Prevailing Wages Protect Taxpayers

A recent negative comment about prevailing wages in public construction projects reminded me of the anecdote about the successful bidder for a federal dam project out west. The contractor showed up on the job site with a pickup truck, a shovel, and a wheelbarrow. “Where do I start?” he drawled. So much for the lowest bid being the best bid! We taxpayers do get what we pay for.

Prevailing wages are standardized wages, based upon surveys of actual wages paid in local communities. Businesses who receive government construction contracts must pay their workers at least the prevailing wages.

Critics complain that requiring prevailing wages forces governments to pay more than is necessary. However, “low-balling” a contract bid with substandard wages is likely to result in less-experienced or poorly trained workers. The result is greater – not lesser – expense to the taxpayers. After Utah repealed its prevailing wage law in 1981, cost overruns on state financed roads tripled over the next decade. And a Federal Highway Administration study found that higher wages translate into higher productivity and lower costs; high-wage states built highways for 18% less than low-wage states. Low-wage states required many more labor hours to build a mile of highway.

Of course workers themselves benefit by prevailing wage laws. These men and women are better able to care for themselves, their families, and – by extension – their communities. The preservation of the American standard of living – threatened by so many economic forces both at home and from abroad – is promoted by prevailing wage laws.

Prevailing wage laws result in quality infrastructure and high productivity through the employment of a skilled construction labor force. Taxpayers need the protection that prevailing wage laws provide.

A Tribute to Two Shelbians
by Garland John Gates

Death recently took from us two outstanding Shelbians: Denver Shepherd and Dorothy Hawk.

Back in 1983 as mayor, I recommended the creation of the Sesquicentennial Commission to plan the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the platting of the "Town of Shelby." One person who came forward to volunteer his services was Denver Shepherd. He had recently retired from General Motors and had the time to dedicate to this endeavor. Under his leadership as the commission's chairperson, the community came together in a way that today would be called "awesome." The celebration included a ball, wooden nickels, coins, plates, mugs, design and motto contests, and on and on. The culmination of the events was a huge parade and a spectacular - I know, what other word can I use to describe them? - fireworks display. For all his efforts, I was honored to award Denver a "Key to the City." Later he served on the Board of Park Commissioners from the Second Ward. During his tenure, Seltzer Pool was rebuilt.

Yes, being news editor of the Daily Globe was Dorothy Hawk's job. But it was more than simply a job; it was her mission. Day in and day out, Dorothy was responsible for bringing local news to the wider Shelby community. She attended countless long (and often boring) meetings and ably summarized them in print for her readers. I can remember one Council meeting back in the 1970's during which the city fathers were talking among themselves in a way so that the gallery could not hear their deliberations. Dorothy stood up, crossed the bar, pulled up a chair, and plunked herself down at the end of the Council table. No one dared to object! From then on at Council meeting's, that place was Dorothy's. Long into her retirement, she continued to write. Writing had become her passion, which she gladly shared with us.

Shelby has been enriched by the lives of Denver and Dorothy. We would do well to emulate their examples.

Will Ohio history repeat itself?
by Garland John Gates

Recently I ran across a dusty copy of Ohio Legislative History 1923-1924, Vol. V by legislative historian James K. Mercer. It contains the official papers and records of the first term of Democratic Gov. Vic Donahey. “Honest Vic,” who had been state auditor, was elected as Ohio’s chief executive in November 1922.

The governor soon faced a showdown with the overwhelmingly Republican legislature. He vetoed 76 bills his first term and earned the moniker “Veto Vic.” (Incidentally one bill that Gov. Donahey returned to the General Assembly was a tax bill sponsored by Rep. Robert A. Taft, grandfather of Gov. Bob Taft.) Evidently voters approved Gov. Donahey’s stance: he was reelected in 1924 by the greatest vote margin to date in the state’s history. He vetoed 45 bills in his second term. Voters then returned Veto Vic in 1926 for a third term, in which he vetoed 30 more pieces of legislation. (Gov. Donahey chose not to run again in 1928 but was elected in 1934 to the US Senate, where he served one term.)

Let’s fast forward to the current day. In a little over a week, Ohio will have a hugely popular Democratic governor in office. It will also have a General Assembly controlled by the GOP. Will history repeat itself?

Gov. Donahey’s brief inaugural address contained a warning to the legislature regarding bills that it should not send to him or he would veto them. The General Assembly chose to ignore the governor. The governor returned a huge number of bills with veto messages attached. The General Assembly overrode many of these vetoes. And the voters returned Mr. Donahey to the Governor’s Office – not once, but twice – as Ohio’s first governor to serve three consecutive terms.

