FitzGerald the reformer, FitzGerald the loyal Democrat

Ed FitzGerald, scourge of patronage machines and ally of public employee unions -– the Cuyahoga County executive will have to lay claim to both reputations if he’s going to run for governor. He tried to do that in one key part of his State of the County address yesterday, but if you slow it down for the replay, you can hear the strain.

First, he cited some figures that, if you weren’t listening carefully, might’ve led you to think he’s cut county government by 30 percent.

Personnel costs are our number one expenditure, and that was our number one focus for reducing costs. There is a frequently repeated myth about government that it always gets larger, it can never become more efficient, and we have proven that wrong. In 2007, there were 6,374 county employees, and at the end of 2012 we were down to 4,507, a reduction of over 1,800 positions.

Today, that last line made it to the front page of The Plain Dealer, without anyone asking, hey, how much of that reduction is FitzGerald responsible for? The answer, according to county budget documents I looked at, is somewhere around 280 to 433 positions. FitzGerald took office in January 2011. Before that, the old county commissioners actually shed roughly 1,500 employees because declining tax revenues forced them to.

FitzGerald did take on the harder work of cutting union employees. He’s eliminated at least 350 unionized positions, county records show -- about as many as the county commissioners cut in 3½ years. But of course he can’t brag about that if he’s going to run for governor. Public employee unions, still enraged at Gov. John Kasich for signing Senate Bill 5, will provide a lot of the fervor, volunteers and cash for Kasich’s challenger next year.

So FitzGerald executed this quick reverse-twirl in his speech, a move from reformer to union-friendly liberal.

We have 31 separate bargaining units we negotiate with, and we have asked all of them to work with us to contain costs, and they have responded. Now, I know there are some who believe the road to good government runs right over the government worker. But I don’t believe that you can serve the people by attacking the people’s employees. In this process, our unions agreed to unprecedented concessions. County employees were part of the solution.

That, of course, is a dig at Kasich -- FitzGerald’s biggest one-eye-on-Columbus line of the day.

Roldo: Will Plain Dealer endorse Romney?

Veteran alternative journalist Roldo Bartimole is out with a prediction: He thinks the Plain Dealer will endorse Mitt Romney for president -- and maybe set off another controversy like the paper’s embarrassing 2004 non-endorsement.

He doesn’t explain his prediction, but his spider sense is tingling. I think he may be on to something.

The PD boldly will endorse Sen. Sherrod Brown for the U. S. Senate. A Democrat over Republican. Josh Mandel, Brown’s opponent, has been shooting himself in the foot. The Pee Dee has been taking note of these self-inflicted wounds. ...

Having shown itself as willing to nominate a Democrat, I figure the editorial board (which is a misnomer for “the boss” Terry Egger) will nominate Mitt the Romney for President. Making Republicans (and Kevin O’Brien) happy. …

I read the Plain Dealer’s editorials, just like Roldo does, and I think he’s catching on to a trend. But first, a little background, from Roldo’s column:

You may remember the debacle in 2004 after the board chose John Kerry as its Presidential endorsee. Oh, wait. Publisher Alex Machaskee then ordered it changed to the other guy – George Bush. After some internal wrangling, the PD choose the silliest way out. The paper punted. It didn’t endorse anyone. It made a fool of the paper nationally.

After Terrance Egger succeeded Machaskee in 2006, he was often asked about the 2004 non-endorsement. Though Egger is a Republican who nudged a liberal editorial board toward the center as St. Louis Post-Dispatch publisher, he reassured Clevelanders he wouldn’t pull a Machaskee.

“We will endorse,” Egger told a City Club audience in August 2006. “Whose decision that will be will be the editorial board’s. And I mean that.”

He was implying that, as publisher, he wouldn’t use his authority to overrule the rest of the board. (See my Jan. 2007 story "The New Dealer" for more on this.)

Sure enough, when the paper endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, the editorial carried an unusual tagline that named all the members of the usually anonymous editorial board who voted on the endorsement.

The PD’s endorsements have swung back to the right since then. The paper recommended John Kasich for governor in 2010 and endorsed last year’s Issue 2, also known as Senate Bill 5, which would’ve severely restricted the power of public-employee unions. Both editorials sounded strained, written by committee, like unsuccessful efforts to reconcile deep internal divisions.

The Kasich endorsement called on the governor to cut out his “Red Bull style” and his habits as a “Fox News provocateur.” And the pro-SB5 editorial was probably the paper’s worst-argued in years. Naively, it called for Kasich to go back to the bargaining table if voters approved SB5 to negotiate away its most divisive provisions. But the law would’ve given Kasich total victory over the unions, leaving them with no leverage and the governor with no reason to bargain. It was as if the Plain Dealer had no idea how power works.

