Comment history for toddfranko

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

RobX:

Simply crazy. Read the 12-month history of our/my coverage.
I have said over and over that the salaries are low in many areas of the county. I even think $50/$60K for lawyers is low. And I wouldn't do a CSB worker's job for the money they get. And the entire county workforce is letting the deputies work for peanuts.
My point all year is not that you have to work for peanuts. It's that peanuts is what's coming in in the form of tax dollars. It's not the 90s anymore. Yet some officeholders choose to pay out like there's prime rib coming in and Clinton's in office -- all the while enjoying benefits that on average, exceed the current private market place.
Public workers in the 80s bemoaned that they needed to be treated like private workers, and the performance would be better, etc.
So starting in the late 80s and through the 90s, that happened.
Now? It's no longer OK to be treated like the private sector.
That's been the point for 12 months of our writing that's tried to zero in on the last 4 years of local government spending.
And we will continue it. Where there's a levy asking the private sector for additional funds, there will be pay and benefits histories.

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

Thank you Joly for the 25 minutes to find the gist.

I'll admit though that within my family is a relative who sent out 100 or so "You're invited" cards not too long ago .... and they got the time and the place and the honorees absolutely perfect.

But never did the invite say what you were coming for.

Thankfully, the celebratory typeface at least conveyed it was not a funeral.

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

Monday email from reader working with county, but not for county:
Thank you sir for the great writing. It is time the public found out about some of those dirty, little secrets! I don't work for the county. I have been (at facility) 15 years and have become friends with many a deputy. What they have given up over the years is shameful. I will never understand why those who put their life on the line are not compensated for it. Would any of our judges or other departments want to sit in a huge room with 36 alleged murderers, rapists, child molesters milling around them for peanuts? I think not. Well, there is so much more, but we all need our jobs. Again I thank you for a fantastic article.

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

Pac:
You are right about the low wages, and I've said that several times over this year-long look at county raises. And I did so in this piece.
This is not a look at wages; it's a look at new spending in an era when new revenues are tough to find for anyone -- public or private.
If you work for Apple or a Marcellus Shale outfit, you likely have new revenues to spread around your staff. Do it, and love it, and buy a new Cruze with it.
But new revenues for anyone else -- especially government -- are hard to find. That's certainly true for the Valley. That's certainly true these last 3 years.
The raises in this piece are hardly as lucrative as what Gains did in January. But in fairness to all, and especially the deputies, it ALL deserves examination.
The health department especially fits this, and I swallowed hard a bit in calling these guys this week because I kind of see it like you. Yes, it was only 2 percent in June. But it was 1.5 percent 6 months ago. And it was 2.75 6 months before that. And 3.00 12 months before that.
Pile on that philosophy across one department's entire workforce, then across many departments, and what you have is "We need a new tax levy because we can't afford to operate."
I don't agree with paulparks' "lazy" charge, and I hate that doing these stories subjects people -- some of them friends of mine and Vindy customers -- to unfair charges like that.
But I hope we can overcome the low points of this debate and see the bigger issues.

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

Walter:
Sorry ... I goofed. 4 out of 5 are male.
I'll fix this online now and correct it in print on Sunday.
Sorry to all ...
Todd

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

@nodice: What the businesses pay in property taxes was to be in the piece, but there was just too much to get in. To that end though, Boardman's property tax base, according to the officials, is about 50/50 — residential vs. commercial.

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

@gfpalmer:
You're confusing me.
Throughout my writings and my responses, I've intentionally not named his better half.
I'm a huge fan of hers, especially when I disagree with her. She's stoic, poised, fair — and conscientious that others may differ with her. And I do agree with her as well at times ;) ;)
So I went to awkward steps to allow for her relevant salary info, but not single her out in a way equal to John.
Her info is relevant due to the way John ridiculously attacks anyone who attacks the status quo of tax-funded employment or anything else not on his agenda.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope I've changed it a bit.
As you can see from the message board, others find the complete picture of Russo relevant.
Here's an email that just came in:
------
Todd
Just a brief note to compliment you on your outstanding column yesterday and particularly for exposing Russo (and his wife) for the scam they perpetrate on Ohio taxpayers. In my opinion these two have no knowledge of what historically made the Mahoning Valley a great community and somehow they have made a career at the taxpayers expense (approximately $250,000 per year including generous benefits) of constantly dividing the community. This latter component continues to be a detriment to our future progress.
The fact that Russo posts negatively about both you personally and the Vindicator in an anonymous fashion says much about his personality and denotes that he is afraid to debate you head on. I am sure many are glad that you have exposed his tactics.
------
Again -- I'm all for "Mrs. Russo." And I admire John's knowledge. But he has never played well in the sand box and likely never will.

