Council-manager seems to work well in suburban cities with far less highly contested political issues, lower stakes, etc. Because if you have an executive mayor in those places you often get people who don't know what they're doing, work part time, etc, and it's better to just have professionals managing the day-to-day services. Perhaps there is just too much of a lack of a central, accountable political figure for it to work in a larger city.

 

I also wonder if Cincinnati's at-large council system would impact things vs. council-manager if you had a ward system. Seems like at least half of Cincy City Council is jockeying to be future mayor at any given time.

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

 

My boss just told me about the time his mom had her foot broken by...Schottzee. 

 

Cincinnati's current system of government has a pretty good separation of powers. Instead of throwing it all away and replacing it with a Strong Mayor system, we should make these three simple changes:

 

- Eliminate the Mayor's "pocket veto" power by requiring that he brings all legislation to a committee within 30 days. (Currently the Mayor can keep an ordinance he doesn't like in his "pocket" until the last day he's in office, effectively killing it.)

- Allow a supermajority of Council to initiate the firing of the City Manager. (Currently, only the Mayor can initiate the firing and a majority of Council must approve.)

- Stagger Council terms, with Mayor + 4 Council members elected in a first class, and remaining 5 Council members elected in a second class two years later. (With all 10 people elected in a single year, it's too easy for a political "wave" to skew the entire city government in 1 direction or the other.)

 

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

 

He is 100% correct about Chicago and doesn't even live here btw.

Cincinnati's current system of government has a pretty good separation of powers. Instead of throwing it all away and replacing it with a Strong Mayor system, we should make these three simple changes:

 

- Eliminate the Mayor's "pocket veto" power by requiring that he brings all legislation to a committee within 30 days. (Currently the Mayor can keep an ordinance he doesn't like in his "pocket" until the last day he's in office, effectively killing it.)

- Allow a supermajority of Council to initiate the firing of the City Manager. (Currently, only the Mayor can initiate the firing and a majority of Council must approve.)

- Stagger Council terms, with Mayor + 4 Council members elected in a first class, and remaining 5 Council members elected in a second class two years later. (With all 10 people elected in a single year, it's too easy for a political "wave" to skew the entire city government in 1 direction or the other.)

 

 

100% agree with all of this.  But I would also add:

 

- Institute a difficult but clear path to recalling a sitting Mayor.  It's been a while since I read the charter, but one section either refers to recall of a mayor or to what happens after the recall of a mayor, but no mechanism is actually specified for how/why/when a recall would even be possible.  Recall should be a very difficult, but realistic scenario, to keep people like Cranley from acting like they own the place whenever it's not an election year.

Looks like the people pushing for a strong mayor are trying to trick the public into thinking that the Mayor and City Manager are duplicative.  That they are both "in charge".  Fact is that they have absolutely zero overlapping powers.  And the fact is that Cranley brought in Harry Black.  Cranley can't deal with his own hire because his own hire -- despite being no saint -- actually gives a damn about fiscal responsibility and wouldn't sign off on the raises that have put the city in financial trouble. 

Cincinnati's current system of government has a pretty good separation of powers. Instead of throwing it all away and replacing it with a Strong Mayor system, we should make these three simple changes:

 

- Eliminate the Mayor's "pocket veto" power by requiring that he brings all legislation to a committee within 30 days. (Currently the Mayor can keep an ordinance he doesn't like in his "pocket" until the last day he's in office, effectively killing it.)

- Allow a supermajority of Council to initiate the firing of the City Manager. (Currently, only the Mayor can initiate the firing and a majority of Council must approve.)

- Stagger Council terms, with Mayor + 4 Council members elected in a first class, and remaining 5 Council members elected in a second class two years later. (With all 10 people elected in a single year, it's too easy for a political "wave" to skew the entire city government in 1 direction or the other.)

 

 

100% agree with all of this.  But I would also add:

 

- Institute a difficult but clear path to recalling a sitting Mayor.  It's been a while since I read the charter, but one section either refers to recall of a mayor or to what happens after the recall of a mayor, but no mechanism is actually specified for how/why/when a recall would even be possible.  Recall should be a very difficult, but realistic scenario, to keep people like Cranley from acting like they own the place whenever it's not an election year.

 

Yes, totally agree with that. The Charter currently does not outline any mechanism for recalling the Mayor. After Cranley's 2013 "pause and audit" shenanigans, there was some discussion of a recall, but it's unclear what the actual process would have been. Some people claimed that the state's recall process for elected officials would have applied since the Charter doesn't specify a process.

 

The recall process should probably be initiated by a supermajority of council (6 of 9 votes required) and require a majority of voters to approve. There could also be an alternative path where citizens could collect signatures to initiate the recall, which would then be placed on the ballot and require a majority vote.

 

Also, now that I think of it, the process for amending the Charter seems way too easy. Currently either Council can propose a Charter amendment or citizens can collect a number of signatures equal to 10% of the people who voted in the most recent mayoral election to a force an issue onto the ballot. And then only a simple majority of voters must approve the ballot issue in order to amend the Charter. Considering that the Charter is our city's Constitution, I think we should make it a little more difficult to amend. Maybe we should require a supermajority of voters to pass an amendment in order for it to take effect.

