Dan Hurley - NewsMakers 09-30-2012 - Second Half on Vimeo

^ So, Quinlivan lays out all the benefits of Issue 4 (saves taxpayers money, allows council members to spend more time working and less time campaigning), and Sittenfeld keeps saying that two-year terms are better because it makes city council members more accountable to the voters. Then, in the last 30 seconds, he admits that he would support four-year terms if we also had a hybrid system between wards and at-large council members. So... if we had wards, he's okay with the council members being "less accountable" for their actions? (Admittedly, they didn't have time to discuss it further.) It seems like an amateur political mistake for Sittenfeld to even make that point.

^I have to agree with Quinlivan - do 1 thing at a time.

At one point Roxanne Qualls said, "Don't let the great get in the way of the good" and I think this is a perfect example of this. Let's pursue 4-year terms and hopefully Sittenfeld will pursue a system with 5 districts and 4 at-large seats on council.

 

What I think Sittenfeld is trying to say is that in a race of nine people it is hard to know who to really trust with four years in office. If you have districts, you have one councilmember who belongs to your region. You can focus on that district and make a very informed decision on him/her and the other 4 at-large members you can vote for.

 

My favorite option would be: 5 districts with 2-year terms and four at-large seats with 4-year terms. The cost of campaigning the districts would pale in comparison to the cost of campaigning the entire city, so the districts could be elected in two-year intervals. This would make sure that the district councilmembers are being held responsible to their specific constituents and it would give the at-large members time to settle down and get things done.

don't like districts. I think people in Cincinnati identify more with their neighborhoods than their police district. I would imagine Oakley would resent being run by Hyde Park & Northside by Clifton, etc.

I'd keep everything at large & maybe upgrade community council status. Luken & Lemmie downgraded the community councils for some reason.

What exactly do you mean by downgraded? I assume that means they hold less power than before, but what powers did they lose?

The thing I like about districts is that it gives all of the neighborhoods someone to contact for neighborhood-specific issues on a city level of government. I think people would be more inclined to vote if there were districts and I think these councilmembers would feel more approachable to everyone in their district. It also gives a voice to places like Kennedy Heights who seems to get very little attention. A councilmember can essentially ignore a large majority of Cincinnati and still get elected and reelected.

 

I'm fine with giving more power to the community councils, but I don't think that districts are a bad idea. It wouldn't take anything away from the community councils.

 

EDIT: Also, I think that regionalism needs to be expanded in the city as well as the county. This would be a great way to start. The districts could facilitate things like transportation planning (light rail, BRT, buses, HSR, streetcars, Eastern Corridor, road expansions, complete streets, etc) that span multiple neighborhoods. Currently no one is responsible for districts of the city and I think that is a shame and part of the reason these things don't happen as quickly as they could.

Good discussion here. I am no fan of Sittenfeld, but his position makes some sense to me (even if I don't agree with it). He looks at 4-year terms as a decrease in democracy and a ward system as an increase. If you abstract democracy into a currency, it makes sense. Give up some in term length (for gains in campaign costs, focus on governing, etc.) and make up for that loss of democracy by increasing it through a ward system.

My experience in Chicago --  with its ward-based system where each alderman has near-dictatorial control over things like business and building permits within his ward -- leaves me very nervous about the idea of any sort of district-based system. If somebody is voting on policies that impact the city at large, then that person should be elected by the city at large.

 

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of strengthening the community councils for neighborhood-specific issues. New York City has an active system of community boards that provide an effective forum for neighborhood concerns, and make for a relatively accessible city government despite New York City's gargantuan size and complicated governing structure.

Reason for supporting districts/wards: Helps remove "money" from politics because you don't have to cover as much area.

 

I happen to agree with some of Sittenfeld's arguments against 4 year terms - removes accountability and potentially delays changes such as the one voters obviously desired in 2011.  With 4 years between elections and continuing our at-large system, council members will be out of sight and out of mind for the electorate.  Council actually gets some news coverage during the run up to the election, which I for one appreciate. In a district/ward system, constituents are much more likely to monitor the actions of their member.

 

I also take issue with Quinliven's statement that council "can't get anything done" during an election year and needs more time for "strategic planning". The Mayor has 4 years and the City Manager has no term limit so it seems like they should be able to get things done and plan strategically.  I fail to see how 4 year terms will somehow make council members "less political."

