There will be two issues on the ballot this November to change the way City Council works. One will be to return to two year terms. The other will be to keep 4 year terms but stagger them, with half of council elected. If both were to pass, the one with the higher percentage of "yes" would take effect and the other would not.

 

Yeah, let's intentionally confuse the voters.  Good Government, and all that. 

It always blows my mind when I walk past a window or a lawn with yard signs for two diametrically opposed political candidates. How is it possible to know so little about politics that you would support both, say, Smitherman and Garry, with their views being almost completely opposite of each other?

 

Also, the election was almost a year ago. Time to take down your signs.

Weren't both endorsed by the Green Party?

Council members balk at Fourth and Race deal over streetcar money

 

Three City Council members objected to part of the latest version of the Fourth and Race mixed-use apartment/garage deal because the developer will not pay into the account that funds the Cincinnati Bell Connector streetcar.

 

The streetcar’s operations are funded in part by payments made by developers of new and rehabilitated buildings downtown from a reduction in their tax abatements.

 

In Monday’s Budget and Finance Committee, council members P.G. Sittenfeld, Chris Seelbach and Wendell Young, all Democrats, voted against the part of the deal that included a tax abatement for 22,000 square feet of first-floor commercial space at the 118 W. Fourth St. site. The ordinance does not require the developer, Indianapolis-based Flaherty & Collins or the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp., which will oversee the garage and commercial space, to make the voluntary tax incentive contribution agreement (VTICA) payments to the streetcar.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/09/10/council-members-balk-at-fourth-and-race-deal-over.html

Did City Council support latest payment to Cincinnati’s former city manager?

 

Four members of the Cincinnati City Council opposed and three backed the city administration’s deal to give former City Manager Harry Black an additional $370,000 to avoid a lawsuit over his forced resignation in April.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/09/11/did-city-council-support-latest-payment-to.html

Did City Council support latest payment to Cincinnati’s former city manager?

 

Four members of the Cincinnati City Council opposed and three backed the city administration’s deal to give former City Manager Harry Black an additional $370,000 to avoid a lawsuit over his forced resignation in April.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/09/11/did-city-council-support-latest-payment-to.html

Who has the authority to hire/fire a city manager?

To hire a City Manger, the Mayor nominates someone and majority of City Council has to approve.

 

City Council was getting ready to vote to fire Black, so he resigned the morning before that vote was scheduled to happen.

To hire a City Manger, the Mayor nominates someone and majority of City Council has to approve.

 

City Council was getting ready to vote to fire Black, so he resigned the morning before that vote was scheduled to happen.

Thanks. Not a lawyer so why to payout? Just fire him. The article mentioned something about Cranley doing something that could have violated city laws or something. Did not follow this closely.

Cranley wanted the city to write Black a big check in exchange for him resigning and signing an NDA so that none of Black's dirt on Cranley would ever come out. City Council did not want to agree to that. That drama played out over a period of several weeks. Finally, Cranley was able to get a majority of City Council on board with that plan. So they were about to vote to fire Black, but before City Council could vote, Black resigned. He was paid out a certain amount of severance that was specified by his employment agreement in addition to unused vacation time. But since he did not sign any NDA agreeing to keep quiet, now his accusations about Cranley are starting to come out.

 

The additional payout being discussed in that article is a settlement between the city and Black where he was paid $370,000 to agree not to sue the city about the circumstances regarding his resignation/termination.

Cranley wanted the city to write Black a big check in exchange for him resigning and signing an NDA so that none of Black's dirt on Cranley would ever come out. City Council did not want to agree to that. That drama played out over a period of several weeks. Finally, Cranley was able to get a majority of City Council on board with that plan. So they were about to vote to fire Black, but before City Council could vote, Black resigned. He was paid out a certain amount of severance that was specified by his employment agreement in addition to unused vacation time. But since he did not sign any NDA agreeing to keep quiet, now his accusations about Cranley are starting to come out.

