This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

The loophole in the income tax hike - Last night's council meeting

My notes from last night all deal with the income tax proposal.

Brian Lowdermilk and I both proposed charter amendments to protect current police funding levels. Mine prohibited the mayor from reducing the current police funding (about $5.2 million), unless there was a unanimous resolution of council. Lowdermilk proposed a minimum police staffing of 44 officers. (We currently have 38 officers; if the levy passes, it’s anticipated we would have a total of 49.)

Both proposals were completely founded on common sense. If the mayor really intends to use this new money on police funding (without playing sleight of hand by diverting current police money), then neither proposal should have been difficult to swallow.

Find out what's happening in Stowwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

But that wasn’t the case. My proposal was shot down in committee by a 3-4 vote (Rasor, Lowdermilk, Riehl voting “yes”). Brian’s made it through committee by a 4-3 vote (same votes, plus Bednar), but lost 3-4 on the floor of council (Bednar then voted “no”).

Look. This isn’t complicated. If you say the levy is for additional police funding (i.e., in addition to what the police currently receive), then there must be some assurance that the money the police currently receive will continue to go to the police.

Find out what's happening in Stowwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

My proposal would have done that. Two weeks ago, the mayor agreed with me. This week, she flip-flopped and strongly opposed any effort to close the loophole.

Lowdermilk’s proposal was even more black-and-white. If we plan to have 49 officers, then why is there any risk in assuring voters that police staffing won’t drop below 44 — unless, of course, there is a plan to divert funding?

Some council members said: Council has the ability to pass the budget, so council can ultimately control whether the mayor renegs on her promise. I have several counterarguments to that:

1) We need five out of seven votes to pass a budget that differs from the mayor’s. Obtaining a supermajority on a controversial issue is no easy task within any legislative body.

2) In the past decade, Stow’s mayors have enjoyed a stranglehold on council — where the mayor seemingly has the ability to control at least a majority of council. (You arguably saw evidence of that last night.) As a result of this “Good Ole Boy Network,” none of these councilmembers has supported a single change to any line item in the budget since I have been on council.

3) It is the PEOPLE who will decide to add funding to the police. It should be the PEOPLE who decide to divert it, not council.

4) Last night, one councilmember suggested that the $5.2 million might not be necessary in future years. So, it has already begun.

5) Council and the mayor are subject to term limits. So we are making a promise that future leaders will be responsible to keep.

At the end of the debate, council voted 5-2 to put the tax levy on the ballot (Rasor, Lowdermilk voting “no”). But voters will make the ultimate decision. In making that decision, they should be very suspicious about the reasons why the mayor refused to close a glaring loophole.

But let me make one thing clear: We need more police officers — at least six more. I have been singing that chorus since I was elected. Meanwhile, Sara Drew, while she was a councilwoman, never spoke up against Mayor Fritschel, who repeatedly stated that we did not need more police.

Let’s also clear up another misconception. This tax hike is not about school safety. Yes, we will likely have a greater presence within the schools, but there is no plan to have police officers at every school. That was just the hook used to raise taxes and potentially drum up support among parents. That’s a fact.

We need more cops, but we should hire them within current revenue. We have the money, but we need to make difficult choices about our priorities.

- Do we value owning a golf course more than having a fully staffed police department?

- Are we more interested in hiring City Hall personnel or in hiring police officers?

Nowadays, the answer cannot be “both.”

City council will next meet on Thursday, June 28 with the committees at 5:30 p.m. and the council meeting to follow.


We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Stow