Committee formed to update the city charter

 

Councilman Kevin Flynn, a Charterite newly elected to City Council in November, has been the force behind a new task force that's reviewing the charter top-to-bottom and will eventually recommend changes. Those changes are expected to include everything from cleaning up outdated references – such as city ownership of the University of Cincinnati – to revisiting the balance of power among the mayor, council and city manager.

 

Matt Alter - President at Cincinnati Fire Fighters Union Local 48

 

Jane Anderson - Professor of Political Science at The University of Cincinnati

 

Gene Beaupre - XU Government Professor

 

Jeff Berding - Former Cincinnati City Council Member and current Director of Sales & Public Affairs at the Bengals - http://tinyurl.com/pf73dns

 

Heather Chura - Bailiff for Judge Greenberg and former aid to Laure Quinlivan & Leslie Ghiz

 

Sally Fellerhoff

 

Pat Foley

 

Jim Goetz - Treasure at Charlie Luken for Judge

 

Harold Howard

 

Matt Jones - Director of Government Affairs & Economic Development at Cincinnati Business Committee

 

Jason Kershner

 

Jay Kincaid - John Cranley's Chief of Staff (and former Campaign Manager) - http://tinyurl.com/q7u33hs

 

Erica King-Betts

 

Scott Knox

 

Raya Mafazy - OTR Community Council Board Member, 3CDC employee

 

Pete McLinden

 

Carolyn Miller

 

Mike Morgan

 

Rochelle Morton

 

Michael Patton - Former Cincinnati City Council Candidate - http://tinyurl.com/oht32hm

 

Mark Quarry - ‎Director of Government Affairs at Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors

 

Anne Sesler

 

Mark Silbersack

 

J.T. Spence - Former Covington City Commissioner, Political Science instructor at Thomas More, Head of Covington Neighborhood Collaborative

 

Byron Stallworth

 

Vanessa White - Former Cincinnati City Council Candidate - http://tinyurl.com/p8cs93t

 

 

Wow, some of these individuals like Michael Patton are complete nutters.  This doesn't bode well.

Apparently Michael Patton is a "Libertarian" registered as a Republican, who is a board member of "Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati", was endorsed by Justin Jeffre in his 2007 council campaign, and considers the streetcar a "boondoggle".

 

Read more here: http://archive.cincinnati.com/article/20071022/NEWS01/710220384/A-little-about-Michael-Earl-Patton

 

I'm going to create a new topic for Charter reform if there isn't one already and throw this in there.

Patton is a Libertarian & COASTie who has run for council.

He's some kind of engineer who appears to invent numbers.

Is Mike Morgan the author who wrote the Cincinnati beer history book?

Was Vanessa White the chick who ran for council and nobody attended her fundraiser?

There are some good names on that list, some bad names, and a lot of no names. I wonder why Flynn picked who he did? A lot of campaign donors I imagine. 

 

Either way this seems like something that should be done by our elected officials, not behind doors by a privately selected body of Kevin Flynn's friends.

Updated Quimbob's original post with background/links to a few of the names. I'll continue to update as more info is made available.

This whole "overhaul the charter" thing needs to be done very cautiously and openly, and it should be done over a decade or so to minimize the effect of a single election cycle's winds of change.

I believe Scott Knox is a lawyer who does gay issues & did some work with the ACLU

Some names I recognize:

Gene Beaupre - XU Government Prof.

Heather Chura - Judge Greenberg's bailiff and former aid to Laure Quinlivan and Leslie Ghiz

Matt Jones - Director of Government Affairs and Economic Development at Cincinnati Business Committee

Raya Mafazy - OTR Community Council Boardmember, 3CDC employee

Mark Quarry - ‎Director of Government Affairs at Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors

Why is Jay kincaid on the list? There seems to be a lot of cranley supporters

Here's a link to the charter itself (PDF will load).

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/council/linkservid/2B140D33-1D41-4B98-85C83E08BA87B991/showMeta/0/

 

Fluoridation of water could be a hot topic.

Fluoridation of water could be a hot topic.

With Patton involved...

Apparently Michael Patton is a "Libertarian" registered as a Republican, who is a board member of "Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati", was endorsed by Justin Jeffre in his 2007 council campaign, and considers the streetcar a "boondoggle".