 

The additional payout being discussed in that article is a settlement between the city and Black where he was paid $370,000 to agree not to sue the city about the circumstances regarding his resignation/termination.

 

Thanks. What is the possible dirt on Cranley?

Likely there was an agreement signed on resignation of some sort. Just because he resigned vs fired is more semantics. He still gets paid.

Cranley wanted the city to write Black a big check in exchange for him resigning and signing an NDA so that none of Black's dirt on Cranley would ever come out. City Council did not want to agree to that. That drama played out over a period of several weeks. Finally, Cranley was able to get a majority of City Council on board with that plan. So they were about to vote to fire Black, but before City Council could vote, Black resigned. He was paid out a certain amount of severance that was specified by his employment agreement in addition to unused vacation time. But since he did not sign any NDA agreeing to keep quiet, now his accusations about Cranley are starting to come out.

 

The additional payout being discussed in that article is a settlement between the city and Black where he was paid $370,000 to agree not to sue the city about the circumstances regarding his resignation/termination.

 

Thanks. What is the possible dirt on Cranley?

 

Cranley frequently inserts himself into negotiations for development deals, in which he is not supposed to play any role. Remember that the CEO of our city is the City Manager. In our current system of government, the Mayor is not much more than a figure head with a few clearly defined powers, such as nominating or appointing members to various boards, introducing or vetoing legislation, etc. The City Manager was getting frustrated with the Mayor going around his back and making deals, and that's why the battle between them broke out.

 

More of Harry Black's allegations about John Cranley are coming out:

 

“(T)he mayor would insert himself into the negotiation for the purpose of giving the developer what it wanted, including using money in the city’s capital budget to fund the project,” the letter alleges. “Mr. Black believed these ‘sweetheart’ deals were fiscally terrible for the city and had contributed to the city’s budget shortfall of $25 million for 2018.”

Cranley wanted the city to write Black a big check in exchange for him resigning and signing an NDA so that none of Black's dirt on Cranley would ever come out. City Council did not want to agree to that. That drama played out over a period of several weeks. Finally, Cranley was able to get a majority of City Council on board with that plan. So they were about to vote to fire Black, but before City Council could vote, Black resigned. He was paid out a certain amount of severance that was specified by his employment agreement in addition to unused vacation time. But since he did not sign any NDA agreeing to keep quiet, now his accusations about Cranley are starting to come out.

 

The additional payout being discussed in that article is a settlement between the city and Black where he was paid $370,000 to agree not to sue the city about the circumstances regarding his resignation/termination.

 

Thanks. What is the possible dirt on Cranley?

 

Cranley frequently inserts himself into negotiations for development deals, in which he is not supposed to play any role. Remember that the CEO of our city is the City Manager. In our current system of government, the Mayor is not much more than a figure head with a few clearly defined powers, such as nominating or appointing members to various boards, introducing or vetoing legislation, etc. The City Manager was getting frustrated with the Mayor going around his back and making deals, and that's why the battle between the City Manager and the Mayor broke out.

 

More of Harry Black's allegations about John Cranley are coming out:

 

“(T)he mayor would insert himself into the negotiation for the purpose of giving the developer what it wanted, including using money in the city’s capital budget to fund the project,” the letter alleges. “Mr. Black believed these ‘sweetheart’ deals were fiscally terrible for the city and had contributed to the city’s budget shortfall of $25 million for 2018.”

 

OK that makes sense.

Not to get off topic, but do all local governments use NDAs as frequently as Cincinnati does? Aftab is wrapped up in a lawsuit right now regarding his use of NDAs (specifically the disparagement clauses, I believe). This is common in the corporate world but seems wildly out of place in the local government world. It's not like these folks are dealing with classified info - the only reason for these agreements seems to be keeping political secrets.

Even classified info is already protected by something stronger than a NDA -- criminal law.