Yeah... I've always been impressed with the level of civic involvement and access in as large a city as New York. People have great representation through their borough and community boards which can then translate up to at-large city governance. I wonder if such a system would be effective here? Already some community/neighborhood councils are more active and involved than others.

I don't like wards. They can enable strife.

So why doesnt the Senate or the mayor be 4 years?

 

Also, PG is full of crap with his reasons to be against 4 year terms (he only opposes it because he knows with more money than anyone ever he will always win).

 

He says he would rather have wards. HE WILL NEVER propose a ward map or support anyone else's proposal because the second you support a map you piss off someone. The black community strongly opposed wards the last time because there was no way wards could be drawn to where there would always be 4 African American councilmembers. The same would be true today (except at large we have 5 African American councilmembers with 3 living in the same neighborhood. Also, Qualls, Seelbach, Simpson & Sittenfeld all live in what would undoubtedly be one district.

^ Simpson lives in West End, Seelbach lives in OTR, Quinlivan lives in Mt. Lookout (I'm not sure what neighborhoods Qualls and Sittenfeld live in. Hyde Park and ???) Assuming they use police districts as political districts (not sure if that would be the way it works): Qualls/Quinlivan would be in the same district and Simpson/Seelbach would be in the same district. I don't have any idea where Sittenfeld lives, but he would probably run at-large anyway since he performed so well.

Seelbach and Qualls are both in OTR. Qualls lives in the The Emery Center Apartments. Quinlivan lives in Columbia-Tusculum, doesn't she?

 

I think Sittenfeld is Mt. Lookout, though I don't know for sure.

PG lives in the Emery too. So.

 

3 councilmembers live in OTR and one lives in the west end. If someone believes districts would be drawn that split OTR & the West end they are out of their minds.

 

Also, everyone here should note that only one part of the city categorically "wins" by adding districts. The Westside. The Westside would probably have two districts if they are drawn by population.

Wards are bad, bad news.  What do individual neighborhoods need that they're not presently getting (that city government can provide under Ohio law)? 

Good discussion here. I am no fan of Sittenfeld, but his position makes some sense to me (even if I don't agree with it). He looks at 4-year terms as a decrease in democracy and a ward system as an increase. If you abstract democracy into a currency, it makes sense. Give up some in term length (for gains in campaign costs, focus on governing, etc.) and make up for that loss of democracy by increasing it through a ward system.

 

Maybe that's true, but Sittenfeld says he'd be OK with implementing 4-year terms and wards at the same time. So wouldn't that basically be a wash in terms of increasing/decreasing "democracy"?

Wards are bad, bad news.  What do individual neighborhoods need that they're not presently getting (that city government can provide under Ohio law)? 

 

I don't understand the need for wards, and I think it would halt a lot of the progress that has been made in improving the urban core. Cincinnatians voted for a mayor and city council members that have made improving the city's core their top priority, with the understanding that improving the downtown area benefits every neighborhood. With a ward system, I think you'll have council members vying for projects in their specific wards, regardless of what's best for the city as a whole. Yes, every neighborhood needs investment from the city, but we have been able to do that with the current at-large system.

That's right, it increases in-fighting.  Again, what city services do these "neighborhoods" need that they aren't already getting?  Poor areas already get a disproportionate amount of services from the city in the form of increased police protection, which is far and away the city's greatest expense.

Who is advocating for wards?

Sittenfeld, apparently. 

 

Blue Ash has 5 wards plus 4 at-large.  How such a small, homogonous city benefits from wards I don't know.  But again, my question is what neighborhood concerns could be addressed (that cities can actually affect) in Cincinnati by wards that aren't currently?  Things like height limits happened in Mt. Adams without a ward boss. 

 

Also, some people have been elected to council on very small budgets.  Ironic then that it's Sittenfeld calling for wards.     

Wards lead to division and distractions which invariable benefit opportunists. They can increase citizen pressure on invididual councilmen though.

 

It's hard to judge a ward system in Cincinnati without seeing a ward map.

 

 

Ironic then that it's Sittenfeld calling for wards.     

 

It's also interesting that Sittenfeld doesn't support 4-year terms, because that would allow him to serve 10 years on council (his current 2-year term plus two 4-year terms). He would be the only council member to get that benefit.

^I doubt he has any intention of staying on city council that long.

