Charter Issues on the Ballot - Watch Out!

[Lynn Farris]

Mark T. posted the language on the Charter Issues on the Ballot elsewhere. I'm taking the liberty of copying his since they are all part of the public domain.

57 CITY OF LAKEWOOD
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

Shall the Charter of the City of Lakewood, Article XI, Section 3, Classified and Unclassified Service, of the Second Amended Charter, (C) Classified and Unclassified Service be amended to specifically list those employees that will be included in the unclassified service?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58 CITY OF LAKEWOOD
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

Shall the Charter of the City of Lakewood, Article II, Section 5, of the Second Amended Charter be amended to establish the Mayor’s salary by Ordinance; Article III, Section 3, be amended to provide that Council salaries be established by Ordinance; Article XI, Section 7 be amended to require that the Civil Service Commission shall review and submit a written report to Council setting forth recommendations for the salary and other compensation for the offices of Mayor and members of Council?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59 CITY OF LAKEWOOD
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

Shall the Charter of the City of Lakewood, Article III, Section 9, of the Second Amended Charter be amended to require that any Ordinance or Resolution (a) providing for an increase in the rate of municipal income tax or (b) providing for a reduction in the resident income tax credit shall not become effective until Council submits the ordinance or resolution to the electorate and such ordinance or resolution is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon?


Issue 59 I think is controversial because it is unclear to voters what they are giving up. Of course they want to keep these rights, but what the language doesn't tell you is what is being omitted.

The real language of the charter is as follows:

SECTION 9. VOTER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS.
Any ordinance or resolution listed below in paragraph (a) through (e) shall not become effective, after passage thereof, until Council submits such ordinance or resolution to the electorate at a regular Municipal or general election occurring more than 60 days after the passage of the ordinance or resolution, and such ordinance or resolution is approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon in the City;
(a) one providing for an increase in the rate of municipal income tax charged on taxable income within the City under the municipal income tax provisions;
(b) one providing for a reduction in the resident income tax credit for residents of the City under the municipal income tax provisions;
(c) one providing for an increase in the basic water rates charged before any exemption for water customers in excess of any cost increase incurred by the City from the City of Cleveland or any other entity supplying water to the City;
(d) one providing for an increase in the water customer service charge for water customers;
(e) one providing for an increase in the salary of the Mayor, or any member of Council in any capacity.

Now whether you are for or against the issue, I think people should have a right to know what they are voting on. In my way of thinking this is downright sneaky.

By voting for this issue, they give up the right to vote for an increase in the basic water in excess of the amount incurred by the City and an increase in the water customer service charge. We already have one of the highest water rates and we just voted to allow the city to use the money set aside for the sewers for other things.

[stephen davis]

Lynn,

You, of all people should know that there was nothing "sneaky" about this. I take exception to your comment. All proposed amendments were discussed and debated thoroughly by the Charter Commission. All meetings were public, and invited public participation.

After extensive review, it was the consensus of citizens of the Charter Commission that these we present these amendments.

I have been involved in two charter reviews. Every element of Lakewood's city charter has been voted on by the people at one time or another. To achieve a better functioning government, any suggested change is against a previous vote, and subject to a new vote. Otherwise, there would be no point to the charter reviews mandated by our charter.

Your comments are reactionary, inaccurate, and demeaning to the process, AND your fellow Charter Commission members.

Voters do not get a fair view when somebody that knows better calls this very public process "sneaky".

Steve

[Lynn Farris]

59 CITY OF LAKEWOOD
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

Shall the Charter of the City of Lakewood, Article III, Section 9, of the Second Amended Charter be amended to require that any Ordinance or Resolution (a) providing for an increase in the rate of municipal income tax or (b) providing for a reduction in the resident income tax credit shall not become effective until Council submits the ordinance or resolution to the electorate and such ordinance or resolution is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon?

Steve do you honestly think that someone that votes for this knows that they are voting to do away with the opportunity to vote on the water rates, the water service rates?

I in no way mean to demean you or any other charter member and I certainly apologize if you think I have. I sincerely believe that all of the members are hard working and care a great deal about Lakewood even if we differ in opinions. But I have tested this and no one - even people that know all about the water rates realize that this is the issue.

I don't - what they think they are voting on is the right to vote on an increase in the municipal income tax and on the reduction in the resident income tax credit.

While I know you and I don't see eye to eye on this issue, my major complaint is the way that it is worded someone going to the polls doesn't know what they are getting rid off. Can you honestly say that most of them will?

[stephen davis]

Lynn,

Do you honestly think that people understand that not passing this will actually cost them more tax dollars? Do you think the language of this issue fully describes what happens when the city cannot build a fund to repair water infrastructure? Does it explain that when the EPA requires a sewer repair, and a street has to be dug up, and there is no fund for water line maintenance while it's all open, and the street is finished, and the water line breaks, and you have to open up that street AGAIN, and resurface the street AGAIN, that we all just spent way too much money twice on the same problem?

