for union workers.  Not "and Non-Union workers!"  Not, "All Workers!"  Just the union workers.  In fact.  He felt so compelled and strongly about it; he went to Columbus to show his support.

This means that every voting citizen in the 89th District; that is not a union worker; Rep. Johnson favors unionized workers of you!  Why?  Because they are a special interest group.  They make large campaign contributions; they have deeper pockets than regular 'ole Joe the Plumber!

Prevailing Wage - The "Little Davis-Bacon Act"

Prevailing wage may include both wages and benefits.  It encompasses the compensation for a worker given for personal labor.  There are 32 states that have the state prevailing wage laws, also known as "little Davis-Bacon Acts".  The rules and regulations vary from state to state.  Another heavily supported and backed piece of legislation backed by unions.

I wonder if Austin Keyser will speak with Rep. Johnson about this in their "meet and greet?"  Especially, if S.B. 5 passes in the House as well!

Not About Politics

Once again; Rep. Johnson want to make it clear to the voters and citizens of the 89th District - He is in favor of the union worker!

"It doesn't matter if they voted for me or not."  Oh!  Well, why didn't he just say that in the beginning!  It doesn't matter.  Plain and simple.  I guess, it shouldn't matter that he is meeting with the President of the Shawnee Labor Council either. It shouldn't matter that he has went to union labor halls and spoke with them; or drove to Columbus and supported demonstrators who were primarily union members!  Don't worry - Be happy!  Is he trying to convince himself or the people with that statement.

The Meet & Greet - That's All

Austin Keyser will be driving to Columbus to meet and greet with Rep. Johnson on Tuesday!  They plan on sitting down and talking.

Discussion of the S.B. 5 passage in the Senate probably won't even be discussed.  I suppose nothing will be mentioned about the "prevailing wage" issue either!  With the president of Shawnee Labor Council, unions, and special interest will not even be in the room for conversations.  It will all be checked at the door!

Again, it does not take alot of sense to see things differently!  The facts are that he knows they supported, and endorsed him during his campaign and now the "markers" are being called in!

Final Note

I wonder if the people who worked in Rep. Johnson's private practice were all union workers?

I can honestly say this with great pride and satisfaction.  My vote did not place this man in office, and it won't in the future either!