 

Read more here: http://archive.cincinnati.com/article/20071022/NEWS01/710220384/A-little-about-Michael-Earl-Patton

 

I'm going to create a new topic for Charter reform if there isn't one already and throw this in there.

 

Someone who is a board member of "Right to Life Cincinnati" should take away his libertarian card :P.

There was some debate on this on twitter and I thought this is a much better place for debating this topic:

 

 

There was discussion about strong mayor vs professionally appointed council:

 

I actually kind of like the current system, the mayor still has more power than they did back in the 1990s and can do a lot more to lead the city.  As much as we all hate Cranley, Mallory brought a lot of great things to the table that might not have been possible under the old system.  All professionals btw are political appointments, its not like if someone is appointed by a council they are immediately just a impartial professional, they will also have political stakes.

 

I brought up an additional reform that should be considered:

 

Right now Cincinnati has very bad hyperlocal representation.  For instance OTR wanted less favoritism towards 3CDC, but they were denied by the city as a whole.  Another good example is in Corryville where the comm council is actually mostly people from outside the neighborhood who have development stakes. The community council was a temporary solution that was setup  in the wake of the mass demolitions of the west end (at least according to the book I read on the topic - its not a particularly formal organization and yet it does wield some but not enough power - its IMO deeply flawed in the current system).  I'm not arguing for the other extreme where all representation is hyperlocal - which could lead to old style boss cox croneyism, (e.g Chicago's current system), but a nice balance of the two, where some representatives a representative of the neighborhoods and are elected on 2 year terms while others represent the city at large and are on 4 year terms.  Hyper local representation would be strengthened without the downsides of it (and given Cincy's cultural myopia that's also a good thing).

 

These are basic thoughts, I just wanted to get the conversation rolling, anyone have any thoughts?

The committee has a website & a survey

http://mycharterreform.org/

^^ I agree that the power balance as is tends to work well. The concern is that charter reforms seem to be pointing in the direction of a shift to a strong mayor system.

 

As for the community councils, they actually have no set guidelines or rules in the charter but the political leadership tends to listen to them and take them into account. Unfortunately Community Councils are easy to sway one way or the other because there is a lack of formality and oversight.

Right now Cincinnati has very bad hyperlocal representation.  For instance OTR wanted less favoritism towards 3CDC, but they were denied by the city as a whole.  Another good example is in Corryville where the comm council is actually mostly people from outside the neighborhood who have development stakes. The community council was a temporary solution that was setup  in the wake of the mass demolitions of the west end (at least according to the book I read on the topic - its not a particularly formal organization and yet it does wield some but not enough power - its IMO deeply flawed in the current system).  I'm not arguing for the other extreme where all representation is hyperlocal - which could lead to old style boss cox croneyism, (e.g Chicago's current system), but a nice balance of the two, where some representatives a representative of the neighborhoods and are elected on 2 year terms while others represent the city at large and are on 4 year terms.  Hyper local representation would be strengthened without the downsides of it (and given Cincy's cultural myopia that's also a good thing).

City Council & community councils used to be more engaged. Charlie Luken really eviscerated that relationship & cited a lot of printing. You wouldn't need to print so much today.

It's kinda weird making the community councils real official because they are all set up differently. Laketa Cole tried getting into that and, after managing to tick off pretty much everybody, she backed off.

Are you talking about 'Contested Ground'?

^-Yes it was "Contested Ground"  its amazing how the demolition of the West End wasn't even its main topic, but it did a superb job of covering its history.

 

Gave me a ton of respect for Mallory's father who basically started his political career by saving Brighton from even more destruction.

Just ordered it - in the mail

The make up of the committee is a real problem if they are actually going to fight fluoridation of the water. These are crackpots akin to antivaxxers and they can't be allowed to control charter reform.

We are less than a month away and I've seen basically nothing on this amendment:

 

 

11  PROPOSED CHARTER REVISION CITY OF CINCINNATI

A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Shall the Charter of the City of Cincinnati be amended to remove obsolete language from the Charter, improve clarity and remove ambiguity related to existing provisions, ensure consistency with state and federal law, and to improve efficiencies related to the operations of municipal government, by amending Article I, “Powers of the City”; amending Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Article II, “Legislative Power”; repealing Sections 4 and 5 of Article III, “Mayor”; amending Sections 5 and 6 of Article IV, “Executive and Administrative Service”; repealing Section 7 of

Article IV, “Executive and Administrative Service”; amending Sections 1, 5 and 6 of Article V, “Civil Service”; repealing Article VI, “Institutions”; amending Section 2 of Article VII, “Boards and Commissions”; repealing Sections 12 and 13 of Article VII, “Boards and Commissions”; repealing Article X, “Miscellaneous”; amending Sections 1, 3 and 4 of Article XIII, “Campaign Finance”; and repealing Section 5 of Article XIII, “Campaign Finance”?

