Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
I read with interest City Councilman Dewey Lawshe's letter to the editor on January 9.
He was responding to a column I wrote earlier in which I chided him for his "I want a new police chief under my Christmas tree" comment.
In his letter, Lawshe says that his comment was "nothing more than frustration, with respect to how much money the WPD spends comparative to Warsaw's population."
He added: "As councilman at large, representing taxpayers of the city of Warsaw, it is my sworn duty to question and inquire about every expense (be it $50, $5,000 or $50,000) regarding the taxpayers' hard-earned monies."
I wholeheartedly agree. That's exactly what he should do. I started to think perhaps I had been a bit too hard on Councilman Lawshe.
So I got copies of the minutes from city council meetings over the past year. I wanted to see just how tediously scrutinized Warsaw tax dollars are.
The Warsaw City Council voted 106 times during 1997. There were six votes that weren't unanimous approvals.
Of those six, councilman Lawshe voted no four times.
One of Lawshe's no votes came on a tax abatement sought by DePuy on Sept. 15. The abatement passed because the rest of the council voted yes. That vote was kind of interesting, though, because on Aug. 18, Lawshe voted yes on a similar tax abatement request by Little Crow Foods. And he voted yes on a tax abatement continuance for Morton International.
It's also interesting to note that he would vote against a tax abatement for a local industry after stating in his letter that we need to "address serious issues ... to attract more industry that is so desperately needed."
Lawshe voted no on the elected official salary ordinance twice - on first reading and on second reading.
His other no vote was to the now infamous $5,000 police fund transfer that prompted his police chief Christmas tree comment.
There were 21 fund transfers and additional appropriations during 1997 in various departments, including a $31,520 transfer within the police department on Oct. 20.
All of them were unanimous, rubber- stamped yes votes until the one on Dec. 15. The council needed more information before passing the one on Dec. 15, so we can only assume that the other 20 had all the necessary documentation.
Lawshe denied a request from Ned Titus for a street light, so I guess he saved a few bucks there.
But as far as I can see, in 1997, that's about the only way he saved any tax dollars.
His letter also alludes to some type of fiscal irresponsibility in Warsaw. "I realize that I have chosen to deal with more sensitive issues and have an uphill battle to create change. However, I feel that I have a responsibility to all of Warsaw to make sure your tax dollars are spent wisely and for the good of everyone," he said.
Fact is, Warsaw has held the line on taxes. The tax rates here compare favorably to other towns this size.
To read his letter you would think he is going over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb, attempting to slash thousands of dollars in waste from the city budget.
Fact is, he generally just votes yes.
Yes to the purchase of a new vehicle for the WPD ordinance officer.
Yes to a 10 percent match on a $300,000 grant to rehab houses in Warsaw.
Yes to a $50,000 match on a $200,000 grant for the Warsaw Community Development Corporation to provide low-income housing.
Nearly a hundred yes votes.
Maybe the councilman is right. Maybe the Warsaw Police Department does spend too much money. But you'd never know it from his voting record.
If the councilman wants to paint himself as the protector of tax dollars, shouldn't he be voting no a little more often?
*****
Was anybody shocked by the revelation earlier this week that President Clinton may have had an affair with a White House intern and then asked her to lie about it to attorneys in the Paula Jones case?
No?
Couldn't you just hear the gasps of disbelief all across this great land Wednesday morning when the story went national? Bill Clinton? Having an affair? Obstructing justice? How can this be?
Not really?
Just more of the same stuff we hear coming out of Washington these days.
It has almost become pass.
As all the scandals in the administration unfolded, I can honestly say I was not surprised by any of it.
It all starts at the top.
If there is a lack of character at the top, it trickles down.
First of all, because everyone in a leadership position leads by example, whether they realize it or not.
And secondly, because people in leadership positions generally surround themselves with people of like character.
During both elections lots of people argued that if Bill Clinton cheated a little here or lied a little there, it really didn't matter. They said his moral fiber would have no bearing on his ability to lead.
There are people willing to argue that point today.
And frankly, if a president having a fling with an intern and then asking her to lie about it under oath doesn't bother you, then there's not much point in me arguing with you anyway, is there?
So we put Clinton in office and he chose his cabinet and now we have to live with it.
And despite all the allegations, revelations and investigations, there are still legions of people in this country who think Clinton is doing a bang-up job.
Call me a whiner. Call it sour grapes. I don't care.
I don't care how good the economy is. I don't care how wonderful his latest social program is. I don't care how much he feels our pain.
Bill Clinton demeans the office of the president of the United States of America. Right now, the U.S. is the laughing stock of the planet.
If he did what this intern says he did, he should do the honorable thing and resign.
At least then we would be spared any more of the gory details.
