Convergys Deal Near Completion
WCPO is reporting the details:

• $10 million dollars upfront to Convergys


• $1 million paid after 225 jobs are added


• $18.75 million paid over 30 months if Convergys purchases the Atrium One


• $25 million as part of a job creation tax credit

The total would be $54.75 million. Only the $10 million would be upfront, the rest is conditional over time. The reduction is about $10 million from the original deal. This deal should get Pepper's vote, since he negotiated it, along with Reece and most likely Monzel. Monzel made the power play, but got what he wanted.

Other reports:
WLWT-NBC is reporting that the deal appears to be back on with at least 5 council members supporting the revised deals. No details were reported.
The Post indicates that the negotiations are still going on.
The Enquirer reports on the woes facing the Convergys Center if Convergys moves to the Atrium One.

Empire Theatre
What a complete waste. A historical building that on paper had a future now lies in rubble. This is mostly LaShawn Pettus-Brown's fault, but the Mayor and Council should take some blame too. No one has been brought forward to account for the stolen city funds. No plan to try and save the project or even just the building was made known. Yet another failure by the city. WKRC-CBS reports that the demolition of the building will cost around $40,000.00 to $50,000.00.

No Vice Pepper?
In Greg Korte's latest article on the Convergys negotiations he lists this tidbit:

Luken's antagonist in this unfolding City Hall power play has been Councilman David Pepper, a 32-year-old first-term fellow Democrat who disagrees with Luken more often about the role of City Council than on politics or policy.

Does this solidify Alicia Reece's hold on the office of Vice Mayor? Pepper received the most votes in the 2001 council election, and under the old rules, would have been mayor, assuming no Luken in the race as competition. Pepper stands a good chance of being number 1 in the vote totals this year. This conflict, however, would logically put Pepper's chances in the dumper for Vice Mayor. Conventional Wisdom would have kept Reece in the role for PR reasons (race relations), assuming she is in the upper half of vote getters. Vice Mayor is mostly a ceremonial title, but it looks good on a resume when seeking higher office.

Washington Senator Maria Cantwell Boosts Springer
Current junior U.S. Senator from Washington Maria Cantwell (D) gave support to Jerry Springer's Campaign:

"I think people will be surprised by his intellect," the Washington state Democrat told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "There's much more to him than his TV show. He's an incredibly smart person."

According to the AP article, Cantwell was an unpaid campaign worker for Springer during his 1977 Council run. This would have been during Cantwell's time at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Cantwell is originally from Indiana.

Convergys Deal: Ups and Downs
Things are happening as the negotiations go on, but it reads like a roller coaster:
From the Post:
Convergys says no dice
Convergys employees seem to like status quo
From WCPO:
Convergys Talks Break Down Again
Convergys Talks May Be On Again
From the Enquirer:
City offer $18M shy of Convergys' liking

10th Most Literate City?
Via reader Sam: A University of Wisconsin-Whitewater study has placed Cincinnati at #10 on the ranking of America's 64 largest cities. Say what you want about Cincinnati but we do have a wonderful library system, good local university, 2 local daily newspapers, a couple of weeklies and a great monthly.

FOX News Still in Court
The case goes on with the appearance by the former FOX News reporter who wrote the allegedly libelous article. FOX News still looks like it will do fine, unless the jury is really anti-FOX. I am surprised this issue is only getting local coverage. I can't find any report of it anywhere else. I would figure the right-wing bloggers would be all over this trial. I guess they don't pay much attention to Cincinnati, unless we have riots.

Wells: Bush Speak
I am glad there is no Uranium in Cincinnati. I don't know what is out at the Fernald Plant still, but at least that is 18 miles away. On Bush Wells is wrong. He is not wrong about the facts, he is wrong about the analysis, or at least does not go far enough in his analysis of the importance of Bush’s credibility on the reasons for war with Iraq. He is correct about what Bush stated here in Cincinnati v. the SOTU, but he is wrong on the importance of the reason we went to war. War was claimed to be justified because Iraq posed a serious and immediate threat to our Allies, our overseas assets, and the USA itself. Well, that is what we were sold on anyway. Iraq could not wait for inspectors, because Saddam was a threat. We could not wait to gain the support of France and Russia and the rest of the world because he was a threat now (meaning pre-war).