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

Another pretty good email:

Thanks for your articles exposing the lavish perks that the public sector gets. My (relative) is "employed" at YSU. I see it first hand.....days off with pay, health insurance, free tuition, big bonuses just for showing up ... all this while I am struggling to pay my son's tuition. I have a small business, and my healthcare deductible is $10,000 per person. I pray that we don't have to go to the hospital. The board at YSU seems to be made up of rich people who don't know what it's lilke for the middle class. When my mother worked at a retailer, she received a 10% discount. She didn't get "free" merchandise.
Why should the YSU employees get free tuition?
It's unbelievable.
It's all on the backs of the students and their families.

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

@Guin96 -- Thanks for the help. This email came in as well this morning from a YSU'er helping to clarify the 2008/09 issue:
Todd -- 2009 was the first year of the contract negotiated in 2008. In that contract salary, increases were structured with a base percentage increase plus a flat dollar increase. This translates to different percentage increases for each faculty member. The percentage increase is affected by the base salary. Russo's is higher because of his base salary.

That YSU reader followed with this:
"By the way, your column was on the mark for the most part.
"What exists in the public sector is a variation of the NIMBY syndrome. Every budget line has a constituency that advocates fiercely for it. University administrations and Boards are generally reluctant to anger any constituency and therefore the prevailing strategy is to make adjustments across the board and raise tuition to the maximum to minimize specific anger. If Kasich really wanted to force universities to restructure and redefine what they were doing he would have frozen tuition AND cut their budgets. I have my list of things YSU doesn't need to do, but it would anger many people. As their list would anger me.

"The playing field in the public sector is unbalanced compared to the private sector.
In the private sector the employer can always relocate or close down if labor costs get out of control. This creates a shared interest to be reasonable rather than jump off the cliff together. Witness General Motors.
"The public employer has no recourse and must deal with public anger over loss of services or disruption of services if there is a strike. The path of least resistance is to settle contracts and raise revenue through tuition increases and tax increases.

"When one gets old, patterns are recognized. We are in a familiar pattern at YSU: The parties reach an impasse, the Vindicator editorializes, anger and frustration rises.

"If form follows, a settlement will be reached near the 11th hour that no one is totally happy with. Money will be found to pay for it.
"As you say ... at YSU there is always money.
"The disagreement is how to spend it."

Wow -- thank you ...

toddfranko (Todd Franko) says...

As predicted, Russo took to an anonymous post on his bash-Vindy page, and it was typical of his misdirection and misappropriation.
• I noted Phil Ginnetti's salary in my column. Phil left YSU last year for another school. Yes, I would have liked to have noted that had I known. But what would stay unchanged is the salary he was assigned in 2011 which was 21 percent more than his wage 4 years ago. That's the crux of the story. But Russo would like to use the absence issue as proof of poor journalism.
• He goes further with his "poor standards" charge by saying that my story had his salary 15 percent inflated and his wife's 50 percent inflated. He called it poor fact-checking, especially for someone who's the editor.
The numbers came from Russo's bosses. Any journalist outfit in the world -- from the Times, the Post to Russo's conspiracy friends, would be allowed and proper to take those same numbers as fact.
If the numbers are off, please correct it with your school.

For the record, YSU records have Russo and his wife listed with these "working class" salaries:
2006:
Russo: 91,403
Wife: 68,907

2007
Russo: 94,602 (up 3.5%)
Wife: 71,318 (up 3.5%)

2008
Russo: 97,913 (3.5%)
Wife: 73,815 (3.5%)

2009
Russo: 104,461 (6.7%)
Wife: 78,860 (6.8%)

2010
Russo: 108,117 (3.5%)
Wife: 81,620 (3.5%)

2011
Russo: 111,901 (3.5)
Wife: 84,477 (3.5%)

I'm kind of intrigued by what was so special about 2009 for those two. I suspect -- when I can apply more "journalistic standards" -- that the percent could be the same for everyone that year. I'll crunch those 2009 numbers for everyone on Monday. See if they all cashed in nicely in 2009.

Please help if you know why. From what I know of the economy, it was pretty rough in '08 and in '09 -- except for at YSU.

US News and World Report says this about 2008 (which would be the period tied to the 2009 YSU budget year):
• 3.8 percent decrease in U.S. GDP in the fourth quarter 2008.
• 1.5 million job losses in last quarter.
• 45 percent decrease in housing starts during 2008.
• 0.01 percent rise in consumer prices for 2008, the smallest annual increase since 1955

Seems about right for 6.8 percent raises — if you're to believe YSU's own salary figures.

Chime in with what you know. Stay tuned from me.