Lakewood City Council and the Politics of Exclusion

[Mark Kindt]

Every night I go home and watch Jeopardy and then turn on the "mute" button while the GOP Senate candidates bombard the region with racist tropes that are expressly anti-Hispanic and anti-Chinese.

It is not 1922. One hundred years have passed since the days of the KKK.

Lyndon Johnson got this right. Democrats embrace the idea that civil rights count as a basis for our political process. Who was elected in 2008? Who is our current Vice President?

Open your newspaper and you can read about the GOP attempts to gerrymander the districts in Ohio. It is in the press daily

The Democrats on City Council have the power to exclude Republicans from appointment and do so.

It pains me to think that qualified minority candidates might be intentionally or functionally discriminated here by those who are proud to wear the endorsement of various Democratic Party affiliates.

Folks, I actually read what is written here and at no point has anyone suggested that a single attribute associated with civil rights should be the sole determination for an appointment.

I get all of this -- right from the writing of the U.S. Constitution, through the Civil War, through reconstruction, through Jim Crow, through the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968 right up to this morning.

The manner in which the City Council appoints citizens to vacancies can be more open and transparent and by improving such openness and transparency a greater diversity of applicants might arise.

This is a needed conversation for a community that apparently could not support a talented and well-regarded School Board executive who quickly moved on to a better community.

[David Anderson]

Mr. Kindt wrote, “I read what is written here and at no point has anyone suggested that a single attribute associated with Civil Rights should be the sole determinant for appointment.”

M. Buckley’s initiation of this discussion/thread - the first post on this thread:

“Another opportunity to appoint a person of color.”

“Systematic racism that keeps Lakewood City Council all white needs to end.”

“And it’s shameful that in 2022 that argument needs to be made yet again to Lakewood’s all white City Council.”

“Appoint a person of color.”

[Mark Kindt]

I stand corrected. I've had my say.

The power to appoint is also the power to exclude.

If local elected Democrats or, formerly elected Democrats like yourself, cannot stand firm behind the Democrat Party's historic modern legacy on civil rights and voting rights, then I'm wasting my time voting here for you guys.

[David Anderson]

Mr. Kindt - Now, debating the best ways to continue towards ensuring equal opportunities for those historically marginalized is a debate worth having. I am thankful that you continue to make the process and access to opportunities the primary focus of your posts. As one to has a lived experience as it concerns being appointed to complete a term in March of 2011 as well as participating in process as an elected official to appoint another to complete a term (O'Leary to complete Bullock's term when Tom was elected to At-Large), I'd certain look to react to thoughts you or anyone else had on those situations or potential adjustments.

Councilmember O'Malley was called a racist by M. Buckley in another discussion and M. Buckley extended that attack on him and other members of Council here on this thread. That was the topic on which I intended to engage here but M. Buckley has not had the time or intention to do so.

The ideal shames us all. But repeatedly defaming individuals with no basis of fact is a lot like emptying out a feather pillow from the top of a tall building. Even if someone apologizes or retracts or avoids they can never retrieve all the feathers.

Thank you for engaging, Mr. Kindt.

[Dan Alaimo]

Part of the issue here is that there is one candidate who rises above others in many respects, who happens to be a minority and happens to be female, and happens to have been passed over.

[David Anderson]

LAKEWOOD COUNCIL AT LARGE - November 2021
(VOTE FOR) 3
(WITH 37 OF 37 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
Kyle G. Baker . . . . . . . . . 3,550 16.61
Tom Bullock. . . . . . . . . . 3,610 16.89
Sarah Kepple . . . . . . . . . 4,221 19.74
Tristan Rader . . . . . . . . . 4,134 19.34
Laura Rodriguez-Carbone. . . 3,542 16.57
Mark A. Schneider. . . . . . . . 2,321 10.86
Per Cuy. Co. Board of Elections - nine voters voted for more than three and 4,002 voted for less than three.