Would Congress have supported the War if we knew that there was no real nuclear threat? Would Congress have supported war if we knew there was no immediate threat from chemical or biological weapons? Would the American People have supported this war in the numbers that did if we knew that Iraq was really far less a threat to us than North Korea? The answer to all is No.

So it does matter about "16 words." Those words are the tip of the iceberg. The basis for this war was false. This war was about geopolitical positioning and personal vendettas, not about protecting America from a serious threat. Belittling the importance of holding Bush to truthful and honest statements is nothing but a diversion and rationalization. The ends still do not justify the means. No one, of consequence, wants Saddam back, that would be ludicrous. Claiming that those who wish to hold Bush accountable for his action are just anti-war liberals is just a head fake. If you can only defend Bush by saying he comments don’t matter, then you might as well just get rid of the Presidency. If his words don’t matter, then having a president must also be just as meaningless.

Cincinnati Reaction to Bush's WMD Manipulation
The New York Times has an article today giving a sense of the views of several local Cincinnati area residents. The article gets a wide sample of quotes from various local people from all sides of the political spectrum. Cincinnati is a bellwether for Bush's reelection. If Bush does not win big locally, he will loose Ohio and the overall election.

Steve Gilliard at DailyKos had this link and has comments discussing Bush's overall current predicament. I myself am disgusted with Bush. His performance in this exhcange from today's press conference with Blair illustrates the fault line of Bush's credibilty:

Q Mr. President, others in your administration have said your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. Will you take personal responsibility for those words? And to both of you, how is it that two major world leaders such as yourselves have had such a hard time persuading other major powers to help stabilize Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations.

I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.

I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons. I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. And I will remind the skeptics that in 1991, it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody ever imagined. He was a threat. I take responsibility for dealing with that threat.

We are in a war against terror. And we will continue to fight that war against terror. We're after al Qaeda, as the Prime Minister accurately noted, and we're dismantling al Qaeda. The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror. A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.

Bold added.

I am sure partisan conservatives loved the confrontational response to the question. They like the brashness and defiance of the Press. Their "fearless leader" can do no wrong. They are overjoyed that Bush is "fighting back" against the "partisans."

Everyone else, I think, is either disgusted like me, or greatly disappointed that Bush failed to take responsibility for his actions. Instead of stopping the Buck, Bush refused to acknowledge it exists. His answer to a question of responsibility for his actions is a recitation of "ends justify the means." Swagger and defiance are great for John Wayne War movies, but Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart showed how real people lived with dignity, honor, and respect that had value, not just comic book drama.

What further makes me cringe is the continuing trail of Clintonesque semantics. Bush said, “I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons.” He further revised his history with this exchange:

Q Mr. President, in his speech to Congress, the Prime Minister opened the door to the possibility that you may be proved wrong about the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q Do you agree, and does it matter whether or not you find these weapons?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you might ask the Prime Minister that. We won't be proven wrong --
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: No.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that we will find the truth. And the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction.
Now, you say, why didn't it happen all of a sudden? Well, there was a lot of chaos in the country, one. Two, Saddam Hussein has spent over a decade hiding weapons and hiding materials. Three, we're getting -- we're just beginning to get some cooperation from some of the high-level officials in that administration or that regime.
But we will bring the weapons and, of course -- we will bring the information forward on the weapons when they find them. And that will end up -- end all this speculation. I understand there has been a lot of speculation over in Great Britain, we've got a little bit of it here, about whether or not the -- whether or not the actions were based upon valid information. We can debate that all day long, until the truth shows up. And that's what's going to happen.
And we based our decisions on good, sound intelligence. And the -- our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind.

Note the “truth” we will find is that he (Saddam Hussein) was developing a program for WMD. What about the threat of existing WMD Hussein was alleged to possess? Will we find those? Is this some kind of game? Pin the tail on the Dubya? Who is actually buying this crap? I can’t imagine the level of rationalizing it would take to believe this administration’s statements on WMD. Ok, well, I can imagine it, but it gives me the creeps.