No, Sittenfeld, Seelbach, Young, and Simpson could potentially serve 10 years.

And Smitherman could only serve one more 4-year term because he already served a 2-year term earlier in the decade. 

Yep, you're right. For some reason I was thinking back to Quinlivan explaining it and confused myself. All the newbies can run two more times. And Cecil Thomas is term limited out.

I think a shrinking city needs wards less now than ever. I'm okay with 4 years though 1/2 of Council should be up for a vote every two years. I'd like to see a council of councils - a House of Lords if you will - a mayor could probably do it on his/her own.

 

The only ward system that might work would be three or four multi-member wards.

Allow me to correct my previous post: I was informed tonight by an authority no less authoritative than Dan Hurley that Smitherman can run for two more terms.  It is because apparently our term limit rule applies only to contiguous council terms. 

Smitherman has definitively said he "will be mayor" of the city of cincinnati. You can't run for mayor and council at the same time, and I dont think he's patient enough to wait over 9 years. My guess, he runs in 2017.

He isn't going to win.  Roxanne Qualls is going to win in 2013 and assuming she remains healthy and doesn't leave for something else will win in 2017.  By 2021 all sort of new faces will be in town and no doubt some much stronger candidate will appear. 

I oppose Issue 4.  I like Laure as a city councilor much more than Sittenfeld, but I find her reasons to be disingenuous.  The idea that working and campaigning are opposed strikes me as being ridiculous.  Laure's best work on city council has been her campaigning for the Streetcar.  The dichotomy Laure presents between "work" & "campaigning" isn't going to change with 4 year terms because the City Administration does the "work" and council then votes to approve it or disapprove it and sells it to the voters through their campaigns.  That's not going to change, because it's the administration that has the expertise.

 

The question we should be asking about any political structure has two parts: (1) Does the structure produce the best results and (2) Does it strengthen or hinder democracy (e.g. citizen equality)?  Because Issue 4 doesn't change anything except the length of council terms it doesn't even touch on the first question (which is, does a nine member executive board of a city of 300,000 produce more positive results for the City when compared with other systems?) and it strikes me as negatively impacting democracy.  If you think the present system, where Charlie Winburn keeps coming back and an obviously unqualified kid like Sittenfeld are able to get elected, having 4 year terms isn't going to get any new or less well connected blood in there.

 

Finally, a word about Erie Avenue in Hyde Park and all those storms we had over the summer.  The City has been fixing up streets and squares left and right, and each time they leave them in great shape and utterly over-engineered.  I've feel that blinking red stop lights are far more efficient than the myriad rules and oddly timed signals you get in Mt. Lookout or Oakley Square (not to mention the infuriating downtown mid-block red lights you on Sunday mornings).  When Erie Avenue between the Square & Madison was given a pointless turn lane, the people there bitched so much and so effectively that the City switched it back.  I think that we need more citizen input and responsibility, and I don't see Issue 4 moving that forward at all.  That's why I think a lot smaller wards could actually improve the City if they are structured to give citizens opportunities to get involved, even if just by being better able to contact their representative.

You just argued that under 9 at large seats Council responds well to citizen concern, then you said we should do wards so that 8 of the 9 councilmembers might say, "I don't care about hyde park, they don't vote for me, why do we keep spending money to repaint their streets when they're already doing great, people in MY district just want their streets painted ONCE not over and over".  Just playing devils advocate on the ward system.

 

Also, I feel like the idea that raising money for reelection and campaigning to building support among constituents for important issues (like the streetcar) are the same couldn't be further from the truth.  Getting called every two years to give hundreds of dollars each to 9 different democrats running for council is pretty crazy.  The fact that all of them have to keep having fundraisers with rich people (or moderate income people) all the time to raise $100-300k every other year seems to be a huge waste of money and time.

Also the main argument for the 4 year terms is stability for long-term projects.  With council shuffling every 2 years we never knew if we were going to have the votes for the streetcar.  If the mayor terms hadn't changed to 4 years, the streetcar wouldn't be happening, period. 

Cincinnati Herald endorsed a no vote on Issue 4. Their explanation:

 

Cincinnati Issue 4 seeks to change the terms of City Council members from two years to four years. What? We only have to go back a few years to remember several dysfunctional city councils where we went to sleep at night saying, “At least we only have to deal with this group for two years, then we can vote them out.” Issue 4 virtually ensures that the citizens will have less input into their government. Council members are the closest contact voters have with their government. Issue 4 removes the incentive of council members to interact with citizens on a regular basis.