^ Yeah, I saw that on my "sample ballot" and was surprised. I remember the news posted above regarding the committee being put together to review the charter for obsolete language back in June, but I didn’t think it would result in a charter revision so quickly. I’m going to vote no on this unless the city has a press release of some sort that lists the changes clearly. I could only find one brief article on Cincinnati.com and it only had 2 or 3 actual details. 

^ Yeah, I saw that on my "sample ballot" and was surprised. I remember the news posted above regarding the committee being put together to review the charter for obsolete language back in June, but I didn’t think it would result in a charter revision so quickly. I’m going to vote no on this unless the city has a press release of some sort that lists the changes clearly. I could only find one brief article on Cincinnati.com and it only had 2 or 3 actual details. 

 

The committee was put together to do far more than remove obsolete language. The committee is putting this amendment first because it's not supposed to be contentious and will clear up the Charter. That being said, I haven't read the specifics of the amendment, so I don't know what it entails. I'll likely say "no" if I don't get any new info on what is considered "obsolete", but I expect a lot more info coming out about it soon. The election is still almost a month away, so I'm not worried yet. It seems like it's supposed to be a no-brainer to vote "yes".

People generally vote no on these types of "boring" ballot issues unless there is a big PR campaign explaining to people why it's important. With the election a month away and with very little information known about Issue 11, I predict it will fail. And I will likely vote against it unless the Charter Committee makes some effort to explain what language that it removes and why that language is obsolete. Modifying the city charter is a big deal and should not be done lightly.

Get ready. Chris Smitherman will collect signatures to give john cranley more power.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/political/local-politics/voters-could-be-asked-to-give-cincinnati-mayor-more-power

 

There was some discussion about this in another thread. Maybe it should be moved here. I'll edit this post and link it if I get ambitious.

So I emailed the Charter Review Task Force and asked for a copy of the revised charter, or better yet an annotated copy showing what was stricken and what was added.  They said they are working on it and will send out an annotated version once they get it.

 

I hope it will be a press release and the news outlets will summarize it, but if not I'll post a link here.

I sent an email to Kevin Flynn yesterday asking about it and when I could expect to get some real information about it. No response yet.

You can see the new language here: http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/Blob/40727.pdf?rpp=-10&m=2&w=doc_no%3D%27201401097%27

 

I don't have a copy of an annotated version.

 

I agree it is ludicrous that we know next to nothing about this amendment, however uncontroversial they claim it to be, and folks have already been voting for a week.

I'd like to know how much money, if any, was spent on this.

No city funds are being spent on this. It is a volunteer citizen panel. From a recent media release:

 

The Charter Review Task force was created by Cincinnati City Council but it functions independently and without public financial support. This forum is being made possible by the Cincinnati Research Institute (CRI), a non-partisan, non-profit organization that is dedicated to elevating political discourse by conducting, collecting and commissioning objective public policy research.

Considering that early voting has already began, they are past the deadline for when they need to have the information out there.

Task force says Cincinnati mayor has too much power

 

Cincinnati voters wanted a “stronger mayor” when they amended the city’s charter in 2002, but did they wind up unintentionally making that position too strong?

 

 

That’s one conclusion of a task force studying the charter – the city’s constitution – and proposing changes to it.

 

A subcommittee of the citizen-led panel, presenting its findings on the mayor’s powers Thursday, detailed what one member called the “extraordinary power” the mayor has acquired.

 

Cont

Hopefully this kills the chance of a "strong mayor" amendment getting on the ballot.

Preliminary telephone poll result show:

 

Strong mayor -- unpopular

Parks tax -- popular

Marijuana legalization -- popular.

^I hope that's how things turn out.

I'm for marijuana legalization, but against the current ballot measure. I hope it fails and something better comes along.

