Voting for #036;10 fee simply throws money at problem

Published 12:00 am Friday, November 5, 2004

Everyone has heard about the $10 fee, but exactly what is up with that?

When originally proposed the fee was to place some ten workers back to work (especially sanitation workers) and to allow rehiring of an economic development person, along with offsetting some of the anticipated budget deficit.

Union members, friends and family stating their support for the $10 fee, many of which would not pay the fee, attended meetings.

Email newsletter signup

Did they really represent the citizens? I don't believe so. As a matter of fact, almost everyone I spoke to outside the council chambers said they were against the fee until further cuts or plans were implemented in the city's daily operations.

Yet two members of council and the newspaper said those people attending represented the will of the citizens.

All manner of professionalism at council meetings was lost and our council became a laughing stock of the city.

Surely one cannot believe that five members out of seven voted one way simply because another member told them to.

That is ridiculous, all members were elected or appointed to represent the citizens and to do so sometimes causes differences of opinions between the seven members.

The charter is clear that during the conduction of a council meeting, personalities are to be avoided.

This certainly did not happen when council members were forced to endure three-hour meetings with personal attacks from audience attendees just to further a few members' desire to see the fee passed.

Recently, an alternative solution to generate revenue was brought up and passed.

This vote on changing reciprocity was not an easy decision for me, as it directly affected persons I work with daily including my wife and myself.

Yet in acting in good conscious for all citizens I voted for the ordinance.

Once again at the same meeting the $10 fee was re-introduced.

Changed slightly, but without needed support it again failed. It has been re-written and voted down again.

My question is this: How many times will we revisit the $10 fee and how many times will it be re-written to secure its passage?

If sanitation is working without the third truck what is now the need to pass this fee? Questions of legality surround it and why are two members and the mayor so set on this one way of generating revenue?

One might also ask why five of us are so against it.

I can only answer for myself.

Unlike one critic, who believes that members of council are just puppets, we are all elected to vote our conscience. I am simply against the fee until changes are made in our daily operations.

Hopefully now many will understand that I take my duties as a councilman seriously. However, I think it is time other individuals dedicate their time and efforts to this worthy cause.

From my perspective and given the letters and editorials of the Tribune, it appears we will see new names on the next ballot.

I am looking forward to that, as it will give new persons an opportunity to bring ideas and solutions to the table.

With this in mind, I hope that those who have suggested their ideas for council will place their name on the next council ballot.

Please note that the council chamber is set up for even those needing wheelchair accessibility.

I do not propose to have all the answers, but those of you who voted for me, may rest assured, I will continue to make decisions free of what a few others wish for me to do and remain committed to making Ironton better through those opportunities that present themselves.

However, I will not give in just because a few wish to ridicule me in the paper and I will continue to give the Mayor the proper respect his position deserves and requires.

I will continue to vote no on just taking money from the citizens to allow services in the city to remain unchallenged by the administration in their organization and performance.

I will however continue to make tough decisions and if it means asking citizens for more dollars then I will do so, but only after making sure our own house is in order and all other ideas and opportunities have been exhausted.

Jesse Roberts is a lifelong Ironton resident and current City Councilman.

(Editor's note: This is the second of a two-part guest column focusing on city issues.)