Roldo implies Egger controls the endorsements. I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s safe to say that Egger is one of the board’s more conservative members. He’s likely to have played a major role in the Kasich and SB5 decisions.

Follow the trend from the last two years, and it’s easy to imagine the PD dismissing Obama as a disappointment and endorsing Romney, while trying to appease the dissenters with a rose-colored call for him to embrace his Massachusetts-moderate past once elected.

Editorial page endorsements aren’t as influential as they were in newspapers’ golden age, especially in presidential elections. A thousand voices are deluging Ohioans with screams and roars and tweets about Romney and Obama. Voters can make up their minds about a president without the Big Voice of the Big City Paper weighing in.

Still, Clevelanders’ reaction to the 2004 cop-out suggests they'll still care what the Plain Dealer says. Major endorsements let readers know where an editorial page stands, what its values are. And as Roldo says, the paper’s in an interesting position: it has a centrist editorial page in a Democratic metro area, so a Romney endorsement could anger a lot of readers.

So, yes, Clevelanders will pay attention to the paper’s presidential decision. Even if it says more about the editorial page than it does about Obama or Romney.

Update, 7/23: A Plain Dealer editorial yesterday called on Romney to release more tax returns.  "He is basing his candidacy largely on his success in the private sector and first-hand knowledge of job creation," it says. "Voters expect and deserve a look behind the curtain."  Hmm, is that a hint of skepticism?

SB5 passes by one vote

The huge fight over slashing the power of government employee unions looks like it's headed to a statewide referendum. Senate Bill 5 squeaked through the Ohio Senate today. Not only was the vote 17-16, but it only got to the Senate floor after Republican leader Tom Neihaus yanked two opponents of the bill off key committees to head off tie votes.

This Columbus Dispatch story explains it all clearly (though its count is off: six Republicans, not five, joined all 10 Senate Democrats to oppose the bill). For instance, the story succinctly explains one key amendment added yesterday, laying bare the power shift:

The bill would outlaw strikes for any public employee and for law enforcement and firefighters would eliminate binding arbitration, in which an impartial third party is brought in to resolve an impasse.

Instead, the bill sets up a new settlement process for all public workers that would bring in a fact-finder, who would present a public report. If rejected, the school board, city council or other legislative body would then either accept its own last best offer, or that of the union. [emphasis mine]

The Plain Dealer's coverage give us more of the politics of the bill. The breaking-news story shows that four of the six Republicans voting no are from Northeast Ohio, and the piece on today's front page forecasts the bill's ultimate path after it goes to the state House, where it's expected to pass: a statewide ballot this November.

How is Ohio different from Wisconsin?

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he talks to John Kasich every day. Ohio’s governor is pushing just as hard as Walker to curb the power of public employee unions, sparking massive protests at both state capitols. Both governors are looking at Mitch Daniels’ union-taming, debt-slashing success in Indiana and saying that’s the way to cure their state’s financial illness.

So why is Madison the new capital of American protest, our new Cairo-like TV-drama stage, and not Columbus?

It’s not just that Wisconsin Democrats have upped the drama by deciding the only way to stop Walker’s bill is by a filibustering at an out-of-state Best Western. (A run for the border won’t do the Ohio Democrats’ tiny Senate caucus any good.)

It’s not just that protest is part of the culture in Madison, a classic liberal college town, or that the Wisconsin left is tapping a 100-year tradition of feistiness, which goes all the way back to gutsy progressive Fighting Bob La Follette. It’s not just that the Wisconsin state capitol lets people sleep over, giving the cheeseheads an opening to create a 24-hour happening, a marble-pillared commune. Or that Ohio lefties and unionists are more likely to swamp the capitol on hearing day, then go home and go to work.

The difference might be – might be – that Ohio is in a more moderate mood than Wisconsin right now, and that some of our state’s moderate Republicans are looking for a compromise. Some Republican senators are distinctly lukewarm about Senate Bill 5. They’re not spoiling for a fight. Unlike Wisconsin’s Republicans under Walker, they’re thinking independently, looking to reform collective bargaining with public employees but not tear it up.

Already Senate Republicans have snipped a ban on collective bargaining for state employees out of SB5, preserving their right to bargain for wages. This week, the Senate considers more amendments. As they do, pay close attention to two Northeast Ohio Republicans, Tim Grendell and Tom Patton. Grendell, though a member of the hard-right “Caveman Caucus,” is looking for ways to change SB5. Patton, a Republican and union member, is being super-careful – note his no-comment to Phillip Morris last week – but he, too, seems to be looking for a compromise way out.

I’m not saying Grendell and Patton are the swing votes – Kasich may eke out a victory without them. But their intriguing disagreements with their party say a lot about where the debate may be going – both in the legislature and at what’s probably SB5’s ultimate destination, a statewide referendum this fall.