 

I'm also strongly against the parks levy. I know it will pass, but Parks doesn't need the money. The Parks Foundation is sitting on millions of dollars and the City should be putting their weight behind stuff for infrastructure and Rec centers.

I'm for marijuana legalization, but against the current ballot measure. I hope it fails and something better comes along.

 

 

Ending the prohibition is more important than the language of this ballot measure.

 

If we have to make 10 rich people richer in order to prevent thousands of people from being incarcerated and having a criminal stigma follow them for the rest of their lives then that's an easy call.

 

Look at the US Beer market, three companies control 75% of the market share.

I disagree. Bad bills are hard to change. It doesn't have to be perfect, by any means, but decriminalization is a huge trend and it won't be long before legalization happens. Might as well make it good and maybe have it help the State's economy, too.

Well presumably if a federal bill made it legal for everyone to grow in the future, than Ohio's law would be overridden...? Would be interesting to know those details.

I disagree. Bad bills are hard to change. It doesn't have to be perfect, by any means, but decriminalization is a huge trend and it won't be long before legalization happens. Might as well make it good and maybe have it help the State's economy, too.

 

Could you honestly look any non-violent marijuana offender that would be going to jail in the eyes and tell them that you voted against the proposition on what, procedural grounds?

 

We are dealing with real stakes here.

 

don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

If the Responsible Ohio ballot measure fails, it'll be like MetroMoves all over again. Opponents will say it was a mandate that Ohio doesn't want legalization. We won't see something come around for another decade. It's not perfect, but it needs to pass. That's why even the national advocacy group is giving lukewarm support.

I completely agree that if Responsible Ohio doesn't pass, it will be a while before another attempt is made to legalize. The strain lifted from the criminal justice and prison system from low level pot infractions coming off the books would be immense, not to mention the roadblocks to success that are removed for those individuals. There would of course be the added benefit of increased revenue to our municipal and county governments (who are generally hurting thanks to Kasich cuts). It would also send a message to the country that Ohio is progressive, or at least tolerant. I really hope it passes.

 

I've met one guy who wants it to fail because of the way that it's structured. He is a drug dealer though, so there's that.

I disagree. Bad bills are hard to change. It doesn't have to be perfect, by any means, but decriminalization is a huge trend and it won't be long before legalization happens. Might as well make it good and maybe have it help the State's economy, too.

 

Could you honestly look any non-violent marijuana offender that would be going to jail in the eyes and tell them that you voted against the proposition on what, procedural grounds?

 

We are dealing with real stakes here.

 

don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

Yeah, and i'd tell him that i'd voted against every single person that put him there. Turn the democratic party around. Run for precinct captain jobs that are won with a few hundred votes and change the platform. The Democratic party in the state of Ohio is a joke and it can be fixed one county at a time. Run the idiots from Hamilton County out on a rail and do something about this reform.

 

I'm no idealist waiting for the perfect bill, but the fact that most groups you'd think would be way on board for this are only giving it tepid support, if at all, should give pause.

 

I'm distrustful of passing amendments that are brought by very small groups of people looking to profit. How does the tax rate compare to those in other states?

Cranley, et al. pushing hard for a strong mayor...using the Cranley dumpster fire as an excuse:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/19/cincinnati-charter-why-stuck-mayor-and-city-manager-who-cant-stand-each-other/438438002/

 

Trying to set the stage for an executive mayor...specifically Chris Smitherman.  That would be an absolute disaster. 

While the Enquirer has refused to run it because it doesn't fit their narrative, the Charter Committee did release an Oped defending our current form of government:

 

The recent upheaval at Cincinnati City Hall created by the conflict between Mayor John Cranley and City Manager Harry Black has some calling for changes to our strong mayor-council/manager form of government. However, both our history and the example of cities across the country tell us that the form of government Cincinnati uses is not the problem, and changing it is not the solution.

 

Many decades ago, Cincinnati suffered from immense corruption during its last period under a strong mayor. The solution was implementation of progressive-era reforms, including the innovation of professional city management. This approach has been adapted with many different variations (such as the current Cincinnati version) and works successfully in cities of all sizes and regions, including the best- run cities. We need look no further than a peer to our west, Kansas City, Missouri, to see a thriving city, that uses a strong mayor-city manager form of government. It works well because the Mayor leads the charge and collaborates with elected council members to set policy. The city manager then enacts that policy through the city staff.

