Lack of transparency is disturbing

As a member of the legislature, and someone who has held office for 30 years, I feel it is my civic duty to express my serious concerns and reservations on House Bill 1, which would privatize part of the Ohio Department of Development.

This bill was substituted, amended and passed out of the House State Government and Elections Committee and the Finance and Appropriations Committee in just three days.

My concerns are wide and varied. No one in the House wants to stand in the way of job creation or job expansion in this great state. However, the establishment of an unproven, non-transparent model leaves me with some serious hesitation as we steamroll HB 1 through the legislative process.

Possible abuse

House Bill 1 has not been well thought out, and in its present form, opens the door to a lack of transparency and possible abuse. Is granting authority to a private non-profit organization legal? Does a non-profit organization have the authority to disperse public dollars?

Saying “Ohio is open for business” or “Get on the bus, and if you’re not on the bus, we will run you over, and I am not kidding,” may very well make good quotes for the press. However, well thought out and deliberated public policy is not quite that easy.

During the committee process, private sector organizations made it very clear they liked the opportunity to see public dollars spent as if they were private investment dollars. I fear that without substantive changes in HB 1, an opportunity presents itself for abuse of the public trust. We must always remember, private investors must only answer to share holders. In government we must answer to the taxpayer.

Several states have instituted some form of public/private partnerships with, at best, limited success. One state touted as a success story is the state of Florida. However, on Friday, Florida’s governor asked the Florida Legislature to move development into the Department of Commerce.

During the debate of House Bill 1, no proponent or interested party could point to any private public partnership and say, “That’s the model that works and this is what we are proposing.” Rather, what the committee heard is, “we need to work at the speed of business and HB 1 will allow us to do that.”

Democrats offered at least eight amendments to this proposal to make it more transparent and publicly acceptable bill. Every amendment was tabled without debate.

I feel strongly that we need to take a step back and re-assess this entire proposition. House Bill 1 is on its way to the Senate, and I challenge the upper house to do due diligence and at least let some sun shine in the bill’s final form.

Angry Hoosiers

A number of other states have tried similar programs, and in many cases they are not working. Indiana was promised tens of thousands of jobs that never materialized. Investigators discovered more inflated job numbers, secretive contracts and conflicting stories. Thousands of unemployed Hoosiers are skeptical and downright angry. Michigan’s economic development agency can also serve as a cautionary tale. Critics are questioning its effectiveness in overseeing the state’s tax incentive programs. Concerned citizens believe the development corporation has performed so poorly that it should be eliminated.

Yes, Ohio needs jobs. We are desperate for development opportunities across this entire state that will put Ohio’s strong workforce back to work. However, do we rush into something, similar in nature to programs in other states that have been met with mixed results and ethical problems? Rushing into the “unknown” too fast, may actually cause more harm than good. Perhaps, we should slow down and work on a well-thought out approach to economic recovery rather than utilizing an unproven development process promoting unsuccessful business models.

State Rep. Gerberry, D-Austintown, is ranking member of the State Government and Elections Committee in the 129th General Assembly, giving him first-hand insight into how HB 1 is working its way through the legislative process.