Yesterday, the “Nuns on the Bus” arrived at the University of Dayton and were greeted by a group of about 150, mostly students. UD is a Marianist school and several of the nuns are UD graduates. The nuns urged the UD students to, “help carry out the mission of the gospel.”

The nuns will be in Ohio for five more days and their schedule can be seen here.

The nuns are promoting “The Faithful Budget”and scolded both Democrats and Republicans for not creating sufficient policies to help the poor. The preface to the Faithful budget states, “Our message to our national leaders — rooted in our sacred texts — is this: Act with mercy and justice by serving the common good, robustly funding support for poor and vulnerable people, both at home and abroad, and exercising proper care and keeping of the earth.”

The nuns are particularly responding to Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, who is know for the “Ryan Budget” and who defends his budget in terms of his own Catholic faith. According to Think Progress, the Ryan Budget “would devastate the poor,”  and the nuns, evidently, agree.

After Ryan defended his budget in Christian terms, the Nuns on the Bus released this statement:

“As communities of faith we have long believed that the budget is a moral document and we judge each proposal not by the arbitrary fiscal support it provides, but rather by the human impact it holds. A Faithful Budget protects the common good, values every individual and lifts the burden on the poor. In light of all the religious comments around the budget debate, we hope members of Congress will look at the Faithful Budget and make an honest effort to build a more just society and a healthier world.”

But, at UD yesterday, the nuns did not mention the Ryan budget by name. They said that Christians should work to help make a world where “no one is left out.”  They encouraged the UD students that they should follow Catholic social teaching and should partner with them to help make a better society and to help the most vulnerable.

At their meeting on October 9, 2012, the Kettering City Council, by a vote of 5 to 2, approved a resolution recommending that Kettering citizens in this election reject two proposed changes to the city charter (Issues 28/29). The two members of the Council who identify with the Dayton Tea Party — Rob Scott and Ashley Webb — disagreed with the other five members of the counsel, and refused to support the resolution.

A Tea Party associated group, “Citizens For A Better Kettering,” are sponsors of the two proposed changes to the city charter. Issue 28, if approved, would limit the council members and the mayor to two consecutive terms of four years each. Issue 29 would reduce the pay of the mayor and council members by 50%.

Ashley Webb in his comments to the council, protested that, in his view, it is not appropriate for council to take a public stand on matters that directly impact council members. He explained that he is not in total agreement with the issues. He said that concerning these issues, he previously had remained neutral, but that now, he was forced to take a stand.

Webb said that “It is tough to beat an incumbent,” and suggested that, in some cases, council members use their salaries as a “war chest” to finance their re-election campaigns. He indicated that in a recent council contest, one candidate spent $11,500 — implying that this money had come from the salary this council member had saved from his or her salary. I have no idea who he was referring to.

Webb indicated improvements he would like to see in the proposed charter changes (Issue 28 and 29). Webb is now a candidate seeking election to the Montgomery County Commission and, no doubt, he is wondering how his stand on these two issues might impact his efforts to elected as County Commissioner. I wondered if Webb might abandon Scott and join the majority and approve the resolution. But, when the vote was taken, he and Scott both voted “No.” Scott, the founder of the Dayton Tea Party, and now the Chair of the Montgomery County Republican Party, made no comment.

Bruce Duke spoke for the majority and explained that in the late 1970’s, the City Charter was changed and term limits were imposed on the mayor, but, then, twenty years later, this change in the charter was reversed. He said term limits in Kettering have already been tried and that they didn’t work. He complained that the proposed charter revision (Issue 28), in his view, is poorly written and that, if approved, would likely result in individuals acquiring the office of mayor without sufficient experience. He named five previous Kettering mayors who, had the proposed changes been in effect, would have been disqualified from serving.

Concerning Issue 29, Duke said that, if approved, the salary for the Kettering mayor and Kettering counsel members, on a per capita basis, would move from the mid-range of salaries for city officials in the region to near the bottom.

Wow — In taping this, the distance separating me from the council members magnified the shakiness of my hand held camera. Next time, I’ll bring my tripod.

Kettering’s Issue 29, if approved this election, will cut the pay of Kettering’s mayor and Kettering City Council members by 50%. Mayor Patterson now earns $23,500 each year and if Issue 29 is approved, his new salary will be $12,000. Council members now earn $15,922 each year and, if Issue 29 is approved, members will earn $8,000 each year. If approved, these cuts — for the six council members and the mayor — will equal $59,032. Kettering’s budget this year is $63,207,310 — so these cuts, if approved, amount to less than one-tenth of one percent  (.093%) of the total budget.

Kettering is widely acknowledged as being a well run city, and I appreciate the effort spent by our council and mayor to keep Kettering a model city. Drastically cutting the salary of the mayor and council members, via Issue 29, to me, sounds like a slap in the face to these elected officials. Why show ingratitude? But, I’m waiting to hear the argument from Citizens for a Better Kettering to explain how such an action could possibly make Kettering better.  The web-site says, “Our proposed Charter Amendments will bring Council and Mayoral pay back into alignment with neighboring cities,” but, really, wouldn’t that be a step down? Does Kettering really want to become more like Beavercreek, Springfield, or Fairborn?

Kettering has over 56,000 citizens, and when compared to other area cities — at cost per citizen — what Kettering spends on salaries for the mayor or council members is about in the middle. I produce the charts here, in my post, “Are Kettering’s Mayor and Council Members Paid Too Much?”

Tonight, the Kettering City Council will vote on an resolution that encourages a “No” vote on Issue 29 (to reduce salaries) and Issue 28 (to impose term limits). It should make an interesting discussion and I’ll be listening particularly to what council member, Ashley Webb, has to say. Mr. Webb is identified as part of the Tea Party group, along with council member, Rob Scott, and now, Webb is seeking election to the County Commission. On his web-site, Webb states, “Kettering is recognized as one of the best run government entities in the region.” Anyone voting “Yes” for either of these two issues should have an answer to the question: “How will approving these issues make Kettering even better?”  So, having declared that Kettering is already well run, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Webb will keep aligned with Mr. Scott concerning this resolution.

I contacted Connie Gaw, Kettering Clerk of Council, and she did some research for me:

Former Mayors Chuck Horn and Dick Harman are both endorsing Issues 28 and 29, and I checked to see what both mayors were earning the last year they served as mayor — then I used InflationData.com to calculate what each of their salaries would be in 2012 dollars. I found that the $23,500 that Mayor Patterson earns each year exceeds the inflation rate from 1980 and 1998 — but the amount decreed by Issue 29 would cut the mayor’s salary considerably below the inflation rate, particularly compared to 1998 dollars. This pattern also was true for the pay given to council members in 1980 and 1998 — when compared to 2012 dollars.