LAKEWOOD COUNCIL WARD 01 - Nov. 2019
(VOTE FOR) 1
Tess Neff . . . . . . . . . . 1,797 61.50
Laura Rodriguez-Carbone. . . 1,125 38.50
Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 0
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 169

I wonder if Councilmember Rader would consider resigning his seat to run for Congress (which can only take time and attention away from Lakewood issues) if the other six Council members pledged to appoint Laura Rodriguez-Carbone to fill his unexpired term? Certainly would be noble and honorable and would reflect M. Buckley's call to "Make a difference. Matter. Embrace Diversity. Appoint a Person of Color. Change Lakewood."

[Jim O'Bryan]

Part of the issue here is that there is one candidate who rises above others in many respects, who happens to be a minority and happens to be female, and happens to have been passed over.

Dan

If this had been between two candidates like Laura and Tom, and Tom won. I would agree.

But the problem with Ward One's past races is Laura runs against equally qualified opponents with their own unique skills in different areas. Try this, read their resumes.

I cannot say that Tess, and Kyle are less qualified. I would say both have deeper roots in the city than Laura, and Lakewood seems to prefer friends over knowledge base, in the other wards.

Back to the real question is: Who even bothers coming forward in Ward 4.

I repeat, Lakewood's biggest issue is not diversity on council, it is which camp has the votes on council. One loves residents, all residents. The other wants only cares about monetizing south of Clifton, so their taxes do not go any higher. It has been this way since I was old enough to vote. We know from the past, one side works to make Lakewood better for all, the other sides hopes Lakewood gets better as they make their lives better. One likes open government, and the other lies, destroying the truth faster, better, and way before Trump made it fashionable.

Wake up Lakewood or wherever.

Side note to David Anderson, nice to see you back on, but in the future call out the bullshit in the thread it occurs in please.

peace

[Mark Kindt]

With respect to this thread, I have no idea what really seems to be going on behind the scenes here, especially with regard to Mr. Anderson's most recent post that seems to be launching an intra-Party squabble related to Tristan Rader where two respected Black women are running for a congressional district that is currently the subject of Republican gerrymandering.

Why would he be proposing that Mr. Rader resign his elected council seat?

See what I mean? Time-out guys.

For those local Democrats who carry party endorsements or party-affiliated endorsements, the flavor of your underlying political beliefs as a Democrat simply cannot exclude our party's decades long commitment to civil rights and equal opportunity.

The role of the elected Democrats on City Council is distinct from their role as a Democrat Party political caucus.

As sworn elected officials they have a duty to comply with the state and federal laws related to civil rights and they do not have the power to exclude applicants based on the classes of diversity protected by the civil rights laws.

Separately, and sitting as a Democrat Party political caucus, they do have the limited latitude to pursue the legitimate aims of the county Democrat Party executive committee down into intramural disputes over how issues are best addressed for the public, right down to the ability to exclude applicants based upon categories not protected by the civil rights laws, such as being a Republican.

Ultimately, the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has a long and distinguished history ensuring that the legitimate powers of public office are not abused by exclusionary discriminatory behavior by elected officials even when acting within their "caucus" discretion, for example the systematic exclusion of Republican applicants who are within a protected civil rights category.

These are complex legal issues and the law is constantly evolving, but this is a reasonably accurate description.

[Mark Kindt]

Example -- Protected Class - Age

Example One: A resident 70 years old applies for a vacant city council seat. He opposes the progressive concept of Medicare for all. He is otherwise qualified.

One the record, he is denied appointment because he is "too old". Texts and emails between the deciding public officials mostly imply that he is too old.

This is an example of age discrimination.

Example Two: A resident 70 years old applies for a vacant city council seat. He opposes the progressive concept of Medicare for all. He is otherwise qualified.

On the record, he is denied appointment because he is deemed too conservative on health care policy. Some texts and emails between the deciding officials also imply that he might be too old.

After example one, the deciding officials and/or the public body may face a reasonably viable civil rights case for age-based discrimination.

After example two, the deciding officials and/or the public body may face a similar civil rights case, but a very weak one.

The point here being that the deciding officials in the public body in most cases simply do not have the legal right to exclude an applicant who is a member of a class protected by civil rights laws.

