Issue 6 approved: A new government for Cuyahoga County

Voters have reacted to two years of corruption and patronage scandals by throwing out every Cuyahoga County elected official. They approved Issue 6, a charter that creates a new form of government, with 66 percent of the vote.

We'll elect a county executive and an 11-member county council next year in a Sept. 7 primary and the Nov. 2 general election. The new charter will take effect Jan. 1, 2011.

The vote was overwhelming: Issue 5, the county commissioners' alternative plan to appoint a charter commission, failed with 72 percent of the vote. The Issue 5 side's vagueness about how they would reform government proved fatal. Their message failed to even make much of a dent in the 75 percent support for Issue 6 in a July poll.

Tim Hagan is on WMJI's Lanigan & Malone this morning, saying the vote for 6 shows how much power corporate political donors and Plain Dealer editor Susan Goldberg now have in Cleveland. Hagan complained the paper's county coverage was biased, and John Lanigan and Chip Kullik agreed that the PD's Oct. 2 headline about Hagan was misleading, which it was. But blaming the PD and business leaders for the new charter disrespects the voters. Hagan got it right later in the hour when he added that voters changed the government because they were disgusted with the behavior of some of their elected officials.

Everyone knows the biggest reason voters want reform: federal prosecutors are investigating Jimmy Dimora and suspect Frank Russo of stealing $1.2 million in cash. No one else in the current government noticed anything was wrong, and no one can fire Russo or Dimora now.

Hagan noted the charter will usher in a huge change in Greater Cleveland: the new county executive will be the most powerful elected official in the region, even more than the newly re-elected Cleveland mayor. Who might run for county executive? Jimmy Malone kept dropping Chris Ronayne's name. Hagan, perhaps thinking of Brent Larkin's August column on the subject, mentioned Gund Foundation head Dave Abbott.

Big leads for Issue 6, Mayor Jackson in early voting

A plan for a new Cuyahoga County goverment has a 2-1 lead in results from early voting, and Mayor Frank Jackson leads challenger Bill Patmon by almost 4-1, just-posted results from the board of elections show.

Issue 6, which would create a county executive and 11-member county council, has 102,000 votes for it and 53,000 against in the absentee ballot results. The competing Issue 5, which would create a charter commission to write a different reform plan, is losing more than 2-1, or 45,000 yes to 107,000 no.

Frank Jackson is out to a huge lead, 23,700 votes to 6,300, in his bid for a second term as mayor.

Most Cleveland city council members have solid leads, with three exceptions.

Former state Sen. Jeff Johnson is ahead of recent council appointee Shari Cloud in Glenville's Ward 8. Councilman Brian Cummins is somewhat ahead of Rick Nagin in Ward 14 on the near west side. Phyllis Cleveland in the Central neighborhood's Ward 5 is ahead of challenger Pernel Jones by only 35 votes. Each race could affect whether council president Martin Sweeney holds onto his job.

Absentee ballot totals can be a good early guide to where an election is going -- and now that it's so easy to vote by mail in Ohio, they make up a lot of the total vote.

Complete results aren't expected in Cuyahoga County until early morning.

Election Day advice on Issues 5 & 6

Tomorrow is Election Day, and the big issue in Cuyahoga County is Issue 6, which would replace the county government with an elected executive and 11-member council.

Here are links to the charter Issue 6 would establish, a two-page summary of it, and my tongue-in-cheek 500-word edit of it.

If you want a county executive and council:
-Vote Yes on 6.
-Vote No on Issue 5, which would establish a charter commission to write a different proposal.
-And, just in case 5 passes anyway, vote for the charter commission candidates on the Citizens Reform Association slate, most of whom support the ideas in 6.

If you don't like 6, but you want reform:
-Vote No on 6.
-Vote Yes on 5.
-Then split your vote between the two charter commission slates, so that the Citizens Reform candidates, who want to go farther with reform, will push the vaguer candidates from Real Reform Done Right to propose major change. (See this earlier post for why I'm giving this advice.)

