^Let's get serious.  Is the cost of a special election, ten months before the actual election for a two-year term office really worth it?  If the problem is that being appointed to council translates into a guarantee of re-election, then that doesn't say much for the voters  now does it?  If they can't be expected to vote for people beside the incumbents on Election Day, than what are we going to get during a special election, when turnout is typically far lower?  Do we want someone who is able to garner 15,000 quick votes in January or February rather than just wait for the appointee to prove his or her ability to get the usual requisite number in November?  If we had a special election I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a Charlie Winburn or a Chris Smitherman instead of a Greg Harris, simply because of their ability to quickly mobilize a small group of people and money in a short period of time.  Every election favors the electorate/campaign most able to mobilize under its given rules (example: Obama winning the Idaho or Montana primaries).  I'd rather have insiders with a long-term stake in the system making a conservative pick rather than outliers coming to power during a random point, unique in time and place (e.g. Bush's 2000 Florida win, or the present prominence of Avigdor Lieberman in Israel, or Le Pen winning the presidential runoff in France back in the day).  The decision of a motivated few amongst an apathetic many doesn't strike me as being particularly democratic.

 

Plus, Leslie Ghiz makes Chriz Monzel look charismatic.

^The way it was described, it sounded like there would be a special November election for the open seat, as opposed to a special election whenever someone resigned.  From that, I'm guessing that council would just operate with one open seat until the next election.  The point is that people like Cranley wouldn't resign early if they didn't have the ability to slide someone from their own party into the vacany they're creating.

^Cranley resigned early for personal reasons.  The argument here is form vs. outcome.  I'm more inclined to be concerned with the outcome; as a city resident, I want to see good people (like Greg Harris) making decisions that effect the City.  My other point is that while the form of the election is important, it is also important to realize that the effective form changes with time and place.  A special election will have less people voting than a regular election, just like a regular election in a presidential year will have more voters.  The form remains the same, but since one election has more total voters than the others, does that, by definition, make it more democratic?

 

Is leaving the seat vacant more democratic than appointing someone to fill it?  Is allowing the vacator to chose his successor (not the process that is utilized) more Democratic than having Council choose the temporary member?  All of these systems involve situations where people have to cultivate certain people (for money, endorsements, etc.) more than others.  I don't see how the practical reality of politics is honestly compared to a non-existent ideal, and I don't view this appointment as being less representative of the will of the people than a snap special election would be, particularly because the people will have the opportunity to render judgment ten months from now.

I'm more with process than the result. The current system with term limits in place makes the desire of parties to control their seats too strong to keep things on the up and up. The potential for corruption in such a system is very high (and in Cbus they are currently fighting about a similar situation - which is exacerbated by complete single party rule). If you want to ditch term limits fine, but council people should expect serve the entirety of their term save extreme circumstances (pretty much . . . only death).

If you want to ditch term limits fine, but council people should expect serve the entirety of their term save extreme circumstances (pretty much . . . only death).

 

That strikes me as totally unenforceable.  And even if you could somehow do it legally, would you want to create a situation where someone just refuses to attend meetings or to the work at hand because they'd rather resign.

 

With any political office you want two things: 1) a person who desires to be there (therefore it is in there interest to perform well so that they can maintain their seat), and 2) someone who is answerable to the entire constituency, not merely a portion of it (which is the essence of democracy).  In my view, the appointment process does not impact either of those things.

 

Look, if we hadn't clearly established a precedent whereby folks near the end of their term limits resign so that the party can name someone to get some name reck. for the next election, I'd agree with you. Since that is clearly the current precedent then I'm going to stick with saying it needs to stop.

 

Unfortunately, the Charter Party would like be hurt by this the most and second the GOP, but ah well.

^Okay.

To finish, just imagine if Clinton had resigned in '99 and let Gore become Pres. for a year to get us used to it, or W. had found some electable GOP guy to take his place after the 06 elections.

 

Essentially that is what happened when Major replaced Thatcher in Britain and managed to squeeze an extra five years of government out for the Conservatives when they were clearly spent as a political force.

the problem with your W scenario is that the senate would have to confirm the person and until they did Pelosi as speaker of the house would be next in line for the presidency with a vacant VP

The details don't quite fit, but if became accepted broadly across the country. Unless W. had resigned before the new Congress assumed power and the Speaker seat could have been manipulated so the party could get its guy. It could happen at that high a level, we don't tend to follow the rule of the law much in this country anymore - it happened in the Senate with the short-lived Judd replacement and Biden's replacement in Delaware (that is a little different since the named guy is place holder so his son could run in a couple years to replace him.