Cranley, Young spar over funding for Tillery-led group

 

 

Mayor John Cranley and Councilman Wendell Young verbally scuffled Wednesday night over proposed city funding for the Center for Closing the Health Gap, the organization headed by Dwight Tillery, the former mayor with whom Cranley has feuded for years.

 

Council has been discussing how to spend a year-end surplus from fiscal year 2018, which ended on July 1. A council majority approved an ordinance on Monday in the Budget Committee to steer $700,000 in funding to the center, whose funding for FY19 was jeopardized by a judicial restraining order slapped on a new tax on billboards. That amount is more than the $550,000 the center originally was set to receive.

 

The closeout budget, as it’s known at City Hall, also would have appropriated money for Cintrifuse and CincyTech, the tech accelerators whose city funding also was eliminated by the restraining order. Democrats Tamaya Dennard, P.G. Sittenfeld, Greg Landsman and Young, and Republican Jeff Pastor supported the ordinance. Democrats David Mann and Chris Seelbach opposed it.

 

Full article below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/04/cranley-young-spar-over-funding-for-tillery-led.html

New council texts: Cranley tried to make a deal with critics to fire Black

 

In late March, during Cincinnati city government’s political crisis over the fate of then-City Manager Harry Black, Mayor John Cranley allegedly offered to make a deal with two of his harshest critics — council members and fellow Democrats Wendell Young and Chris Seelbach — in exchange for their votes to terminate Black.

 

“Cranley calling Wendell and me asking if he can give us something in exchange for our vote,” Seelbach texted Young and council members P.G. Sittenfeld, Tamaya Dennard and Greg Landsman on the morning of March 24, according to a transcript of the messages obtained Friday by the Business Courier.

 

“Same,” Landsman responded. “Meeting with him tomorrow. He claims he’s willing to put anything on the table.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/19/new-council-texts-cranley-tried-to-make-a-deal.html

Judge orders additional, potentially ‘embarrassing’ texts between council members released

 

 

A Hamilton County judge on Monday ordered the city of Cincinnati and five members of City Council to produce all text messages between them that were sent between Jan. 1 and April 1, 2018, for discovery in a case that alleges they broke the state’s open meeting statute. 

 

The stunning decision by Judge Robert Ruehlman could lead to the public disclosure of texts the city’s attorneys have described as “embarrassing” not only to council members P.G. Sittenfeld, Chris Seelbach, Wendell Young, Greg Landsman and Tamaya Dennard but also to “third parties.” The texts must be produced regardless of whether they have anything to do with city business.

 

Ruehlman said he will issue a written order to the city and the council members to turn over the texts to attorney Brian Shrive and his client, Mark Miller, who have brought legal action against the city and the council members for holding an illegal public meeting via text message. Miller is a longtime member of the conservative, anti-tax group the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes. The five council members in question are progressive Democrats. 

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/22/judge-orders-additional-potentially-embarrassing.html

Hey people -- get a separate phone for politics and don't ever text.  Oh, and don't send or receive emails directly, either.  Always go through your assistant. 

 

Jake, if you are texting business matters from a personal phone that personal phone can then be subpoenaed into evidence which will open up a brand new can of worms.

It's all good, just get a hot tub.

I have been getting a ton of "Yes on 10 / No on 11" mailers, most of which have been paid for by the Charter Committee.

 

I'm really disappointed that the Charter Committee (which is supposed to be a non-ideological party that promotes good government) would stoop to some of the misleading rhetoric that is featured on these mailers. They claim that 4 year City Council terms have led to a rise in petty squabbling, and returning to 2 year terms would reduce that somehow. Apparently they don't remember any of the the petty squabbling that happened when we actually had 2 year terms, like Ghis vs. Cole.