For my coverage of the City Club debates about 5 and 6, click here and here. To read county treasurer Jim Rokakis' case against 6 and University Circle president Chris Ronayne's case for it, click here.

One more thing: if you're going to vote for candidates for the charter commission Issue 5 would create, take a list of your choices to the polls with you. The ballot doesn't list which slate they're on, or their party affiliation -- just 29 names. You've got to read about them beforehand. Short bios of all the candidates, by slate, are here and here. It's OK to take notes with you when you vote.

The polls are open 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday. To look up your voting location and see a sample ballot for your precinct, click here.

Rokakis and Ronayne on Issue 6

I recently asked Jim Rokakis and Chris Ronayne their opinions of Issue 6 -- whether we should replace Cuyahoga County's government with an executive and council.

Neither has been quoted much in the 5 vs. 6 debate, but I thought their opinions would interest a lot of voters. Thanks to his work on the foreclosure crisis and the county land bank, Rokakis (left) has emerged as the most innovative elected official in county government. He favored good-government reform before it was a trend in Cleveland: he's given his treasurer's office employees civil service protection. Ronayne (right) has also developed a reputation for new, inventive ideas, first as as former mayor Jane Campbell's chief of staff and chief planner, now as president of University Circle, Inc. Rokakis opposes Issue 6; Ronayne supports 6.

Rokakis says he attended some early meetings of the group that wrote the Issue 6 charter. "I was discouraged by the lack of inclusiveness," he says. "The first two meetings I was in on were all white men." It's a common argument from Issue 5 supporters, who think a charter commission is a more democratic way to reform government than a charter by initiative petition.

"I kept insisting two items be addressed that were critical: money and politics," Rokakis recalls. Campaign finance reform had to be part of a new county charter, he argued. "The county offices are the only offices that have no limits on contributions." It's perfectly legal for a single donor to give a county-wide candidate $25,000 -- or more. Also, "I railed about this issue of raising money from employees." (Under pressure from Issue 5 supporters, prosecutor Bill Mason recently promised to return up to $100,000 in contributions from his own staff.)

Rokakis argued that all county employees should be classified as non-political civil service professionals, prohibited from donating to their bosses' campaigns or volunteering for them. "If you want to reduce the number of employees in county government, hire the best employees possible and remove politics from their hiring," he argues.

The county treasurer's concerns didn't faze the Issue 6 charter writers. Only this fall, under pressure from the Issue 5 side, have they promised that a new government would regulate campaign finance.

"I also insisted you cannot have a large county council," Rokakis says. "It would become balkanized." He thought the proposed charter's 11 councilpeople elected by district were too many, and that some ought to be elected county-wide, so they could rise above geographic disputes.

Parma Heights Mayor Martin Zanotti, a leader of the Issue 6 effort, argued otherwise, Rokakis says. "[Zanotti's response was,] we need black votes. We have to go to the black community and say, 'You’re going to have all this representation.'" (The county council boundaries were drawn to create four black-majority districts.)

Rokakis thinks Issue 6 is a recipe for new political conflicts. "Most of what [the county] does is fairly set in stone. People talk about making this the new economic development engine. The fact is, the county is a large social service agency. Are we going to start to politicize decisions about that?"

Chris Ronayne disagrees. The 11 council districts in Issue 6 "lend themselves to collaboration across city borders and ward boundaries," argues the former Cleveland and Cuyahoga County planner. "They’re drawn large enough that they can create cooperation."

A single county executive can offer a "one-stop shop for economic development," Ronayne argues. He also thinks a county with an assertive charter government can help create buying power for governments purchasing services, by bargaining for itself and smaller local governments.

Ronayne says county government badly needs the separation of powers Issue 6 would create. Right now, the three county commissioners are the executive and legislature -- and the public rarely sees their decision-making process. Their meetings are mostly a long string of unanimous votes.