FOX News on Trial
The FOX News libel trial has begun according the Cincinnati Enquirer. NKU professor Clinton Hewan is suing FOX News for libel. He is alleged to have made controversial comments in the aftermath of the Tim Thomas shooting back in April of 2001. The alleged comment in question was "I do not advocate any violence as an initiate. But in the case of willful murder, the family (of Thomas) should go out and get that policeman." This section from the article seems to damping Hewan's case:

Within a day, NKU President James Votruba confirmed that Hewan said those words by speaking with several administrators who attended the forum. In an e-mail to the campus, Votruba condemned the remarks as "indefensible."

I think FOX has little to fear in this case, which is most likely why it is going to trial and was not settled out of court.

More Irony
It appears on the surface funny, on the inside sad that the Boycott B group, the CJC, is championing a mention they received in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article. The subheadline of the article is "Experts say clear goals are key for decades-old tactic." Here is the section involving the CJC:

Not all tourism and business boycotts are led by large groups such as the NAACP.

The Coalition for a Just Cincinnati -- which helped organize a boycott of city businesses after police shot a 19-year-old unarmed black man on April 7, 2001 -- and two other local groups pulled together the boycott without leadership from national organizations such as the NAACP. The sanctions have turned away Bill Cosby, Wynton Marsalis and the annual Coors Light Jazz Festival from the city, said coalition co-chairwoman Amanda Mayes.

"After the unrest in the streets, we decided we should have our issues addressed in a more structured and peaceful means," Mayes said. "People who had strong feelings about what was going on saw the need for an organized movement."

Now, the problem with this article is that they really fail to even scratch the surface. One can argue what is written is factually true, but the whole theme of the article is shot with the subheader. "Clear goals" are not an elements of the boycott(s) here in Cincinnati. The goals change, they twist in the wind, and they are cherry picked.

Seeing the boycott B plug their own shortcomings is most ironic, but in my opinion a form of justice.

Convergys Vote Cancelled
WLWT has reported that the meeting this afternoon has been cancelled, which cancels the vote on the Convergys deal. The Enquirer story linked below has been updated to reflect the cancellation of the vote.

UPDATE: Comments from Ethan Hahn.

UPDATE#2: The above Enquirer story has been updated again. Its first line is "The deal is off." Do we have our first major political issue of the campaign? This is a story that every candidate should have a position on.

GOP to Blame for the Possible Convergys Deal Collapse?
The Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting that Republican Chris Monzel has changed positions on the deal:

"Looking at the whole deal, there was always something nagging me about this," Monzel said today. "It was the job retention tax credits that didn't sit right. It's bad public policy."

It is odd that Pat DeWine is against the deal and Monzel is also reportedly against the deal. That puts both GOP council members against a deal to help a major corporation. This is an strange position. The Democrats are divided on the issue, but the GOP stands with the more liberal side of Council.

There appears to be a majority on Council that wants some kind of a deal to keep Convergys in town, but not enough for this deal. WLW's Noon report reported that Alicia Reece had big doubts about the deal. Monzel has given her the cover to vote against the deal if the vote takes place. Luken may delay or cancel today's vote.

Media Opinions on Convergys Deal

Cincinnati Post: Vote is rushed, wait and study it more, currently deal is not good enough.

Cincinnati Enquirer: Supports the deal as is.

Mike McConnell of WLW: Mike supports the deal as is, and similar deals like it.

Queen City Soapbox - Ethan Hahn: "I'm not knee-jerk against this deal just because it's big - but I definitely have more questions right now than answers, and more suspicion than confidence."

Council to Vote on Convergys
Today is the special vote on the Convergys Deal and as of this morning the vote is tied with 1 undecided. This chart (pdf), kind of a "most wanted" list, in the Enquirer reports who is where on the vote.

For:
Cooper
Cranly
Monzel
Tarbell

Against:
Cole
Crowley
DeWine
Pepper

Undecided:
Reece

I will be shocked if Reece goes against the deal. If she wants to stay Vice Mayor, she just might support the Mayor. She is nearly no danger of not being re-elected so I would say the deal will pass.