And American civil rights law is designed to penetrate the pretext for exclusion. So, if in example number two he was really excluded because of his age and not his policy opinions, this could be a successful case against the deciding officials or the public body.

[David Anderson]

Respectfully, Jim, if M. Buckley calls individual people racists without a shred of evidence, I will address it in whatever thread in which M. Buckley continues to do so.

[David Anderson]

This is what I see as going on in this thread -

1 - M. Buckley called out individual City Council members as having racist thoughts and deeds because of what he considers a history of appointments that lack diversity.

2 - Others on this thread and elsewhere believe appointing or electing a person of color to City Council should be a point of emphasis.

3 - Councilmember O’Malley stepping down for another position provides an opportunity to address this matter but a qualified and known entity, Ms. Rodriguez-Carbone, does not reside in Ward 4 and is not eligible to be considered for that appointment.

3 - Now, Councilmember Baker seems to have been appointed to finish current Mayor George’s term at least in part due to the fact that he came in fourth in a six candidate race for three seats meaning that Ms. Rodriguez-Carbone might be a logical next choice due to her fifth place finish, although, to Mr. Kindt’s point, the process must be clear and open.

4 - Councilmember Rader declared his candidacy for U. S. Congress (Tristanrader.com) and would rather have that job do than serve on City Council. Councilmember Rader is a strong supporter of Ms. Rodriguez-Carbon’s previous campaigns and offers himself as a champion of progressive politics in Lakewood, throughout Cuyahoga County and the nation.

5 - The solution, which literally came to me while I was reviewing and posting recent election results, seems obvious: Councilmember Rader can resign to run for the job he wants giving Ms. Rodriguez-Carbone, and others, an opportunity to be considered as an appointment to complete Councilmember Rader’s unexpired term and, given the fact that she is the next largest vote earner in the most recent At-Large election, would be a defendable option.

I’m just extending M. Buckley’s initial post, and subsequent supporting posts, at least in theory, by others, to what seems to be a logical conclusion.

[ryan costa]

Are legal immigrants that are not full citizens allowed to vote or hold office in Lakewood? These things vary by locality.

[m buckley]

Contrary to Mr Anderson's assertion, I have NOT called Mr O'Malley or anyone else a racist.

What I have done is point out the fact that although we sport many signs and slogans in Lakewood supporting racial diversity and inclusion, our city council remains all white. In 2022.

I have also asserted that I believe this is the result of systemic racism, a system which values white norms over others, thereby perpetuating exclusion of people of color from positions of power.

Finally, I called on members of city council to end this exclusion. To appoint a person of color to the soon to be open position. They have the power. If I thought those individuals were racist, I would not bother engaging them here.

I am confident that there are many qualified individuals who could and should be encouraged to apply. They may need that encouragement because they may believe their applications would not be highly valued.

Mr O'Brien - I do not view adding a person of color to city council as adding "spice", as you suggest. I value adding experience, skills, and vision.

Mr. O'Malley - You have told us you have appointed a diverse group of individuals to serve on city committees. I hope you will reach out to encourage them to apply for this position and share your esteem for them with your colleagues who will appoint your successor.

[David Anderson]

M. Buckley -

You wrote, “Dan O’Malley did everything within his power over the last two election cycles to ensure that Lakewood City Council remain al all white club.” You continued with “O’Malley and his support of systematic racism…”. How else can a reader take these quotes? Councilmember O’Malley is part of the system as are the other members of Council you called out on this thread: opportunities “always to to the next white person up;” you list individual Council members and “the other two white guys” stating you believe they take steps “to ensure that Lakewood City council remains all white.” These are your words.

Try to distance yourself from them all you wish but the feathers are floating through the air.

Own it, apologize, retract, say you were overcome by your passion to absolve Lakewood from the “stain,” as you put it, and made a bad choice of words. But please don’t try to gaslight me.

[michael gill]

I read those words the same way David Anderson did.

Of course racial diversity in the politics of a diverse city is important. Of course there is power and possibility in the appointment process.

But hollow accusations of racism don't advance the cause.

I applaud Mr. Anderson and Mr. O'Malley for staying in these conversations rather than ignoring them.