Be a roving reporter!  Send us your pictures!  We'll publish them here. Send them to uapetition@aol.com.


Click a button below for other news.

                                                

WEEK 26 - DAY 5



Article in the Dispatch ... "UA ballot issue on trash thrown out."

WEEK 26 - DAY 4
Well ... we lost.  There will not be an Issue 52 on the ballot.

The Ohio Supreme Court decided that the City Manager already had the authority per the City's Codified Ordinances/Charter to do whatever she wanted with solid waste services, so an initiative proposing a legislative act was basically irrelevant.  She didn't need to get Council's approval for this, but could have done whatever she wanted without their approval.

Click here to see the .pdf of their decision.

Thank you, thank you to all who supported this effort.  We wouldn't have made it this far without you!

Time to process what we've learned, regroup, and, as they say, "get back on the horse."

We're maintaining the list of folks who have been an integral part of this effort and will definitely be in touch as we plan out our next direction.  If anyone has any thoughts on next steps, please share them with us!  We're always open to ideas!

If you'd like to be added to the list, just let us know.  Similarly, if you'd like to be removed from this list, please email me at uapetition@aol.com, and I'll be sure to do so.

Again, for both Mike (who is in Germany right now) and myself, and the entire "Trash Team," thank you, thank you, thank you.

Vicki and Mike :-)

WEEK 26 - DAY 3

 We found some interesting stuff in Summit County ...
no fewer than three lawsuits in which the contractor has been involved. (Two of these occurred before UA contract award ... did city administration check these out when it was doing its bidder evaluation?)

The first, filed in March of 2006, is a wrongful death case in which a contractor's truck was parked on the wrong side of the road, angled, and without working lights, so that a woman driving a car ran into it and was killed.  The parties must have settled out of court, because  the case was dismissed with prejudice, with costs to the contractor.

The second, filed in August of 2006, involved the contractor suing Springfield Township, its customer.  This is discussed in "Restoring Old Service."  It, too, was settled out of court.

The third, filed in May of THIS YEAR, involves a workers compensation claim being appealed by the contractor.  It is still ongoing.

To see the court documents on all of these cases, click here, click "Accept," click "Civil ," click "Search by Commercial Name," and enter "Inland."

For what it's worth.

WEEK 26 - DAY 2

Did YOU get an email from the city today
encouraging you to vote "NO" on Issue 52?
(Click here to see it.)

I did.  To my personal email account.  My husband got one at his work and home accounts.  My daughter's best friend's mother got one.  My friend got one at her SCHOOL email address.

And, so did anyone in UA who had ever provided their email address on a Parks and Recreation form to sign up for a pool pass or class, or belonged to the Senior Center.  Or maybe even wrote a letter to the City's "Contact Us," or in response to something they had received.

Over the last serveral hours, I've received a boatload of emails from folks who are really upset that their contact information was being used like this.

Is this appropriate?

We don't think so.

The City has gone way, way too far.

They've breached our trust by using our contact info for bridge and horsebackriding classes to spread their "message" on Issue 52 which, by the way, contains wrong numbers (see "Restoring Old Service").

This is the first email I've EVER gotten from them!
None during/after the storm to tell me how to handle my debris, none about cancelled classes, none about ... well ... anything ... until this.

And, as if this wasn't enough, at the end of the email, you can update your "Profile" with the city ..

WHAT?  The City is keeping our "Profiles" in their database, using our contact information for purposes other than that for which it was originally intended, and not telling us about it?

Not good, city folks.

 Council needs to know about this.

Email them ... copy and paste the following lines in your "TO" line of email.

dleach@uaoh.net, mkrauss@uaoh.net, fciotola@uaoh.net, lmauger@uaoh.net, eseidel@uaoh.net, wsteen@uaoh.net, eyassenoff@uaoh.net

The media needs to know about this, too.
 
Send Letters to the Editor ... go to "Writing Letters" to find out who to send them to.

We're going to ask one more time ...

Why don't they want us to vote on this?

WEEK 26 - DAY 1

Last week, we submitted a "PRR" (Public Records Request) for all communication between the city and the contractor to while the clean up arrangements/costs were being negotiated.  The contract calls for all Emergency Service arrangements to be in writing, so we figured there would be letters/fax/emails to provide details on the "free" service the contractor was providing for cleanup.  (The contract calls for the contractor to be charging the city $110 per hour per truck to do emergency service work.)

We got back just one piece of writing ... yes, just one email from the City Attorney asking the contractor's rep to call her.
 Hmm ...
We emailed the City Clerk to confirm that there was just that one, and she emailed back that yes, we had gotten all there was.

We found out from a "roving reporter" later in the week that city employees have been instructed to conduct all communications with the contractor over the phone ... nothing in writing.  (That way, nothing can be uncovered through a Public Records Request.)

So ... we've been cut out of the loop.  Again, I'm confused.
If the contract calls for Emergency Service arrangements to be in writing, and a host of such arrangements were made during the Sunday through Wednesday period, why were there no written documents produced in the PRR?

Oh, and check out new numbers in the "Restoring Old Service" page. 

YARD SIGNS ARE STILL AVAILABLE!

Contact Mike (554-5607 or uatrash@aol.com) to get yours!

Thank you to all who have them out!  Waltham, Northwest Boulevard and Fishinger take the prize for the most yard signs displayed!  




We're leaving this up because it clearly compares the two services.


 
After studying it,
YOU decide which one you want for the next 5 years.