 

In large corporations, a board of directors sets policy that is carried out by a chief executive who has the training and experience to manage large, complex organizations. The majority of cities follow this model, with the mayor and city council functioning as the board of directors and the city manager functioning as the CEO. Cincinnati government has a workforce of over 5,000 employees and a total budget greater than $1.5 billion. An organization this size – a conglomeration of many distinct lines of business (public works, parks, recreation, police, fire, transportation and engineering, public health) – should be managed by a professional, not a politician.

 

An appointed, professional city manager, unlike elected politicians, is not swayed by the need to secure votes and keep constituents happy; rather the city manager is afforded the opportunity to do what he or she believes, and experience suggests, is best for the city. We saw this in the summer of 2016 when City Manager Black disagreed with and tried to prevent the Mayor from usurping his authority to provide larger raises to the city’s unionized workforce. Unfortunately, as the city manager predicted then, this caused an enormous budget deficit that the politicians have yet to address.

 

Is our form of government perfect? Far from it. This is why in 2014 Kevin Flynn launched the Charter Review Task Force when he joined council. The Task Force’s report recommended several minor changes to the City Charter that would clarify the roles and responsibilities of the mayor and city council to ensure the balance of power is in alignment with the spirit of the Charter, items such as allowing the city council to initiate the firing of the city manager and eliminating the chance for the mayor to block legislation indefinitely.

 

Unfortunately Cincinnati voters were not given the opportunity to vote on these improvements. The current Mayor, not wanting to have his power limited, threatened to veto any ordinance putting these Charter changes before the voters. City Council backed down and these improvements to the City Charter never made it to the ballot. Rather than abandon a form of government with a proven track record of success, it is time to revisit these simple changes, among others, to make our current strong mayor-city manager form of government even better.

I was looking up old articles from the early 2000s trying to figure out exactly why Cincinnati went for "stronger mayor" in the first place and didn't just stick with a council-manager form of government (which I tend to favor). Seems like a lack of clear political leadership was the main reasoning used back then. Curious about your opinions for those of you who lived through it. And how you think the "stronger mayor" form has fared over the past almost two decades.

The old system was a disaster. They mayor had zero power and was only a figurehead. People wanted a central point of contact and under the old system the mayor had really no more power than any of the other 9 members of council. The mayor had some ceremonial functions and was able to appoint committee heads, but really they were just one vote out of 9 and nothing more.

 

When you have factions in small groups, it was easy to see how there was not a central voice setting policy and keeping people on task. Council was just a group of individuals with competing interests without anyone to keep them on task. It made it much harder to accomplish larger projects. Things like 3CDC could not have been accomplished under the old system. Same with the Streetcar. In addition, there were 2 year terms so there was a lot of turnover which created frustration and uncertainty. For 2 years you could have Luken, then Tillery, Then Qualls, then who knows.

 

The new system is much better than the old one. 

I was looking up old articles from the early 2000s trying to figure out exactly why Cincinnati went for "stronger mayor" in the first place and didn't just stick with a council-manager form of government (which I tend to favor). Seems like a lack of clear political leadership was the main reasoning used back then. Curious about your opinions for those of you who lived through it. And how you think the "stronger mayor" form has fared over the past almost two decades.

 

We don't have a strong mayor, we merely have an independently elected mayor who appoints boards, sets council agenda, and has veto powers.  That's not enough for an egomaniac like Cranley or Smitherman.  They need more. 

 

In Chicago, Ram Emanuel is the city's chief executive and he's also in charge of the school board (I believe the Chicago mayor appoints school board members, not unlike how Cincinnati's mayor appoints SORTA board members).  Control of the schools is part of how Daly segregated the city and how Emanuel is currently accused of nudging black residents out of the city entirely. 

 

That is actually on-topic because some people like Aaron Renn argue that a strong mayor form of government is needed to "get things done", meaning push through business-friendly moves.  In Chicago there are a ton of wealthy people in real estate whereas in Cincinnati there are just a few influential families -- in large part the exact same families who have been in control for over 50 years.  So much of the baffling stuff that has happened (Castellini Viaduct TIGER application) or not happened (the subway, Metromoves) in Cincinnati has an explanation lurking at the tables closest to the entertainment at city charity events. 

 

 

 

^ Jake how I would love to have a beer with you to hear your stories.