 

The mailers also play up the fact that "Issue 11 is confusing!" and that "some members could serve 10 years!" and "some members would win two year terms while others would win four year terms!" Well, sure, I guess it is a bit "confusing" until you actually stop and think about how Issue 11 would work. We currently have non-staggered terms and if Issue 11 passed, we would be transitioning to staggered terms. So, by necessity, in the very first election, you would have half of the members winning 4 year terms and half of the members winning 2 year terms. After that, there would be no more two-year terms. Every single election after the first would only select members for full 4 year terms. I'm really disappointed that the Charter Committee is playing up this "confusion", as I have highly valued the Charter Committee's opinion in the past, and now it seems they have left the "good government" mission behind and gone full partisan.

I haven't seen these mailers, and didn't know the Charter Committee's opinion on those two issues. I'm pretty sure they came out in favor of allowing elected members of city government to follow Ohio's open meeting laws.

Perhaps I'm underestimating people's preparedness, but my gut feeling is that most people do not adequately research the ballot issues before going to the polls, so how they vote is highly influenced by the wording on the ballot. This is the Issue 12 ballot language:

 

Quote

A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.

 

Shall Section 5 of Article II, "Legislative Power" of the Charter of the City of Cincinnati be repealed and replaced to require all meetings of Council and its committees be held in accordance with the requirements of the Ohio Open Meetings Act, codified in Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22 or its successors?

 

I think many people unfamiliar with the issue will read this and vote yes. Because who could be against the Ohio Open Meetings Act?

I support the Executive Session charter amendment. It sounds counterintuitive but it actually depoliticizes certain issues because people can speak freely on sensitive issues (like personnel, pending litigation, acquisition of property).

 

It likely would have led to a more civil handling of the City Manager issue.

I've received seven of the Yes on 10, No on 11 mailers. It's weird... some have Mann, Murray, Smitherman, and Charlie Luken pictured, and another has Jeff Berding, Luken and Mark Mallory.  

 

On the other hand, the Democratic Committee is in favor of 11 over 10.

Weird that whoever was responsible for making those mailers thought putting Jeff Berding on a mailer would convince people.

Charter committee leans left but is generally more non-partisan. They will be in favor of 2 year terms and Issue 10 because that is what the city charter called for 100 years ago when they came into existence. That is the point of their being, to uphold the charter.  So of course they are for 10.

 

In addition, they also are a good arbiter of fairness and do speak to the moderate middle to ensure that there is minority representation on council. If you do staggered terms you are going to have a rush to the left and the end to more moderation in local politics. I know many of the progressives do not like this, but it is good having an Amy Murray on council to get her perspective, just like it is a good thing if there were a democrat on Mason city council. Having a minority opinion is a good thing for everyone.  

^That's not true. They have approved a plethora of Charter amendments in the past (and this year as well). They aren't against the Charter changing, they are against the Charter being changed maliciously or irresponsibly. 

Just now, ryanlammi said:

^That' not true. They have approved a plethora of Charter amendments in the past (and this year as well). They aren't against the Charter never changing, they are against the Charter being changed maliciously or irresponsibly. 

 

Ryan is right.

 

Additionally, Charter favors two year terms because they feel like it is their best chance to succeed politically - rather than what might be best for the city - which, frankly, should be anathema to what the Charter Committee stands for.

On 11/1/2018 at 1:55 PM, taestell said:

Perhaps I'm underestimating people's preparedness, but my gut feeling is that most people do not adequately research the ballot issues before going to the polls, so how they vote is highly influenced by the wording on the ballot. This is the Issue 12 ballot language:

 

 

I think many people unfamiliar with the issue will read this and vote yes. Because who could be against the Ohio Open Meetings Act?

 

I had this exact conversation this past weekend, with someone who was familiar with the fact that this was a ballot issue, but not the wording. I wouldn't be surprised if thousands of people vote yes on this issue believing they are forcing the city to be more transparent, when in fact they're doing the exact opposite and relaxing the requirements. Unless you are informed enough to know the city's rules require more openness than the Ohio law, you'll be tricked by the wording of this issue.