This may have been asked but i don't remember seeing it. What happens if the City Manager does leave? Do we have to conduct another nationwide search? Does the Mayor get to appoint someone. If so who is in the wings ready to step in and how much more money per year is it going to take someone to step into such a hot seat. I dont see any of these costs factored into the $400,000 number that this whole ego show has cost the city so far. This might be better for the Cranley Thread but wanst sure.

 

The mayor can appoint anyone he likes and council just needs to approve. So the mayor can decide to conduct a national search or just promote one of the assistant city managers or a department head.

Reimagine the police force as a space force:

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/08/18/cincinnati-charter-amendment-wants-re-imagine-police-department/5599050002/

...and space force fails to make the ballot:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/08/20/policepolice-charter-amendment-to-charter-amendment-re-imagine-police-department-fails-make-ballot/3401061001/

 

 

A new amendment to the Charter which would eliminate the mayoral "pocket veto" will be on the ballot this November:

 

 

 

I am shocked that the ballot measure to eliminate the pocket veto overwhelmingly passed with 80.5% approving. Normally people vote no on long, wonky ballot issues they don't understand, so there must have been a significant "Yes on 11" push that resinated with a lot of people. In any case, good to see this weird loophole in our Charter eliminated.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

I am shocked that the ballot measure to eliminate the pocket veto overwhelmingly passed with 80.5% approving. Normally people vote no on long, wonky ballot issues they don't understand, so there must have been a significant "Yes on 11" push that resinated with a lot of people. In any case, good to see this weird loophole in our Charter eliminated.

 

I was hearing that there is technically a way for a mayor to continue to delay a vote under these rules, but it essentially means shuffling who leads the committee the legislation is under, and playing into summer recesses and stuff. It would be an egregious act to delay it in this way, so it's unlikely, but it is possible.

Yeah - this just specifically ends the practice of the mayor keeping proposed legislation in their "pocket" until the last legislative session of the term, and then referring it to a committee where there isn't time to actually pass it. I'm sure there are other shenanigans the mayor can use to delay legislation they dislike, but eliminating this one loophole is a win.

In case anyone is looking for information on Cincinnati's Issue 23, Cincinnati Public Radio has this explainer:

 

Quote

Explaining Cincinnati's Issue 23, the 'least controversial issue on the ballot'

"We talked to all three parties — Republicans, Democrats and Charter — to make sure that we had all questions answered and make sure we were transparent in what we were trying to do," [Councilmember Liz] Keating told WVXU. "We really didn't have any pushback, and I think this might be the least divisive, least controversial issue on the ballot this year. Because at the end of the day, this is just cleaning up our charter to mirror state law, fix that ambiguous language and create new government efficiencies and save taxpayer dollars."

 

I'm not 100% sure this was limited to the City of Cincinnati, but my impression was that it was a proposed city charter amendment. Someone asked me for my signature to "fix the potholes" and had a signature packet with her. I didn't know the details and didn't have time to read through all of the language.

 

Has anyone heard anything about a charter amendment to spend money on potholes? Smells like a Smitherman plot, but I don't really know. Google hasn't come up with anything.

On 3/31/2024 at 3:00 PM, ryanlammi said:

I'm not 100% sure this was limited to the City of Cincinnati, but my impression was that it was a proposed city charter amendment. Someone asked me for my signature to "fix the potholes" and had a signature packet with her. I didn't know the details and didn't have time to read through all of the language.

 

Has anyone heard anything about a charter amendment to spend money on potholes? Smells like a Smitherman plot, but I don't really know. Google hasn't come up with anything.

It's probably the petition to amend the charter to dictate that the city leaves OKI, unless the planning organization switches to a proportional system for the board seats.

12 minutes ago, Dev said:

It's probably the petition to amend the charter to dictate that the city leaves OKI, unless the planning organization switches to a proportional system for the board seats.

 

Interesting. I'll read more into this. I'm more intrigued now, but didn't have time to read the full petition language when approached the other day. 

Cincinnati's Charter Committee wraps up 100th anniversary celebrations Saturday

By Becca Costello, WVXU

There isn't anything in here that is explicitly pro-charter reform but there is the potential for it:
 

Quote

"I think we're going to see what in the coming year will be sort of a rebirth of Charter with an influx of new and younger board members," he said. "There's a lot of people who want to get involved, a lot of people who are really energized around issues like ranked-choice voting, the railroad sale, Connected Communities."

 

Saturday's event
Speaker: Cincinnati historian Dan Hurley (author of the new book "Four Cincinnatis and Other Essays")

Where: Cincinnati Hamilton County Public Library Downtown (800 Vine Street), Huenefeld Tower Room, 3rd Floor

When: Saturday, Nov. 16

• Videos and exhibits: 10 a.m. to noon
• Dan Hurley: noon to 2 p.m.