Does the language define representative government? I think I'd rather have elected officials and experts in water delivery decide what should be fixed, rather than have to pay for a special election every time Wyandotte, Edgewater, Belle, or Hopkins has a need for water line repair. Do you honestly think ALL of our residents have a comprehensive knowledge of remedies for water line repair?

I want flexible, timely, and economically efficient repairs to our infrastructure.

We get to vote for our government. If government doesn't perform, we get another chance to vote.

It seems, Lynn, that you not only don't trust politicians (I understand that.), but you don't even trust voters to vote for representative government. So much for the little guy like me that doesn't have the time to study the plumbing under Arthur Avenue. I kinda want somebody else to look in to that for me. If they take care of it without doing the job twice, I'll be satisfied.

Some of the charter provisions that these amendments address were ill conceived, and have had a very negative impact on our infrastructure and representation. I doubt that those consequences were spelled out in their ballot language.

Remember, we Charter Commission members did not write the language that appears on the ballots. This is what happens after it goes through Council, the Law Department, and the Board of Elections. We do, though, understand the positive intent of these amendments. We also understand that this was a public process.

When you say, "...my major complaint is the way that it is worded someone going to the polls doesn't know what they are getting rid off [sic]. Can you honestly say that most of them will?", I think, honestly, most of them don't know they are getting rid of wasteful and duplicate expenses for repairs to water and street infrastructure by voting for Issue 59.

I endorse all three amendments. You know that the majority of the Charter Commission members would also.

Steve

[Lynn Farris]

I'd like to propose a challenge to all fair minded individuals.

Take the language of this proposed Charter Amendment to 5 people not associated with the city or the Charter Review. They can have PHds, they can be active with the city.

Ask them if they know by voting on this that they are in fact giving up their rights to vote on water increases or service increases.

I venture to say the answer will be no. My own test with bright (advanced degreed) civicly active individuals was oh, of course we want the opportunity to vote on any increase in taxes. Not one of the people I talked to understood that what they were voting on wasn't new language giving them more rights but taking away rights.

I am well aware that the Charter commission didn't author the language for the ballot. But when the language is so unclear, that reasonable intelligent people don't understand it - there is something wrong.

I trust the people of Lakewood to be able when presented with clear information to make a good decision. The citizens of Lakewood have proved that time and time again.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Lynn,

It seems, Lynn, that you not only don't trust politicians (I understand that.)...Steve

Wow, common ground!

Now that's something you two can build on.

I know you were not speaking of Lakewood politicians.

Continue.


.

[stephen davis]

Butt out O'Bryan!

I'd rather you go back to censoring something than suffer your gratuitous diplomacy.

Steve

[Lynn Farris]

Gee and I thought we were getting to common ground.

[stephen davis]

Lynn,

I think the problem here is that you have the wrong language for Issue 59. I have been working from hard copy on this for the past week. My understanding is that the Board Of Elections has posted incorrect language for this issue on their website.

I just checked. Yours matches theirs. Apparently they have not yet posted a correction.

I have typed the following from hard copy that I have. I hope that it is accurate, AND that I have typed it accurately.

I hope that a City or County official will verify this. Any Council members? Mayor?

My endorsement of this is based on this language, and all of my positions still stand. You will see that taxes are still subject to voter approval.

I hope that you, with proper verification of this text, will amend your posts to the other on-line forum in town, and consider endorsing this issue.


ISSUE 59

Shall Article III Section 9, of the Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood, Ohio be amended to retain voter approval of income tax rates and credits, or any change thereto, but permit City Council to adopt ordinances and resolutions pertaining to basic water rates and service charges, and to salary adjustments for the Mayor or any member of City Council?


Steve

[Stan Austin]

Lynn--- The language for Issue 59 as it appears on the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections web site is incorrect.
Mary McGraw of our law department notified the board of this error two weeks ago and was told that it would take about 2 weeks to correct it.
The language supplied by Steve in his last post is correct.

Stan Austin

[Bill Call]

Vote no on issue 57. No one seems to know what it means or how it affects City government.

Vote no on issue 58. The Mayor currently appoints that Civil Service Commission. He will appoint the people who will determine his salary. This is a clear conflict of interest.

If the Mayor and council want a raise they should put the issue to the voters. Allowing the bureaucrats to determine their own salaries is an invitation to abuse.

Vote no on issue 59. If a water rates need to be increased to finance water projects the City can detail the proposed projects and their costs and bring the issue to the voters. That way there will be a least a little bit of over site and accountability.