UPDATE: Alicia Reece on 1230 the Buzz with Lincoln Ware stated she is out doing "research" talking to people and reviewing Convergys' financial profile. Lincoln Ware believes she will say no.

Bad Boys of the Buzz
Sean Darks, a regular panelist on 1230 the Buzz's Week in Review program has hit FOX News. His company, along with partner Ben Moore, have started CityWatcher.com, a crime prevention service utilizing video camera surveillance.

More Convergys
John Schlagetter emails me with a response from Councilwoman Laketa Cole:

From: Cole, Laketa [mailto:Laketa.Cole@cincinnati-oh.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:48 PM
To: 'john@foregenitor.com'
Subject: RE: Convergys Deal Comments & Queries


Dear John:

As always thank you for your email. Your questions are right in line with
me thinking. I wanted to let you know that I have some reservation with
supporting Convergys.

Sincerely,

Councilmember Laketa Cole

Cole has similar questions as Schlagetter.

Council Candidate Nick Spenser's, via his blog, comes out against the Convergys deal, calling it "corporate welfare."

The City of Norwood officials are upset about this deal which stands to draw away jobs from Norwood.

Enquirer colmnist Denis Smith Amos believes the "City's Convergys deal gives too much, gets too little."

More coverage from the Enquirer, and Post.

A Shot Across the Bow
Council Candidate John Schlagetter has put the questions to City Council and the Mayor on the proposed Convergys Deal:

Subj: Convergys Deal Comments & Queries
Date: 07/13/2003 1:13:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: john@foregenitor.com
To: Charlie.Luken@cincinnati-oh.gov, laketa.cole@cincinnati-oh.gov, minette.cooper@rcc.org, david.pepper@rcc.org, chris.monzel@rcc.org, alicia.reece@rcc.org


Mr. Mayor & Councilors:

Am I the only person finding it odd that a company based upon leveraging
distance relationships via technology wants $200 million in public money to
co-locate its own employees?

Several questions come to mind that are not addressed in the City Manager's
Memo published today by the Enquirer:

1. What is the Net Present Value of this "investment?"

2. What is the Discount Factor used to calculate this NPV?

3. What is the total sale price for the Third Street parking lot? (plus
column)

4. What is the loss in annual parking revenues resulting from the sale of
the parking lot? (minus column)

5. What is the Fair Market Value of the easement being given away between
Hammond Alley & Third Street? (minus column)

6. What is the FMV of the air rights above same being given away? (minus
column)

7. What is the FMV of the Pedestrian Access Right of Way being given away?
(minus column)

8. Convergys' current demand is for 300 people from Norwood Plus 97 per
year for 15 years. I am curious about the options considered and rejected
to locate them in the Convergys Center and its environs such as the
Provident Bank Building at Seventh & Vine, any space in the old Enquirer
Building, etc.

9. What percent of Convergys' current & proposed employees will live in
jurisdictions with their own local tax, further reducing the City's
collection?

Using the Posts' figures, the 15 year NET earnings tax collections per
employee will by less than $4,600 (not discounted for inflation). There
appears to be tremendous economic friction involved in this deal. This is
not an economic growth strategy; it is simply re-arranging deck chairs on
the Titanic.

Net: Convergys is willing to spend $100MM on a new building; the City & the
State are willing to spend $200MM to keep them here. Is there a third way
wherein the City & State fund the parking decks at The Banks which we need
anyway thus giving Convergys a platform upon which to erect its new
design-to-suit building? This presumes a CBD-Riverfront location is the
only option; consider also Broadway Commons, Queensgate (hideously
under-utilized land), West End (Western, EZ, Freeman exits), et.al.

Based upon the information provided in the City Manager's report (and the
appalling amount of information missing which is necessary to make an
informed investment decision), I find it hard to believe this deal as
structured is in the City's and the citizens' best interest.

Regards, J.

John Schlagetter
"Schlagetter for Cincinnati"
A Charter Committee Candidate
707 Race Street Suite 800
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
513.652.3032 voice
513.929.0555 fax
www.john4council.com

These are valid issues that should have been published on the city website. Open deal making is the only way to assure a democracy.