 

To Council, Mallory's state of the city seemed really strong.

I think it is pretty clear that people place different values on a single, executive office than one seat on a best of nine member board.  I see your point, but I don't think it would play out on a executive level the way it does in a legislature.  Even the Kaufmann pick in lieu of Biden doesn't really play out the way in which you imply.  Kaufmann doesn't inherit any of Biden's committee seats, let alone his seniority, and neither would his son.  The same thing happens in City Council.  The executive, be it the mayor, governor or president, is a different story.  In those places, the things that make a legislator effective aren't as relevant.  Look at the current Governor of New York.  I'd say that the Governor/Lieutenant Governor system is as bad or worse than legislative appointments.

Just heard Amy Murray (GOP-endorsed city council candidate) talking on the latest episode of City Talk Radio about how, in order to bring more people downtown, we need to look into "innovative options" like.... free parking downtown.

 

 

No.

Just heard Amy Murray (GOP-endorsed city council candidate) talking on the latest episode of City Talk Radio about how, in order to bring more people downtown, we need to look into "innovative options" like.... free parking downtown.

 

 

No.

 

I was going to call in, but decided against it.....

 

 

 

Just heard Amy Murray (GOP-endorsed city council candidate) talking on the latest episode of City Talk Radio about how, in order to bring more people downtown, we need to look into "innovative options" like.... free parking downtown.

 

 

No.

 

Soooo innovative.  Although whats interesting is you talk to any suburbanite, and one of the first things they'll tell you is 'downtown has nowhere to park.'  But if we give them something to come to, they'll pay for the parking.  duh. 

I think free parking would be great - in the West End - with a nice affordable streetcar to transport you into the core.

I think free parking would be great - in the West End - with a nice affordable streetcar to transport you into the core.

 

Free parking would be great in West Chester with a nice affordable commuter rail line to transport you into the core. :)

Look, if we hadn't clearly established a precedent whereby folks near the end of their term limits resign so that the party can name someone to get some name reck. for the next election, I'd agree with you. Since that is clearly the current precedent then I'm going to stick with saying it needs to stop.

 

Unfortunately, the Charter Party would like be hurt by this the most and second the GOP, but ah well.

 

Personally, i think that the best way to do this is to prevent the appointee from running in the next election.

 

This is the best solution, if i do say so myself.

Council Candidate Comments on "How to involve citizens in city decision making?"

 

On 8/27/09 Mark Silbersack participated in interviews of Cecil Thomas, Amy Murray, George Zamary, Anitra Brockman, Laketa Cole, and Kevin Flynn.  This was followed on 9/1/09 with interviews of: Bernadette Watson, Greg Harris, Jeff Berding, Charlie Winburn, Chris Monzel, and Nicholas Hollan.  (Due to a schedule conflict, he was unable to attend other candidates' interviews.)

 

Here is his summary of comments by various candidates to the question above.  All the following are paraphrased remarks except where quoted.

 

Brockman:  We need to plan ahead and be more proactive in making budget decisions.  We must "actually talk to residents about what they want."  Combine or share services wherever possible.

 

Cole:  I have an "open door policy"; call me or come in to talk.  We have to speak to citizens about what they think is in their interests, so Council can make better policy decisions.  My recent survey was aimed at helping define what "basic services" are and what budget priorities should be.  "We need to listen."

 

Flynn:  Council needs to hold committee meetings that are more convenient for citizens and seek input on specific issues in a better way that actually encourages input.

 

Harris:  "Restructure government regionally."

 

Monzel:  The City should put all its information on the internet, so full transparency enables residents to see what we are doing and share their ideas with us.  We should "drive decision-making down closer to citizens."

 

Murray:  "We must start with a vision of what's important."  The City should increase its communications with businesses and community councils.  The City should "regionalize whenever it makes sense."

 

Thomas:  We need to have better City communications with our residents.  We can be more "transparent public servants, to create public trust of what we are doing."