"You need a check and balance," he says. In the Issue 6 charter, he says, "The check on the executive is council, to help support economic development and administer human services, and be a budget monitor that you need in a normal system of government -- which we haven’t had with the county."

Ronayne, a co-chair of the Issue 6 campaign, says he's liked the idea of a county executive and council for 13 years, ever since the day he was hired to be a county planner. As he sat at a meeting, waiting for the commissioners to approve his hiring, he listened to political science professor Kathleen Barber present her 1996 reform panel's plan for an executive and council. The commissioners shot it down.

"It’s well past time," Ronayne says. "What’s happened since then is, we've lost 100,000 jobs."

(To read my 2007 feature about Jim Rokakis and his personal connection to the foreclosure crisis, click here. To read Andy Netzel's 2008 Cleveland Magazine profile of Ronayne, click here.)

The Issue 5 dilemma: You don't know what you'll get

I think Issue 5 supporters have made a big mistake, and I suspect they're going to pay for it at the polls next week. Their charter commission candidates, the "Real Reform Done Right" slate, won't say what kind of new government they want for Cuyahoga County.

I've gone to all three City Club debates about Issues 5 and 6 (see here and here), and I've talked to Peter Lawson Jones and interviewed slate members Harriet Applegate and Ron Johnson -- and still, I can only guess at what kind of government we'll likely end up with if the pro-5 side wins. They've been maddeningly vague.

Whatever your opinion about Issue 6, it has the advantage of clarity. You know what you're getting if it passes next Tuesday: a county executive and an 11-member council elected by district. You can read the 11,700-word proposed charter. (And I can satirically summarize it.)

In theory, the charter commission Issue 5 proposes is a perfectly respectable way to create a new government. It's like a constitutional convention for Cuyahoga County: We vote for 15 well-regarded citizens to write a charter for us, then vote yes or no on their proposal next year.

The problem is, Issue 5 was explicitly placed on the ballot as an alternative to Issue 6. So the Yes on 5, No on 6 supporters owe it to us to say not just what kind of government they're against, but what kind of government they're for.

Their slate should've run on a platform sketching out an outline of a government that they think would be better than both the current government and the Issue 6 charter. Then we would've had two new ideas to choose from, rather than a county executive form of government versus a foggy, uncertain promise of change.

That's why 6 supporters deride the charter commission as a "study group," and why a Plain Dealer editorial called "Real Reform Done Right" an Orwellian phrase. When they accuse the 5 side of trying to dilute or scuttle change, 5 supporters can't prove otherwise, because they can't answer this question: what do they mean by "real reform"?

After last week’s City Club debate between candidates from the two charter commission slates, I asked Ron Johnson of Real Reform Done Right how his slate wants to restructure the government.

“We’re not sure,” Johnson said. “We all have different ideas of what the structure should look like.” The slate wants a new charter to address ethics reform and economic development, he said, and create a structure that minimizes politics and includes checks and balances. “Is that a nine-member council and county executive? Or an 11-member council and an appointed county executive? We’re not sure yet.”

I asked Johnson if he supports the three-commissioner form of county government. “It isn't necessarily a bad format,” he said. But he did criticize the current system for its eight elected officials (auditor, treasurer, etc.) who run their own departments with “complete autonomy.” He seems to want to eliminate some elected offices. He says the slate wants to consolidate some of their functions, such as the elected officials’ separate human resources departments.

In an interview yesterday, Peter Lawson Jones offered a few clues about where reform might go if Issue 5 passes. (Jones voted to put 5 on the ballot and helped assemble the Real Reform Done Right slate, so his views would probably be influential.)

“I think some elements in Issue 6 should find way into a charter,” Jones told me. He says he agrees with eliminating some elected offices, agrees with giving voters the right to recall county officials, and agrees the county should have a five-year strategic economic plan.

I asked Jones to respond to the criticism that no one knows what sort of new government the charter commission will produce.