Ohio’s Senate President Bill Harris and House Speaker Jon Husted would be well advised to educate themselves about Statehouse happenings in the 1920’s. They might also do well to consider an even more current example from the early 1970’s. At that time, Democratic Gov. John J. Gilligan faced a Republican legislature. When the General Assembly failed to pass a budget bill, state government shut down – a la Newt Gingrich shutting down the federal government in the 1990’s. The long term result? In 1974, fed-up Ohioans elected a legislature in which Democrats controlled both houses and ushered in the golden days of the late Speaker Vern Riffe.

No one wants that kind of confrontation at the Statehouse. And I believe that soon-to-be Gov. Ted Strickland especially doesn’t want it. But perhaps in the back of his mind, he’s saying, “Go ahead. Make my day.” After all, history is on his side.

Shelby Goes Blue – Big time!
by Garland John Gates

Shelby voters went blue – that is, Democratic – in the November 7th general election. Big time blue, too. And they voted this way not because Shelby is a Democratic town. Shelby voters are notorious for swinging for one party in one election and then swinging Tarzan-like for the other party the next time. Here’s a personal example. Ronald Reagan trounced Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1980 in Shelby, but by next fall, they elected yours truly – a Democrat, thank you very much – in a landslide over my Republican opponent in the race for mayor.

The independence of Shelby voters is well known throughout Richland County. Candidates of both parties have said both publicly and privately that one cannot win countywide without carrying Shelby. And that’s pretty much true. Shelby seems to be a bellwether community, and Shelbians tend to support the winners.

Well, let’s take a look at what happened and where. Since all politics is local, we’ll examine results on a precinct level.

So who was the biggest winner on November 7th? State Rep.-elect Jay Goyal swept all ten precincts. His victory was a tidal wave even in Precincts 4B and 4C, both Republican strongholds. Jay’s win proves that a positive, issued-based campaign featuring door-to-door works best. Voters like to be courted one-on-one; they want to be asked. And Jay did just that. Helping his election success, too, was the inept campaign of his GOP opponent, Phil Holloway. Did he and/or his Columbus handlers really think that voters would believe that Jay Goyal would slap a sales tax on Billy Bob’s school lunch? Unbelievable! Desperation is always ugly.

Number 2 in Shelby’s big blue vote was Ted Strickland, Ohio’s next governor. He carried 9 of 10 precincts, all but 4B. (It’s not simply red; it’s scarlet.) Just as their “Turnaround Ohio” plan took the entire state by storm, the Strickland-Fisher ticket captured Shelby. Our new Democratic governor will face a big challenge: the new General Assembly will still be controlled by Republicans. It’s a replay of 1970 when Jack Gilligan was elected to clean up the financial mess left by Gov. Rhodes. House Speaker Husted and Senate Pres. Harris will do well to cooperate with Gov. Strickland. Ohioans and Shelbians are disgusted by the culture of corruption that's dominated state government. Remember the atomic bomb that is the Apportionment Board. (And if readers don't know what the Apportionment Board is, then they don't know Ohio politics.)

Few people realize what the Strickland win means at the precinct level. The presiding judge – the election worker in charge of the team of pollworkers – must be of the same party as the gubernatorial candidate who carried that particular precinct. So for the next four years at least, nine of Shelby’s presiding judges will be Democrats. That’s significant for the Democratic Party. (Yes, I had said all politics is local.)

Other Dems who carried Shelby were Marc Dann, Jennifer Brunner, Richard Cordray, Sherrod Brown, and Bart Hamilton.

What’s even more interesting is that two candidates who ultimately lost did well in Shelby. Richard Siferd, running for the U.S. House, took 7 precincts. State auditor hopeful Barbara Sykes did likewise.

Finally, State Issue 2 to increase the minimum wage didn’t carry overt party designations, but the lines were clearly drawn. Democratic groups – such as the Shelby Area Democratic Club – joined with organized labor and poverty-fighting organizations in urging a “yes” vote. The “no” forces were led by GOP-dominated business lobbies and chamber-types. Shelby rightly and justly sided with the little guys: Issue 2 carried in 8 precincts. Poor 4B and 4C…“let them eat cake,” I guess.

I’ve been active in politics since 1972 when I worked for George McGovern’s presidential effort. And I’ve learned not to be too smug after a win. I remind myself and others, “You can’t lose them all.”

MUNICIPAL MYTHBUSTER
By Garland John Gates

A myth can be a good thing. It can entertain us; the stories of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox are good examples. A myth can fill explain natural phenomena because of a culture’s lack of modern scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, a myth can perpetuate ignorance and falsehoods. Let’s take a look at 4 municipal myths that have been passed from generation to generation here in Shelby.

