DaytonDailyNews.com

"In the Dayton area, if you have a project you think should be funded (by the federal government), you say, 'I'll take it to the (Dayton) Development Coalition.' Elsewhere you might say, 'I'll throw a fundraiser for my Congress member and pitch it to him.' That's not a good method."

Anybody who has read this newspaper over the years knows that the Dayton area turns to the federal government for money for plenty of projects, and not just for the needs of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Typically, the feds are not asked to carry the whole load. There might also be state, local and even private money being put up.

But whether the project is minor league baseball (where federal transportation money was tapped) or the creation of aviation-history attractions, the feds have been regularly called upon — and have responded.

Followers of the news might also have noticed that there's never been much local controversy or embarrassment over these projects. There's been no "bridge to nowhere," as one notorious congressionally funded project in Alaska came to be known. Little that has been done around here has been derided as "pork."

And yet many of the projects have been in a budgetary category that has become very controversial, indeed, at the national level: earmarks.

These are items in appropriations bills that are specifically local, that have generally not had much — if any — attention from members of Congress other than the member seeking the money, and that are typically not something that a federal agency was planning to do as part of its ongoing programs.

Earmarks have been in the headlines recently because they have mushroomed in number from a few thousand a year to nearly 15,000 during the past decade. As the 2006 election approached, the nervous Republicans running Congress moved toward modest reforms, having earmarks accompanied by the name of the legislator seeking them. When the Democrats took over this year, they moved a little farther. But now they are responsible for a system that is still widely and rightly derided, and they've had their own embarrassments.

Dayton-area Rep. Mike Turner has watched with some bemusement as other members of Congress have squirmed under the new spotlight and have promised such reforms as listing their requested earmarks on their Web sites.

He has concluded that everybody else in the House — or, at least, nearly everybody else — handles earmarks differently than they are handled under the system he inherited in the 3rd Congressional District.

Under that system, agencies and institutions that are looking for money don't come directly to him. He says that congressional colleagues he has talked to are amazed and appalled that he has such little control. But the system has worked well to, among other things, keep him from being accused of playing favorites or backing ideas that don't have substantial support at home.

Under the system, the Dayton Development Coalition — which is focused on economic development and is made up of major businesses and institutions around town — serves as a sort of clearinghouse. It hears and compiles requests for money. With a cadre of elected officials, business leaders and do-gooders at its side, it then delivers a public list to the congressional delegation, which takes it from there.

Anti-spending hardliners might still object to the projects that get funded. But at least there's a system in place that insures a certain scrutiny and confers a certain legitimacy.

Those in Congress who want to minimize public skepticism about earmarks would do well to take a look at the Dayton system. Among the facts of interest they will find is that no local member of Congress has been defeated for re-election in modern times. Apparently having full control of the entire earmarks process isn't necessary.