 

Watson (former president of N. Avondale Community Council):  We must look to citizens and groups of citizens for policy ideas.  City Hall needs to listen to the 52 neighborhoods. 

 

Winburn:  We could stop having so many referenda if the City just talked more with its citizens, who now feel that "no one is listening to us."  Council needs to "develop a clear, explicit, precise leadership agenda" to help it make policy and budget decisions.  It should engage citizens via nominal group process and focus groups.

 

Zamary:  Look at how we can implement steps taken in Louisville or Indianapolis.

 

This is what passes for political discourse? No wonder we can't get anything done around here.

 

Council Spat: "you never shut up"

By Jane Prendergast • [email protected] • October 26, 2009

 

City residents don't know what their property taxes will be next year, but they're clear on one thing: Councilwomen Leslie Ghiz and Laketa Cole do not get along.

 

I really hope that Ghiz won't be back for another term.  Ever.  She's a sore spot, too outspoken, careless with her words, and does things that are completely inappropriate as a council member.  Get her out of there.

I just hope she's not the vice mayor or something after this run...i can see her coming in first or second in the voting...sadly.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ghiz or Cole...i wouldn't mind seeing both of them removed.  Maybe then we could have more civilized conversations and actually get something done in this city.

I really hope that Ghiz won't be back for another term.  Ever.  She's a sore spot, too outspoken, careless with her words, and does things that are completely inappropriate as a council member.  Get her out of there.

 

I agree completely, except replace the word Cole where you say Ghiz.

I really hope that Ghiz won't be back for another term.  Ever.  She's a sore spot, too outspoken, careless with her words, and does things that are completely inappropriate as a council member.  Get her out of there.

 

I agree completely, except replace the word Cole where you say Ghiz.

 

x2

I've decided not to vote for either of them. They are both unprofessional and make Cincinnati look bad. I saw Cole's TV spot this morning, and she even comes across as arrogant on the TV.

I've recently had the opportunity to hear both of them speak, and my conclusion is Cole is the instigator.  Not to mention, she clearly had her mind set on just using this term as a segway into bigger things in 2 years, since (thankfully) she is term limited. 

 

I also find it interesting that Ghiz was strongly opposed to Issue 9, and essentially called it stupid (specifically, the wording and concept of referendum for decisions council should be making).  Cole seems to be on the fence with it and hasn't made a clear statement about it, because she doesn't want to lose the support of the NAACP and some other interests of hers.

 

The truth is they're both likely to be back, though. 

I've been getting cards in the mail from Cincinnati City Council candidates. Yet, I live in Columbus now. They are addressed to my Columbus address, not forwarded from my old Cincinnati one. I've gotten them from Qualls, Greg Harris and Tony Fischer (2). Why wouldn't their computers reject non-Cincinnati ZIPs, or at least non metro ones? Strange.

^Have you changed your registration from Hamilton County to Franklin yet?  If not, that's the reason you are still getting mailings.

No. But I don't see how they would know my new address.

I've gotten 4 from Qualls and 3 from Fischer in the past 7-8 days. The Board of Elections got my change of address at the very end of September. Wonder if my old address is receiving any...

Berding resigning council seat

By Howard Wilkinson • [email protected] • January 27, 2011

 

 

Jeff Berding, the independent-minded Cincinnati councilman aligned with the fiscally-conservative minority in city council, will resign his seat within the next few weeks.

 

The 44-year-old council member, who was stripped of his Democratic party endorsement two years ago after tangling with Mayor Mark Mallory on a host of city issues, told the Enquirer this morning he needs to concentrate more of his time on his job as the head of Cincinnati Bengals ticket sales.

 

cont

New candidates started reporting their campaign fund raising.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/01/raising-cash-for-council-race/

P.G. Sittenfeld raised $100,000.

Chris Seelbach raised $36,000.

Jason Riveiro raised $5,310

 

New candidates started reporting their campaign fund raising.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/01/raising-cash-for-council-race/

P.G. Sittenfeld raised $100,000.

Chris Seelbach raised $36,000.

Jason Riveiro raised $5,310

 

 

Woah! Sittenfeld! Nice sum of money right out the gate. What do we know about these people? I know a little about Seelbach since he announced after the last election, but I've never heard of the other two.