 

Further, it will increase the cost of council campaigns. Proponents of this measure will tell you it will reduce the cost of elections. If true, it would be the first time in recorded history. The fact of the matter is that the cost will increase and the chances for minority candidates will decrease. We find it remarkable that this City Council would put such a measure on the ballot and include themselves. This is the clearest sign that this is a selfserving.

 

Please remember that members of Congress must face voters every two years. Members of the Ohio House of Representatives must face voters every two years. City Councilmembers should continue to face voters every two years.

 

http://www.thecincinnatiherald.com/news/2012-10-27/News/The_Cincinnati_Heralds_Endorsements_for_the_2012_E.html

By "congress" they mean the house of representatives.  Likewise, the Ohio house is part of a bicameral legislature.  Cincinnati City Council is quite obviously not one half of a bicameral governing body. 

You just argued that under 9 at large seats Council responds well to citizen concern, then you said we should do wards so that 8 of the 9 councilmembers might say, "I don't care about hyde park, they don't vote for me, why do we keep spending money to repaint their streets when they're already doing great, people in MY district just want their streets painted ONCE not over and over".  Just playing devils advocate on the ward system.

 

I didn't mean for you to draw this conclusion from what I wrote.  I was talking about words in the context of democracy, in getting citizens involved in shaping and making (albeit small-bore) decisions for their neighborhoods.

 

Also, I feel like the idea that raising money for reelection and campaigning to building support among constituents for important issues (like the streetcar) are the same couldn't be further from the truth.  Getting called every two years to give hundreds of dollars each to 9 different democrats running for council is pretty crazy.  The fact that all of them have to keep having fundraisers with rich people (or moderate income people) all the time to raise $100-300k every other year seems to be a huge waste of money and time.

 

I don't really get why moving from 2 year terms to 4 year terms is supposed to change the amount of money spent on elections.  Yes, they'll be fewer elections held, but the constituency is still the same.  So you still have to run the same race, which would imply the same amount of money.  Except now, prospective candidates will only get a shot half as often, potentially increasing the amount of money spent, because there are fewer chances to break in.

 

If you don't like people spending money to run for office, wards, and more of them, are the only way to fix it.  Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on tv when your constituency is no longer the City but rather a neighborhood (or something like)?

 

Also the main argument for the 4 year terms is stability for long-term projects.  With council shuffling every 2 years we never knew if we were going to have the votes for the streetcar.  If the mayor terms hadn't changed to 4 years, the streetcar wouldn't be happening, period.

 

I disagree with this analysis.  The project had it's greatest amount of support at the beginning.  When the streetcar project was in its initial phases at the beginning of Mallory's term, only Monzel was openly against it, and only Cranley was actively hostile.  The slow erosion of support and loss of Ghiz and Berding was much more because of personality conflicts on council.

 

Live by 4 years, die by 4 years.  If the previous council had had 4 year terms, there was an actual majority to kill the project, and a couple of recent votes (Duke, Car Barn) with which to do it.

 

Bottom line for me is that I don't think the change will enhance either 1) the success of council or 2) citizen participation. 

I just thought of something which would be a big downside to 4 year terms, and that is appointments. I hate when someone gets appointed to council without a vote (which is sort of what created the anti-streetcar majority PAlex speaks of), and it would really irk me to see someone on there for upwards of 2 or 3 whole years who wasn't elected.

^ Pretty sure that if an appointment is in the first two years of a term there has to be an election for that open seat (for a two year term) at the next election. If it's after the two year mark of a four year term, they stay (which is essentially how it is now). 

 

I would have been VERY supportive of staggered four year terms, but I am still generally supportive of the current plan. I don't plan to champion it really, but I did vote last week.

 

I would also be very opposed to wards or adding more council members. Downtown would get way less investment if we went to all wards.  Also, if we did go to wards, it should be as few large wards as possible.  If we had 10 or 12 wards council would be a disaster. Nitpicking every single transportation or economic development project because it doesnt help "my district".  Perhaps if we did 6 wards and 3 at large seats I could see it being reasonable.  With wards though, there's virtually no chance a streetcar would still be on the table right now.

Exactly.  And the streetcar wouldn't be happening if not for the 1999 move to the independently elected mayor with 4-year terms.

