Issue 8: The Royal Flush

With dozens of candidates on the ballot -- ranging from national, state and local -- it may very well be the future of the flush that attracts most interest from Akron voters once they've made their choice for the White House.

Not to dismiss the importance of the other contests, mind you; after all, I'm sure Summit County awaits with baited breath the result of the Engineer's head-to-head. But much of the smoke from the political fires seems to burn around Issue 8, Akron's sewer lease-for-scholarships program.

On Wednesday we aired on WAKR a discussion program that provided callers the opportunity to pose questions directly to supporters and critics, and the late decision by two of the participants added some fireworks to the program. Mayor Plusquellic clearly has no time for Warner Mendenhall, the former councilman and now lawyer for the Save Our Sewers Committee which doesn't like the Administration's direction in leasing the sewer system to fund college with the Akron Scholarship Plan. Both were last-minute appearances to the panel and both took vocal and up-front positions in what turned into an excellent debate running over an hour.

The full program is available for listening using this link, but in the event you want to catch this on the air WAKR is airing an encore presentation following the noon news this Sunday, October 26th.

Overall, I think the debate showcased both sides favor some type of scholarship program; they disagree on how to pay for it. Mendenhall is fairly late to the party (less than two weeks from the election) with his idea of a city income tax to fund a scholarship program if Akron voters think it's that good of an idea. The Mayor jumped quick to tag Mendenhall as favoring increasing taxes, but the former councilman-turned-thorn-in-the-Don's-side didn't seem too bothered by the label. In fact, should Issue 8 fail it does offer supporters a comeback proposal to make.

A key issue here is whether Akron is willing to put either it's sewers or its money behind where their mouths are. It is easy to push for a more educated workforce and this is one way to get there, but it's another to take the money directly out of your pocket (as an income tax would do) or even push off a city asset to private management (as leasing the sewer system would do) to raise the cash.

There is a great deal of talk surrounding comments made by Public Service Director Merolla in The Bond Buyer, which bills itself as THE newspaper of public finance. On this topic I think the Administration has some work to do in more fully explaining what Merolla's comments mean, especially how any up-front payment for a lease would mean a net benefit to the scholarship plan. In the September article he notes the debt from the system would be paid first, and there seems to be some confusion on that point.

Another sticking point is the Administration's insistence that Akron get a payback from the scholarship in the form of income taxes, whether the recipient works and lives in the City or not for 30 years. The critics score points when they say it's a loan -- after all, it comes with strings. Plusquellic counters it is fashioned on the federal government's description of education assistance scholarships tied to working in rural areas, for example as doctors. Sure, Uncle Sam may call it a scholarship -- but most folks I talk to understand if getting money comes with strings we usually call that a loan.

It quacks like a loan, why not call it a loan? Because "scholarship" sounds like an easier sell, and at this point in the campaign it is doubtful supporters will back off such a key selling point. Issue 8 signs are growing, especially on every piece of public real estate around schools, and the cable TV ads are already on Time Warner Cable with radio expected to follow next week.