Beating a Dead Horse
No, I am not talking about an equestrian snuff film. I am referring to my endless attack on the duplicitous Peter Bronson. His latest column starts off with an ironic twist I think was lost somewhere in Peter's gray hair. The irony begins squarely in the title: "Flynts' outrage just part of their fetish for ink." For those not familiar with newspaper terminology, should understand that "ink" is analogous to "coverage," more commonly used in the Broadcast media. Bronson's position is that the Flynts are just looking for more media attention, and Peter is providing that attention. If Pete wants the Flynts to just go away there is one simple solution, don't feed the beast!

In his column, Peter also displays elements of what can only be described logically as a physiological reaction to viewing the covers of porn videos/DVDs. I guess Peter has been taking Harry Potter to heart and has devolved the magical ability to know that a film is "explicit" and therefore violates the 1999 plea agreement without actually seeing the film. I guess not judging a book, or a video, by its cover is not an axiom popular in the Bronson household.

The most disingenuous comment from Bronson must be this:

When the store was busted by the sheriff last month for selling X-rated videos, Jimmy Flynt said, "I think this is a personal vendetta."

It may indeed be a personal vendetta - by the Flynts.

Who is Bronson trying to fool? It is plain and obvious that Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis is out to get the Flynts. There are thousands of other crimes with real victims in this city that go unsolved, yet Leis is out to get Flynt for selling a little porn. Peter seems to want to just gloss over the nearly 30-year crusade by the likes of Keating, Leis, and now Phil Burress to establish a theocracy here in Cincinnati.

Finally, Bronson is just being ignorant with this comment:

Here's the naked truth: The Flynts and their lawyers copped a plea bargain and paid $10,000 in fines in 1999 because they were about to get hammered for stinking up downtown like a sauerkraut factory in a hotel lobby.

Peter's condiment fetish aside, the real reason the Flynts took the plea was financial. Larry Flynt stated on WLW's Mike McConnell show recently the reason for the plea deal. A California law prohibits ownership of a gaming license by anyone with a felony. Flynt was facing a felony. He plead down and made the deal to keep a cash cow business going. Larry Flynt also has a good defense now; he does not own the store where the allegedly "explicit" videos were sold. Larry has standing to claim that he did not violate the 1999 agreement and it should still be binding for him. Jimmy Flynt will be the person fighting the new charges. His defense will likely be that the agreement was unconstitutional, on equal enforcement of the law grounds. The same type or even the same videos are sold through other outlets in the county. The basis for limiting Jimmy Flynts ability to practice a business, while allowing others to practice the same type business is a very valid and worthwhile legal fight.

As a footnote, I have to wonder if it is an editorial policy of the Enquirer's old guard to mount a campaign disparaging the entire Flynt family. Bronson has now brought Jimmy Flynt's son Dustin into the fold by quoting him in his column. Dustin is involved in the operation of the Hustler store downtown and is fair game to be quoted, but why hasn't the Enquirer looked at the Flynt family from a different perspective, namely from the Flynt perspective? Dustin Flynt lives in town and is a member of the community with what I would surmise is a unique and an interesting perspective on the situation. If Bronson can do a quasi-edifying column on Nate Livingston, a known hate monger, why is there not a least a balanced report on someone from the Flynt camp? It would not be a conservative bias now would it? Maybe it is a little personal prejudice too.

MAUREEN DOWD: National House of Waffles
Ms. Dowd is getting to the meat of it. Sorry to disappoint the followers of the Church of Dubya, but George is no better than Bill Clinton. Semantics is not a defense. Intentionally manipulating the public into a war by misleading them as to the gravity of the threat is unconscionable. It is my opinion that deception can be the only conclusion. Trying to claim incompetence is just a head fake. The question is traction. Does this have the legs to carry the media forward? Sunday's talk shows should be an indicator. If no high-ranking Bush officials are on to defend their stance, then the blood is in the water. The question still remains, will the media smell it?

UPDATE: Josh Marshall also advises checking the Sunday talk shows.

UPDATE#2: The Washington Post reports that the CIA had the Uranium reference cut from Bush's October 7th, 2002 speech here in Cincinnati. I love it when Cincinnati can serve a positive purpose.