“But here’s the good news,” Jones said: A charter created under 5 will be “the result of numerous community-wide meetings, conducted in public. And in November 2010, voters will have their say.” (That is, we’d have another charter proposal to vote on a year from now.)

The pro-5 side is all about process. They say a charter commission with open meetings is a better way to create a new government than the initiative petition that put 6 on the ballot. I’m sure they would say that running for charter commission with concrete ideas on how to restructure the government would be like saying they won’t listen to the public at all those meetings.

But the Citizens Reform Association candidates I talked to handle that dilemma just fine. They state their ideas about which government structures work best, while leaving room to be persuaded about details.

“If elected, it only makes sense to start with the existing framework of the [Issue 6] charter proposal,” Tom Kelly told me after last week’s debate. “A great deal of it would appear in any charter.” He adds he wouldn’t make up his mind completely “until every citizen has their say." As for the slate as a whole, “Most of our candidates do support 6,” Kelly says. “They see 6 as good and necessary start that cannot be delayed.”

“I don’t believe the current structure is best for Cuyahoga County,” charter commission candidate Angela Thi Bennett told me. “However, I’m a little reluctant to say what I believe is the exact ideal structure. I’m in favor of a more balanced structure, such as an executive-council form of government. But if elected to the charter review commission, I would look at successful models around [the country] and also at the same time look at the mechanics of our own county government, and from that make a recommendation.”

So what's a voter to do? Read the Issue 6 charter. (Or, at least, the pro-6 side's two-page summary.)

If you like it, vote Yes on 6 and No on 5 -- and, just in case 5 passes anyway, vote for the charter commission candidates on the Citizens Reform Association list.

If you don't like 6, but you want reform, vote No on 6, Yes on 5 -- then split your vote between the two slates. If the two sides have to write a charter together, the Citizens Reform candidates, who want to go farther with reform, will push the vaguer candidates from Real Reform Done Right to propose major change.

5, 6, & me: on WCPN tomorrow

I'll be on 90.3 WCPN's Reporters' Roundtable tomorrow morning, talking about Issues 5 and 6, the dueling county reform efforts. I'll be talking with host Dan Moulthrop, Dan Bobkoff of Ideastream, and Laura Johnston of the Plain Dealer from 9:06 to 9:23 a.m. and 9:33 to 9:50 a.m.

Cuyahoga League of Women Voters: Issue 6 "greatly reduces patronage, duplication and waste"

In all the coverage of Issues 5 and 6, I haven't seen the League of Women Voters, Cuyahoga Area quoted much. The good-government group has wanted a county executive government for Cuyahoga County since 1979. It helped circulate petitions to get Issue 6 on the ballot and is now promoting the proposed county charter at public forums. (The last three forums are this week in Westlake, Beachwood and Fairview Park.)

The group issued its endorsement last month, but I just read it recently. I'm posting it here because it makes some arguments I haven't heard elsewhere. Its website also links to more analysis: a summary of the charter, a list of checks and balances in it, and a set of 20 arguments for the charter and responses to common arguments from the anti-6 campaign.

One small update: 14 of the 29 charter commission candidates have the county commissioners' support. (There were 15 on that slate, but one dropped out.)

Also: The Cuyahoga Area LWV is one of three League of Women Voters chapters in town. It serves most Cuyahoga County suburbs. A separate Cleveland chapter seems to be neutral on 6, while the Shaker Heights chapter is pro-6.
==

NOVEMBER 3, 2009 BALLOT QUESTION 6: "Shall a county charter be adopted, providing for an elected county executive, an elected county prosecutor, eleven county council members elected by district, and all other officers appointed by the county executive whose appointments are subject to the confirmation by council and who shall serve at the pleasure of the county executive?"