 

We did the subway with a mix of wards and at-large, but the Rapid Transit Loop plan was so big that many wards were directly affected.  And those that the tracks didn't travel through directly got better interurban service.  But all of that was moot in a machine-run city -- the business community got the machine to do the subway and so it happened.  Then the charter reforms happened mid-construction and they stalled the project intentionally in order to embarrass the machine. 

I'm sort of surprised that so many people on this board think a priori that adding more representatives would mean more poor decisions.  While the independent mayor probably did lead to sticking with the streetcar project, the reason it faced the hurdles and dwindling council support that it did was the result of 1) the ability to directly make charter amendments, and 2) politicians like Smitherman using it as an issue to increase visibility.  Have you considered that perhaps the difference between the council term and mayoral term was just as essential to the success of the Streetcar?  I don't know if it was, but if you're argument is that the Streetcar is an example of Council + Mayor at its best, then logically one wouldn't want to disrupt the system that produces the optimal result.

 

Second, the situation we had before the strong mayor, where the mayor was the top vote-getter, was an unmitigated disaster.  And it only existed for about ten years, and was done in order to prevent less scrupulous council members from blocking out others.  Prior to the Luken-Blackwell alliance, being Mayor had little relevance and was shared every two years or so.  Food for thought.

Longer terms, better council

 

Otto Budig is a Cincinnati philanthropist and president and owner of Budco Group Inc.

 

Whether you are voting for national, state or regional Issues, Nov. 6, 2012 will be the catalyst for change.

 

And one of the most important changes for our community is the passage of Issue 4, giving the opportunity for our City Council members to hold office for four years.

Cincinnati NAACP President and anti-Issue 4 Councilman Chris Smitherman has a NAACP member with megaphone outside the BOE urging No vote on Issue 4. Not sure if there is anyone passing out for/against literature. Like yesterday, there are hundreds in line.

Cincinnati NAACP President and anti-Issue 4 Councilman Chris Smitherman has a NAACP member with megaphone outside the BOE urging No vote on Issue 4. Not sure if there is anyone passing out for/against literature. Like yesterday, there are hundreds in line.

ugh, that's gotta make standing in line pleasant.

So, how does the 100' rule work with sound?

Chris Smitherman's facebook messages are a thing of beauty.  Conspiracy, insanity, and hyperbole with a touch of egotism. 

http://www.facebook.com/christopher.smitherman.7?fref=ts

 

For instance,

 

We have one more day to Early VOTE. I suggest you take a vacation day to go to the Board of Election to vote today. If you are in line by 2pm they will allow you to vote no matter the length of the line. THE LINE COULD EXTEND TO THE BANKS OF THE OHIO RIVER AT 2pm and voting will continue all night. Get in line now and continue to vote early. 1 more day! Politics 101.

 

 

At some point, this Smitherman/COAST Coalition will dissolve badly and publicly.  Just Too many egomaniacs to co-exist peacefully.

"Politics 101"

 

groan

Chris Smitherman's facebook messages are a thing of beauty.  Conspiracy, insanity, and hyperbole with a touch of egotism. 

http://www.facebook.com/christopher.smitherman.7?fref=ts

 

For instance,

 

We have one more day to Early VOTE. I suggest you take a vacation day to go to the Board of Election to vote today. If you are in line by 2pm they will allow you to vote no matter the length of the line. THE LINE COULD EXTEND TO THE BANKS OF THE OHIO RIVER AT 2pm and voting will continue all night. Get in line now and continue to vote early. 1 more day! Politics 101.

 

 

At some point, this Smitherman/COAST Coalition will dissolve badly and publicly.  Just Too many egomaniacs to co-exist peacefully.

 

Why is everyone so intent on voting early? I live in the middle of OTR and have never waited in line on election day.  Even during the 2008 election there were maybe 2 or 3 other people voting the entire time I was.

I've had the same experience as you. And I'm tired of everyone telling me to vote early. I'm voting tomorrow morning, damnit!

 

But I've got co-workers and friends in other parts of the city (inside and outside of Cincinnati city-limits) who have experience very long lines in the early morning and after work and they don't have the privilege of being late for or leaving work early.

Issue 4 narrowly passed. We're going to 4-year terms.

 

COAST and Smitherman are having a bad night, which pleases me to no end.