The City is now using water funds to cover the costs of other departments. Allowing an unlimited increase in water rates will allow the City to finance the general fund through the water system.

The language in these issue is designed to conceal their true purpose.

[stephen davis]

Bill,

I was a member of the Charter Commission. I was also a member of the Citizens Government Task Force, which was the previous charter review.

I was nominated by a very diverse group of council members, Fitzgerald, Dunn, and Demro. As you may know, that is a very abstract group to be recommended by. They all knew that they wouldn't agree with some of what I might say or want to address. They also knew that I wouldn't be beholden to anybody, and that I would not use my position to attain elected office. They also knew that I would take a long, and probably unconventional, look at Lakewood's future relative to the mechanics of the city charter.

I've had the pleasure of spending hundreds of hours discussing the nuances of Lakewood's future and government with diverse and intelligent commission members, elected officials, appointed officials, and thoughtful members of the public.

The process is a challenge. The commission invites elected officials, department heads, and the public to speak to issues in the charter that affect the mechanics of government. The commission also investigates a lot of "What if...?" type of scenarios, based on how the charter should address future changes or pressures from inside and outside of the city. The research for solutions may be from local, regional, state or national sources. There is a dynamic debate process. Interestingly, the debates are about issues and positions, not individuals. For example, the Mayor is just the Mayor (Not George, Cain, Harbarger, Sinagra, etc.), except for historical context. The bias is toward the future.

Through my experience, I have found that to have the most efficient and flexible city government, solutions often ride a fine line between having faith in that government, and demanding protections from it.

These charter amendments make sense in the context of our work, and I endorse them.



NOW, TO COMMENT ON YOUR COMMENTS:

Issue 57:

"No one seems to know what it means or how it affects City government.?"

We, as a commission decided that some city employee positions should be unclassified. For example, we thought that the Mayor should be free to hire some staff, like secretary, assistant or engineer. If a position is classified, each Mayor may forever have the previous Mayor's immediate staff. We thought that might be an unreasonable restriction in some cases.

Issue 58:

"He will appoint the people who will determine his salary. This is a clear conflict of interest."

We determined that, under the Council/Mayor form of government, that salaries, especially that of the Mayor, should be raised to ensure the quality of candidate pools for future elections. We wanted a system to determine appropriate raises. We proposed to give the Civil Service Commission the authority to make salary recommendations to City Council. City Council would have the authority to consider the Civil Service Commission's recommendation, and then to make the ultimate decision. This was a solution that provided protection from "conflict of interest". By the way, the mayor and council would not receive a raise in their current term.

Issue 59:

"If a water rates need to be increased to finance water projects the City can detail the proposed projects and their costs and bring the issue to the voters."

Au contraire. Here is a case where our system does not allow flexible and efficient repairs to water infrastructure, OR long term planning. The idea of vote as you go is expensive and unnecessary. I've covered this in previous posts.

Our current system may also put us in some jeopardy with some bonding agencies.

FINAL COMMENTS:

I grew up in the Watergate era. I have many concerns about what might be an "invitation to abuse", but in a representative government, we should not protect ourselves out of flexible and efficient delivery of necessary services.

As a suggestion to everyone, I offer that you should concentrate more effort into the election of qualified, honest, and visionary candidates. Contact your representatives and use your vote.

Bill, the language was not designed to conceal a completely open process. Your comments do not do justice to long and comprehensive examination of these issues. Mine only scratch the surface.

If someone really wants to take issue with Council, don't scrap these good government issues brought by the public. Better that you should ask what happened to the volume of charter recommendations that they chose to ignore.

Steve

[Mark Timieski]

On issue 57:

Will the mix of classified/unclassified employees be changed due to this issue?

Does a current list of classified and unclassified employees currently exist?

Will the charter be updated in an ongoing basis with employee names, and/or positions?

Is there a process for becoming classified or unclassified?

I think I understand the intent of the issue, I’m just curious how it will be implemented.

[stephen davis]

Mark,

I hesitate to even respond. You're really taxing my memory on this one. I have no reference in front of me. What I can tell you is that there are very, very few unclassified city employees. We were amazed. The classified list was so long that we wondered who wasn't. We had to ask.

Maybe somebody else knows better and can jump in here.

I think the Law Director and a couple assistants may be examples of unclassified employees. Don't quote me.

Classified and Unclassified positions would not be named in the charter, and would probably be defined by ordinance or Civil Service.

You were at a number of our meetings. I'm surprised that you don't remember.

I'll bet you were disappointed that your work on election procedure did not show up on this ballot. I fully supported that. Sounds like a good future project to trot out to Council. Let me know if you need help.

Steve

[stephen davis]

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has posted the corrected Issue 59 language on their website.

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/issues/municipal.htm