With the 2-year terms, Charter busied itself for 90~ years lobbing upstart candidates on the ballot.  The switch to 4-year terms left them with nothing to do for three years at a time.  That's why they opposed 4-year terms to begin with. 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Charter committee leans left but is generally more non-partisan. They will be in favor of 2 year terms and Issue 10 because that is what the city charter called for 100 years ago when they came into existence. That is the point of their being, to uphold the charter.  So of course they are for 10.

 

In addition, they also are a good arbiter of fairness and do speak to the moderate middle to ensure that there is minority representation on council. If you do staggered terms you are going to have a rush to the left and the end to more moderation in local politics. I know many of the progressives do not like this, but it is good having an Amy Murray on council to get her perspective, just like it is a good thing if there were a democrat on Mason city council. Having a minority opinion is a good thing for everyone.  

 

Charter sent out a pretty misleading mailer for Issue 10. It was mailed from the Charter Committee and it said "Our Democratic Party Leaders agree" vote yes on 10. Despite the fact that the actual democratic party leaders endorsed a no on issue 10. 

Just now, Ram23 said:

 

I had this exact conversation this past weekend, with someone who was familiar with the fact that this was a ballot issue, but not the wording. I wouldn't be surprised if thousands of people vote yes on this issue believing they are forcing the city to be more transparent, when in fact they're doing the exact opposite and relaxing the requirements. Unless you are informed enough to know the city's rules require more openness than the Ohio law, you'll be tricked by the wording of this issue.

I would have preferred this be a smaller step, like allowing closed meetings for personnel decisions (only fair for personal privacy, IMO). But something so nuanced would be virtually impossible to educate the public on, so I can see why they just went with following the state rules. It's the clearest ballot language there could be, and at least there is precedent for these rules; a valid criticism of my preference would be that it's more ad hoc and untested.

26 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

 

Charter sent out a pretty misleading mailer for Issue 10. It was mailed from the Charter Committee and it said "Our Democratic Party Leaders agree" vote yes on 10. Despite the fact that the actual democratic party leaders endorsed a no on issue 10. 

 

 

They have a number of prominent Democrats who are against Issue 10 from Charlie Luken, I believe Mallory and a few other prominent Democrats are for issue 10. The Democratic party is obviously against it since it will help them consolidate power. It is cleverly worded but not that misleading.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

 

They have a number of prominent Democrats who are against Issue 10 from Charlie Luken, I believe Mallory and a few other prominent Democrats are for issue 10. The Democratic party is obviously against it since it will help them consolidate power. It is cleverly worded but not that misleading.

 

 

One political party ran sent a mailer that stated "OUR" Democratic Party Leaders took a position that was the exact opposite of the that position that was actually voted on by that party's actual party leaders. 

 

If the Republicans sent a mailer that showed Joe Manchin and said "OUR Democratic Party Leaders Support [insert gun policy that's the opposite of the actual policy] that's the same thing that happened here. 

 

Charter's supposed to be the good government people. They sent out a mailer the day before that, accurately, said these former mayors support issue 10. Disappointing to see them being intentionally misleading when they have a large amount of funding for this campaign against no organized opposition of any sort. 

I don’t know why some people are acting like executive sessions are going to lead to Cincinnati City Council no longer having public meetings or doing all kinds of shady stuff.

 

Ohio state law allows for legislative bodies to have executive sessions to discuss certain types of issues in private. Mason City Council can have them. Blue Ash City Council can have them. Hamilton County Commission can have them. Warren County Commission can have them.

 

Since Cincinnati is a charter city, the state law previously didn’t apply to us. What happened when Issue 12 passed is that Cincinnati threw out a section of the city charter that didn’t allow executive sessions, and said that the state law now applies to us.

 

If you think executive sessions are bad, you should lobby to have the state law changed. There is no reason why Blue Ash, Mason, and Milford should be allowed to have executive sessions but Cincinnati shouldn’t.

 

Additionally, I have no sympathy for people that don’t take the time to research ballot issues in advance and now regret their vote.