The League of Women Voters recommends: VOTE YES! Here's why:

1. Separation of Legislative (policy-making) from Executive (administrative) powers permits numerous effective checks and balances to hinder or prevent overreaching by a single strong County leader, while providing Ohio's largest county with executive focus and visible, accountable leadership.
2. A Council of 11 will represent the county's diverse districts and have the power to pass ordinances, investigate wrongdoing in the bureaucracy, and debate County policies in the open.
3. Appointing rather than electing 7 of the 8 "row offices" (Recorder, Auditor, Sheriff, Coroner, Engineer, Clerk of Courts and Treasurer) leads to a unified, professionally administered executive branch that greatly reduces patronage, duplication and waste.
4. New safeguards against corruption and abuse of power include mandatory internal audits, centralized employment standards, a code of ethics covering conflicts of interest, a whistle-blower mandate, possible recall elections, and a charter amendment process.
5. Powerful new focus on both economic development and regional collaboration brings limited Home Rule flexibility that will enable new initiatives to reverse county decline.
6. This charter is backed by 53,000 petition signatures and a bipartisan group of political and civic leaders including the League of Women Voters. It is drawn from the best features of the Summit County charter, the 1996 Barber Commission draft, the Municipal League's Model County Charter, and suggestions by the drafting group, municipal law specialists, and other contributors. Diverse opinions were sought, respected and incorporated.

BALLOT QUESTION 5: "Shall a county charter commission be chosen?"

This question was put on the ballot in mid-July by the County Commissioners, who also support 15 of the 30 candidates running for the 15 Charter Commissioner seats. If this issue passes, the county charter commission must meet the Ohio constitutional mandate to study county government and various options for reform and to draft a charter for voter consideration in November 2010. The 30 candidates will appear on the ballot without political affiliation. The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes this issue or any candidates.

Three studies of Cuyahoga's government structure and operations have taken place since 1995, and nine since 1935. The League of Women Voters has published a brochure detailing its own study findings -- "A Citizen Guide to Cuyahoga County Government," available on line. It is our opinion that another year of study would be a costly delay of reforms already well crafted and ready to go. No one can know what degree of independence or reform the County Commissioners' own panel might produce.

Zanotti, Jones debate Issues 5, 6

Could a new Cuyahoga County government do more to spark economic development? That question led to the most intense exchange between Peter Lawson Jones and Martin Zanotti at their City Club debate today.

The county commissioner and Parma Heights mayor dueled over Issues 5 and 6, the two county reform plans on the November ballot.

Zanotti said Issue 6 -- which would create a new county government led by an executive and council -- would make economic development a top priority. Jones defended the county's economic development record while arguing for Issue 5, which would create a county charter commission to write an alternate reform plan.

“Our county government today has no long-term economic plan, because it’s not its mission,” Zanotti argued. “Issue 6 is the only true reform measure on the ballot this November that will offer concrete plans to meet our challenges head on.”

Zanotti explained how the county charter proposed in Issue 6 would create a new economic development commission to help the new government write a five-year economic plan. (Here's the proposed charter -- details are in Section 7.)

Jones, who’s pushed hard for the county to do more for economic development, said Zanotti's proposal wouldn't add much. “Issue 6 says we'll have a director of development,” Jones countered. “We already have that. Issue 6 says, we'll have a department of development. We already have that. It says we’ll have an economic development commission. … We already have something called CuyahogaNext Advisers, that’s been active for the last five years, advising the county government how to spend our funds [to encourage] economic development, and that has created such projects as innovation zones and the North Coast Technologies Opportunity Fund.”

Almost half of the county’s discretionary funds go to economic development already, Jones said. County government can't do much more because almost all of its funds are earmarked by the state for social services and the justice system. In Ohio’s government structure, “Health and human services is the primary function of county government,” Jones argued. “We’re doing as best we can in economic development, in terms of setting aside discretionary dollars.”

“So, Mayor Zanotti,” said moderator Dan Moulthrop, “much of that couldn’t really change.” That set Zanotti off.

“Wrong. I don’t agree with that for a minute,” Zanotti said. There are 5,800 employees that work for the county.” (Actually, it’s 8,500, Jones corrected him.) “Are they all working in the right department? Are they all necessary? ... The patronage that is rampant throughout Cuyahoga County right now is at the core of what needs to be changed, and [that’s] how we will come up with the funds necessary to provide for critical economic development opportunities.”

