PEE DEE SHAMELESS IN PROMOTING ISSUE 6 AS NEWS

The Pee Dee has become totally shameless in its promotion of Issue 6 and County “reform.” Totally shameless. News has become propaganda. Again.

 

The front-page story Monday said that voting for Issue 6 would be “costly to 4 elected Cuyahoga officials.” It’s the top story of the day.

 

Yeah, let’s get ‘em!

 

The Issue 6 campaign should have to list the Pee Dee for in-kind contributions. It’s that bad.

 

The Pee Dee story starts by telling us that four elected officials – Commissioners Peter Lawson Jones, Tim Hagan, Treasurer Jim Rokakis and Recorder Lillian Greene – will lose their jobs if Issue 6 passes. All four oppose Issue 6, of course.

 

They will lose $700,000 in pay. Jones and Hagan nearly each $185,000, says the Pee Dee, and Rokakis $190,000 (two-and-a-half years) and Greene two-years, $149,000. That’s the way the Pee Dee figures it.

 

What the Pee Dee doesn’t figure at all, however, is what the cost will be under the new system.

 

Issue 6 also calls for a County Executive who will have to be paid. Likely he or she will have to get something in the range of $200,000. Maybe more.

 

The measure also calls – instead of the three Commissioners - for 11 new positions as what they call council members. Ten are scheduled to get $45,000 each. That will mean a payroll addition of $450,000 a year. One – the president of the council – gets $55,000 a year. Expect those salaries to go up quickly near what Cleveland Council members get, about $70,000.

 

Isn’t that more than $700,000 for any single year? My adding machine says $450,000 plus $55,000, plus $200,000 equals $705,000. A year, that is. Without pay increase that surely will come.

 

That also doesn’t factor in any staff. My bet is that all 11 members – I’d call them all County Commissioners – will want at minimum at least one staff member and other staffing.

 

And don’t forget expense accounts for each of the 11 offices.

 

 If money is the issue, we already are outspending the old line-up. Significantly.

 

Besides setting up a situation with 11 districts fighting each other.

 

I suspect the Pee Dee, however, is looking for the public to be out to “punish” someone in County government. Who hasn’t gotten sickened by the corruption there?

 

That’s the Pee Dee impetus - to entice voters to take out their frustrations on someone by voting “yes” on Issue 6. But do you do this to spite yourselves?

 

We will have – instead of three Commission honchos – 11 district County leaders plus the County executive. One can see power struggles already.

 

It’s a setup not unlike Cleveland City Council.

 

And we know how well that works. Don’t we?