I worked for two cities that had executive session and have attended a few of those "closed door meetings." Often times they actually remove or reduce the politics around certain issues. EC can be invoked for personnel issues (hiring/firing/etc.), land acquisition, and pending litigation. These are sensitive areas for city leaders to consider and having them potentially be out in the open before actually made it harder for the city to deal with these types of issues effectively.

I believe the charter amendment takes effect immediately and City Council will be able to have interviews with the new City Manager candidates in private. This gives the City Council more power to vet the Mayor’s nominee and act as a check on his power. This is a good thing.

Also, I’m not sure what happened to the Charter Committee, but I don’t think they are a “good government” organization anymore. They’re now repeating GOP/Trumpian talking points.

Cranley henchman Kevin Osbourne harasses Chris Seelbach's husband in a bar bathroom:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/13/seelbach-files-harassment-complaint-against-city-employee/1982333002/

^ Seelbach is an a$$ who is completely full of himself. no doubt he is doing this to get attention

I myself have been harassed in person, in a bar, by Kevin Osbourne.  About five years ago he saw me delivering a pizza to Milton's and made fun of me for being a pizza man.  This is when he had been secretly hired by Cranley while he was still working at Channel 9.  I had never met the guy before this and out of nowhere I hear my full name shouted above the bar noise and he waved for me to come over.  He was like "...SO...whattaYOU doin' here?" and  I told him something like I was working two jobs to save up to buy a house and pay off my student loans (both being my goals at the time) and he kind of laughed at me and said "well you're a good honest man, aren't you!". 

 

He was trying to provoke me into acting unprofessional so that he could call up the restaurant and get me fired.  I didn't take the bait and just walked out.  I haven't seen the guy since. 

^ Oof. What a dick. How did he even know who you were? Sounds like you handled it well. I’m sure I would have said something in return that would’ve had me applying to other pizza places the next day.

I think he knew who I was from my mug shot on Urbancincy.com.  At that time I'm sure the Cranley campaign was privy to polling that showed they were going to win and Osbourne took pleasure in seeing all of the doomed optimism of Qualls supporters. 

Hamilton County Commissioners are currently in an executive session! Everyone panic!

 

 

Oh, wait, the irrational fear of executive sessions only applies when it comes to Cincinnati City Council.

 

 

The Enquirer and Smitherman really reaching with their "Gang of Five" textgate:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2018/11/20/some-texts-deleted-others-lost-ongoing-city-hall-lawsuits/2071254002/

 

Nobody cared when Cranley dropped his phone with Harry Black-related texts in a hot tub.  I mean, the media in this town sucks.  The NY Post would have gone bonkers with a front page graphic of a shirtless Cranley with gold chains living it up in the hot tub. 

 

 

 

Attorney: Some Cincinnati council members’ texts destroyed

 

 

Text messages to and from Cincinnati City Council members Wendell Youngand Tamaya Dennard have been destroyed, according to attorney Brian Shrive, who is seeking the messages in two pending court cases.

 

In an interview, Shrive said he believes the texts were deleted after he and his client, conservative activist Mark Miller, filed lawsuits against the city and the five council members accusing them of violating the state’s open meetings law and seeking their texts under the state’s public records law. The texts were also destroyed after he filed discovery requests for them, Shrive believes.

 

Dennard’s texts were lost when she accidentally dropped her phone into a pool. Young, a former police officer, intentionally deleted his texts, Shrive said the city’s attorneys told him. 

 

The city solicitor’s office via the city’s spokesman, Dennard and Young declined to comment. 

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/11/21/attorney-some-cincinnati-council-members-texts.html

^Just look at the smug expression non Miller's face.  No telling what he gets out of his various stunts, emotionally.  He inherited  house in Hyde Park and doesn't have to work, so this is his hobby. 

The media doesn't seem to care about Cranley's lost texts due to the hot tub incident. The media took his word for it and laughed about that.