That seems like an awful lot of money for a first time candidate.  Who's buying him a seat?

^That's a really insulting thing to say.  I understand that this is the internet and that regularly insulting strangers is part of the fun, but there's something to be said for not spreading a rumor that people whom you've never interacted with are corrupt.

 

There are plenty of candidates who have raised $250/$300K first time around.  The fact that this guy got started earlier than other folks speaks more to foresight about the requirements for success than anything else.  Same with the other two guys.

Suspicion does not equal insult.  I never heard of him until that post, which is what had me wondering where that much money came from with so little campaigning being done.  Don't take things so personally.

^I'm looking out for you, pal, not taking things personally.  It's not going to bother me if you ever end up getting sued for defamation. 

 

But between this forum, your web page, and your blog, you clearly are publishing things on a regular basis, so you might want consider not using words so lightly, particularly when they can easily be traced back to you.

There are plenty of candidates who have raised $250/$300K first time around. The fact that this guy got started earlier than other folks speaks more to foresight about the requirements for success than anything else. Same with the other two guys.

 

^ Is this true? I'm not disputing you, but that's a HUGE amount of money-- Laurie Quinlivan for example, raised something around $70,000 in '09.  I'd never heard that anyone had spent $300K on a council race before- but I could be mistaken!

All that information is available at the Hamilton County Board of Elections.  My understanding is that since Phil Heimlich was first elected, that type of money is more common and that generally two to three candidates per cycle will raise in the &200+ range.

^I'm looking out for you, pal, not taking things personally.  It's not going to bother me if you ever end up getting sued for defamation. 

 

But between this forum, your web page, and your blog, you clearly are publishing things on a regular basis, so you might want consider not using words so lightly, particularly when they can easily be traced back to you.

 

It was an honest question.  $100,000 is a lot of money for a first timer, especially to have already.  I'm curious if there's been any big donations.

 

Hell, it seems like a guy I'd probably vote for, just from the quick glance I took at his website.

 

As for publishing things, I stick to this forum to talk about politics.  If I went all out politics on my blog, I'd probably lose half my readers...

 

All that information is available at the Hamilton County Board of Elections.  My understanding is that since Phil Heimlich was first elected, that type of money is more common and that generally two to three candidates per cycle will raise in the &200+ range.

 

I don't think anything has been published yet for this cycle, or else I'm just using it wrong.  The top two candidates each time might surpass $200k, but the majority are right at about $100k. 

 

Again, I'm just surprised Sittenfeld was able to raise that much money before I even heard of his candidacy.

^ technically he had his formal announcement about 3 weeks after posting $105,000.  His father is the former CEO of the Fine Arts Fund (artswave) so I'm sure there are plenty of connections there.  I'm fairly sure PG is 26- he came back from grad school in Oxford 2 years ago after four years at Harvard for his undergrad.

Did anyone see the replay of the March 2nd meeting when Berding went nuts about the right of the Mayor (via the Charter) to set the agenda for the City Council meetings?  Does the Charter give Mallory the ability to leave items off the agenda after they leave committee?

Anyone see the St. Patty's day parade? Any word on the candidates who were there??

This is what I was alluding to the other day.  Berding was being the most obnoxious brat at that March 2nd meeting.  I sure hope he leaves council soon.

 

The Fish Wrap: "Council moves to limit mayor"

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110316/NEWS0108/103170331/Council-moves-limit-mayor?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|News|s

And a WTF image:

 

 

Why is this WTF?  I actually agree with his Veto since only 5 members of council approved it- It was a "rule change" and that requires 6 members to approve it.

I was taking it more on the gloating side of things. He made a media spectacle out of vetoing.

^ ya I'll agree with that- at the same time, it was hist first veto since he was elected- and perhaps, the first veto of a strong mayor ever- Did Charlie Luken ever veto anything?  If not, this is the cities first veto... not a particularly impressive one...

WCPO reports Wayne Lippert is expected to replace Berding.

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/political/Wayne-Lippert%2C-Jr.-to-be-named-as-Jeff-Berding%27s-replacement-on-Cincinnati-City-Council

Lipperts old campaign site

http://lippertforcouncil.com/

He worked for Portman?

Yup- definitely going to be Lippert. 

 

Bortz's former aide Kitt Higgs is Lippert's campaign manager.