The Issue 6 charter would replace patronage and duplicated positions with standard hiring practices and a county-wide human resources department, he said. “We’ve got to take those savings and invest it in health and human services and economic development.”

Jones said Issue 6 supporters have failed to say how much money their plan would save."“I don't think I’ve seen an election yet where one side hasn’t said, 'If you just let me in, I’m going to slash the number of [employees],'" he said. The county government is already about to reduce its work force to the lowest level in 20 years, Jones said.

When attention turned to Issue 5, the debate got more vague. Jones' plan would set up a commission to write a charter, and though the slate of commission candidates Jones supports has criticized Issue 6, they've said little about what reforms they’d prefer. The uncertainty seemed to frustrate the moderator.

“What guarantees are there for voters that passing Issue 5 will improve the climate of accountability and transparency in government?” Moulthrop asked.

“Of the slate members I happen to be supporting," Jones replied, "13 of them have already pledged that county government campaign finance reform will be one of first things they tackle, and it will be in the charter." Later, Jones added that the Real Reform Done Right slate has pledged to fulfill their duties in the state constitution by writing a charter next year and putting it on the Nov. 2010 ballot – and they’ve promised to hold multiple meetings across the county, address economic development in the charter, and not to run for any of the offices the charter would create.

Mason to return or donate up to $100,000 in employee contributions

Seeking to end this week's controversy over county reform and money in local politics, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason says he'll return campaign contributions he's taken from his own employees. If an employee doesn't want the money back, he'll donate it to charity.

Mason could give up as much as $100,000 in campaign contributions -- that's how much he got from prosecutor's office employees between 2004 and 2008.

If Issue 6 passes, Mason added, he'll set up a panel to write campaign finance reform rules for the proposed new Cuyahoga County government. "We will... deliver provisions that can be considered and acted upon as soon as the new county government is formed," his Saturday e-mail to the Plain Dealer said.

This is an important promise. Take a look at Saturday's letter to the editor from Ohio Citizen Action's Catherine Turcer:

1) There are no limits on campaign contributions to candidates for county-level office; 2) employees are permitted to contribute to their bosses, reinforcing patronage; 3) pay-to-play limits affect only those with unbid contracts and are hard to enforce; and 4) campaign contribution information for candidates for county office and public officials is not available online, which is the very definition of transparency today.

By addressing the issue, Mason is trying to stop a strong counterattack from Issue 5 supporters. Tarred as defenders of the status quo in Cuyahoga County, this week they grabbed campaign finance reform to try to position themselves as bolder reformers than the Issue 6 side. The Issue 5 side attacked Mason for taking checks from his employees, then declared that their campaign wouldn't take any donations from county workers and promised that the pro-5 charter commission slate would address campaign finance reform. Issue 6's proposed charter doesn't include any new campaign finance rules.

Mason's two moves should neutralize this attack. The 5 side will probably say, "How do we know that we'll get campaign finance reform if 6 passes?" -- but the obvious counterattack from the 6 side will be, "How do we know what kind of reform we'll get on any subject if 5 passes?" Issue 5 would set up a charter commission, and the pro-5 charter commission slate has said little about what kind of charter they'd write if elected -- they just promise an open process.

One more Mason note: meanwhile, he's quarrelling with the PD because the paper is questioning his hiring of campaign donor Bobby DiGeronimo's daughter-in-law.

me on Feagler re Issues 5 and 6, Obama, First Energy

I'm a guest on WVIZ's Feagler & Friends this weekend, talking about Issues 5 and 6, President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and the war in Afghanistan, Ohio executions, and the botched First Energy light bulb plan.

The show airs tonight at 8:30 pm and Sunday at 11:30 am. Also talking with host Dick Feagler are Ohio Magazine publisher Rich Osborne and radio reporter Greg Saber.