Myth No. 1: “The people who wrote Shelby’s Charter were
wise men provided for our unique municipal government.”
Reality Check: The 1921 Charter Commission didn’t write Shelby’s Charter at all. What verb shall I use? “Stole” is such a strong word. “Plagiarized” is probably more accurate, but I’m not sure that one can plagiarize a document in the public domain. So what happened back in 1921? The commission was elected on May 21 and “filed its report with the Council, that it had prepared and proposed a charter for the City of Shelby” on June 14.
How could the commissioners have prepared a detailed, nearly 30-page-long, legal document in a little over 3 weeks? The answer is simple. They copied Ashland’s 1914 Charter nearly word for word. (And who knows where and how Ashland got its Charter?)
Incidentally the commissioners were all men. The sole woman candidate – Miss Lizzie Marvin – was defeated after 2 additional votes were found during the official canvass of votes.
Okay, so Shelby’s Charter was copied, and our city government is not unique. But city and village charters are good. They do allow municipalities to tailor their local governments to fit local needs. For the most part, Shelby’s Charter has served us well (but it does need some further revisions).

Myth No. 2: “Shelby’s elections are nonpartisan.”
Reality Check: The Charter states that the ballots shall be printed “without party designation.” So only the ballot itself is nonpartisan. Nothing requires that the election be nonpartisan. And indeed nothing could require such a situation since we still have a First Amendment that allows freedom of association, even for political parties.
My experience over the years is that this myth is mostly perpetuated by closeted Republicans who didn’t like this out-of-the-closet Democrat running for public office. A close examination will show that both political parties – either directly or through their followers – have been active in Shelby municipal elections. In Shelby elections, the parties’ influence is subtle, but it’s definitely there.
(By the way, since the 1970s, 6 of 8 Shelby mayors have been Democrats.)

Myth No. 3: “The finance director has more responsibility
than the Mayor since he’s responsible for the City’s finances and,
therefore, should be paid more than the Mayor.”
Reality Check: Shelby’s finance director truly has a lot of responsibility. The job is complicated and won’t get easier. But anyone who believes this myth is ignorant of the facts and doesn’t understand how local government operates.
The Mayor’s signature is on every check that the finance director signs (with an exception for Park Fund checks). Therefore, both are equally responsible for the legality and appropriateness of expenditures.
Let’s compare the 2 positions further. The Mayor is responsible for approximately 100 employees – safety forces, utility workers, and others. The finance director oversees but 4 employees. The Mayor is “the chief executive officer of the city and the chief conservator of peace therein.” The finance director is “the chief accounting officer of the city” and is third in command after the Mayor and the law director. When incidents happen – light plant explosions, flooded basements, toxic waste spills, etc. – who gets called? The Mayor does, of course! He’s always on call…24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. For the most part, the finance director works the day shift. The conclusion? The Mayor has infinitely more responsibility than the finance director.
Consider that the President of the United States is paid more than the Secretary of the Treasury and that the Governor of the State of Ohio is paid more than either the state auditor or the state treasurer. Now the salaries both for the Mayor and for the finance director should adequately reflect their comparable worth. But the Mayor should be the highest paid city elected official. Period. End of discussion.

Myth No. 4: “There is (or was) a law that
the sun can’t set on a black man in Shelby.”
Reality Check: About 6 years ago on a summer Sunday morning, I worshipped at a friend’s church in Bloomville. After the service, a man in front of the church introduced himself. When I mentioned where I lived, he bluntly asked me about Myth No. 4. “Wow!” I thought at the time. I can’t even recall my awkward reply. But I have read the City’s Code of 1923, the Code of 1958, and numerous editions of the Codified Ordinances from the 1970s to the present day. I can conclusively say that Shelby never had a statute that forbade African-Americans from staying overnight within the city limits.
However, laws come in 2 kinds. Statutory laws are those passed by legislative bodies, such as the City Council. The other kind of laws is de facto laws – those that reflect accepted customs and practices. So if Shelby had no statutory law to force Blacks out of town by sundown, was there a de facto law that required this?
You had better believe it! The pre-WWII Shelby had an active Ku Klux Klan – complete with cross burnings on East Smiley Avenue and rallies in Central Park. Now some readers may cite that Charles Follis, the first Black professional football player and Shelby Blues standout, stayed overnight in Shelby. I’ll counter by saying that Mr. Follis is the exception that proves the rule. Was it an accepted custom and practice that no one in Shelby for many, many years would either rent apartments or sell homes to African-Americans? Anyone my age or older knows the answer to that question.
In case you’re keeping score: statutory law 0, de facto law 1.