Region needs less racism, more African-Americans holding public office

Region needs less racism, more African-Americans holding public office
EDITOR:
I am an elector and political participant in Youngstown for 50 years, and I become indignant when racism is injected into political campaigns because one of the candidates is African-American.
The Vindicator and Business Journal features articles on the judicial contest between Judge Robert A. Douglas Jr., the incumbent, and Atty. Anthony F. Farris, the challenger.
When the abstracts of the precincts are reviewed after May 8, they will reveal a voting pattern that identifies racism. A Brookings Institutition study reveals a national decline in racial segregation in the '90s, but points to an increase in racism in the Youngstown-Warren area, and we are listed as 13th among the most segregated cities. I would like to bury racism.
Mayor McKelvey could have avoided the appearance of racism in the judicial campaign if he had encouraged Atty. Anthony Farris, his employee, to challenge the other incumbent, Judge Elizabeth Kolby, seeking nomination in the Democrat primary.
Judge Douglas, a man of distinguished character and judicial temperament, is only the second African-American municipal judge in the history of Youngstown. The legal skills and determination of Judge Douglas and Atty. Percy Squire, assisted by Sarah Brown-Clark of Youngstown State University, led to the redistricting and formation of the 64th legislative district that elected Rep. Sylvester Patton, the second African-American to be a legislator from Youngstown in 100 years.
Ms. Brown-Clark 's successful election as the first African-American Youngstown Clerk of Courts has proved to be a victory for Youngstown, by her implementing a new cost-saving system and providing more efficient service.
I am proud of Judge Douglas, Ms. Brown-Clark, and Rep. Patton and their service and performances. I am a strong proponent of competent African-Americans aspiring for public office. We need a voice in our government.
The recent unadjusted Census 2000 data reveal a decline in the Youngstown population of 13,000 reducing us to 82,000 residents and 50 percent African-Americans.
The growth and survival of Youngstown depends upon economic development, and we need the best minds available to provide the skills, values and character that leads to progression.
McCULLOUGH WILLIAMS Jr.
Youngstown
No intent to confuse says Hubbard levy committee
EDITOR:
Recently, a letter was published in The Vindicator alleging that the Hubbard Board of Education was "misleading" Hubbard residents by using "Restore the 9.9 mill levy" slogan to promote the levy on the May 8 ballot.
First of all, it was the levy committee that decided on the slogan, not the board of education. There was much discussion as to a short and appropriate slogan for the campaign. Obviously, there are some residents who feel offended by the slogan we chose.
If this is the case, we apologize. There have been many articles in Hubbard's local papers each week by Carl Morell, the interim superintendent at Hubbard, explaining the levy as a 6.4-mill renewal and a 3.5-mill new levy. He has explained the reasons for the wording and the additional tax each resident would be paying. A flyer has been sent to each parent of Hubbard school children, and one to every registered voter in the community will be sent on May 1 to further explain the need for levy and again to explain the reason for the wording.
Our reasoning for using the word "restore," was to indicate exactly that -- we need to restore the millage to the collecting amount of 9.9 mills that was passed in 1986. We are aware of how confusing school finance and the calculation of millage can be.
We want to clarify that there was no intentional intent to mislead or be deceptive to the voters of Hubbard in any way and are sorry for any confusion.
GARY L GHIZZONI
Hubbard
X The writer is co-chairman of the levy committee.
Phone company not in business for consumer
EDITOR:
In a recent letter, the writer wrote about corporate big being taken over by corporate bigger. I am in complete agreement with the writer. He told of his wife who had an experience with a bank and how she corrected it. I, too, had an experience which I had to correct. It took approximately three months to straighten out because of corporate bigger.
Last month I received a $55 telephone bill. I decided to make some changes. I discontinued my long distance service because besides paying for each call, I had to pay $4.75 for the privilege of having them charge me. I discontinued my local long distance toll calls for the same reason. I also decided to pay a flat rate for my local calls. My understanding after all the cutbacks was that my bill would be reduced to from $30 to $35. I also understood that this was not gospel.
However, this month's bill was $95. I've had it. I was shocked and then angry. I called the telephone company and was connected to someone in Michigan, who then had to connect me to someone in Ohio. Big Business!
The reasons my bill was so high
$18 Overcharge
$5 Disconnect long distance
$5 Disconnect local long distance
$5 Line backer charge (billed without my consent)
$5 Line backer pro-rated charge (without my consent)
We'll see what happens next month.
God help the individuals who have to cope with big business and who have to live from month to month.
Read your bills carefully. Someone is pocketing the mistakes we don't catch.
NANCY BIELIK
Youngstown