FitzGerald vs. Republicans: the new voting war

So another ballot battle has broken out in town, another partisan fight about how Greater Clevelanders vote. This time it’s between Ed FitzGerald and Jon Husted, the Cuyahoga County executive and the secretary of state, and it’s about the absentee ballot applications all county residents get in the mail.

I get why FitzGerald and the county council decided to have county workers mass-mail those applications to everyone, now that a new election law says boards of elections can’t do it anymore.

The county has been sending absentee applications to all voters since 2006, and it’s helped prevent a repeat of the terrible polling-place traffic jams that marred the 2004 presidential election. I wrote a lot about the voting problems we struggled with a few years ago, and I don’t want to see them come back.

Still, I’m finding the whole fight disappointing. One reason is I don’t think it’ll end well. Republicans in the legislature, enraged that FitzGerald found a way around their new election law, may simply ban counties from doing it again, making FitzGerald’s clever move a mere one-time victory.

Also, it’s tiring to see FitzGerald fall in with the partisan troops. “All the usual suspects are lining up,” he complains of the Republicans, but by saying that, isn’t he lining up on the other side? His use of the fight as ammo in a Democratic Party fundraising letter escalates the conflict. It’s another chapter in a sorry story: At least since the 2000 Florida recount, we’ve been stuck fighting over dueling Democratic and Republican ways of conducting elections.

FitzGerald didn’t start this particular battle. Republicans in the legislature did when they passed HB 194, which banned the mass mailing of absentee applications by election boards. Secretary of state Jon Husted followed up last week with a directive that did the same, before the law takes effect.

(Democrats are circulating petitions to repeal HB 194, which also cuts early voting at election offices from five weeks to two. They say the law is aimed at their voters. Early and absentee voting helped President Obama get out the vote in Ohio in 2008.)

Republicans’ argument for stopping the mass mailings is that if some counties send them out and others can’t afford it, then the state is tolerating “unequal treatment of voters in different counties,” as Republican state auditor David Yost wrote.

The argument does have a certain logic to it – it’s not “deceitful,” as state Rep. Mike Foley said yesterday. But it ignores the fact that long lines to vote are a more serious problem in urban counties and college towns than in small rural precincts. And it throws out a helpful solution rather than expanding it. Even if you give Republicans the benefit of the doubt about their motivation, they’re still so worried about consistency, they’re insisting on a system that’s less helpful to voters than it could be.

Yost may come out of this looking worse than anyone. He knows that HB 194 doesn’t stop counties from mass-mailing ballots, just county election boards. So his warning that he may punish Cuyahoga County with a “finding of recovery” in its next audit is a misuse of his authority. And his blog post, “The Wreck of Edward FitzGerald,” which slyly connects the county executive with the old county government’s scandals, shows he’s more interested in fighting with a Democrat than watching the books.

Husted’s arguments with FitzGerald are especially disappointing because, until last week, it looked like he was a moderate in the ballot wars, the Republican who discouraged his fellow Republicans from passing a new voter ID law. But his awful reaction to FitzGerald’s move – he said he might block boards of elections from processing mass-mailed ballot applications -- would’ve really caused a vote-suppression scandal.

Connie Schultz got Husted to back off that idea (he said he’d been “thinking out loud”). Her column yesterday encouraged his independent instincts. We’ll need to see a lot more of that side of Husted, if Ohio is going to have any hope of avoiding another partisan blood feud around our voting rules in 2012.

Voinovich on debt talks: House Republicans 'would rather lose than win'

When the debt ceiling talks in Washington collapsed this weekend, I thought of George Voinovich. I interviewed the former senator June 2 for the current issue of Inside Business, and I asked him about the fiscal future of the country.

"Bleak," he said. "They'll fiddle-faddle around."

Voinovich sketched out a mostly prescient preview of the debt ceiling talks. House Speaker John Boehner "has a problem, because he has a bunch of newer members who really are not dry behind the ears, and many of them, because of their positions, would rather lose than win," Voinovich said. "He’s got to try to keep that group together.

"So I think that the House will increase the debt limit temporarily." (Even that hasn't happened so far. Democrats reject a temporary fix.) "They will then say they’re going to have a 'conversation' about dealing with the debt. The conversation will go nowhere because they will not agree to new taxes.

"The fact is you cannot get the job done without increasing taxes."

That quote there highlights the difference between Voinovich and most Republicans in Washington today. Many House conservatives have refused to raise the debt ceiling without severe spending cuts, but they refuse to raise any taxes to deal with the debt. Voinovich is a different kind of conservative. He's a deficit hawk. Confronting the debt is his top priority, and he'd be willing to raise taxes as well as cut spending to do it.

Freed from life in Washington, Voinovich sounds as frustrated with his fellow Republicans in the nation’s capital as he is with the Democrats. In my interview with him, he explains why he often calls President Obama a socialist. But he also blasts fellow Republicans in Washington for not listening to regular people and putting partisan battles ahead of the good of the country.

To read Voinovich's thoughts in the July-August Inside Business, click here.

Chalk protest aims to save Columbia Building from casino

The Columbia Building may face a death sentence, but several artistic activists brought new life to it last night. They covered the sidewalk on Prospect Avenue with chalk designs and messages protesting Dan Gilbert's plan to demolish the 103-year-old building to make way for casino parking.

The protest was billed as an "art attack," but it was as peaceful as can be, filling the concrete with color.

"Downtown Cleveland belongs to all of us," read a flyer from the group Save Lower Prospect Avenue. "Its skyline is our calling card to the world and is central to our identity." It urged Clevelanders to call to write Mayor Frank Jackson and Councilman Joe Cimperman, and tweet casino owner Dan Gilbert's @cavsdan Twitter feed with the message "DowntownIsOurTown."

A reprieve for the Columbia is unlikely. City council and the mayor support Gilbert's casino parking plan, and the city's Landmarks Commission voted 4-3 last month to allow the Columbia to be torn down. Still, the art event reminded Clevelanders of the value of downtown's historic character. "If we can't save this one, maybe we can save the next one," a chalk-protester said.

See the Plain Dealer's coverage here.

Update, 7/22: Demolition started this week. This guy captured the scene in a video on YouTube.

Legislature nixes Cleveland's trans-fat ban

Ohio lawmakers crammed a bunch of stuff into the new state budget, including this: They've overturned Cleveland's ban on trans fats in restaurant food.

City council passed the trans-fat ban in April, arguing that the industrially produced fats are especially bad for people's health. (Here's my blog post about chatting with Matt Zone about the law the night it passed.) It was supposed to go into effect in 2013.

But the Ohio Restaurant Association immediately asked the legislature to step in. They don't like the city law's documentation and reporting requirements. They want one set of restaurant regulations for the whole state, not a bunch of local laws. So the new law gives all power to regulate nutrition in Ohio restaurants to the state Department of Agriculture.

Rick Cassara, owner of John Q's Steakhouse on Public Square, told the Columbus Dispatch he's against cumbersome regulations of restaurants. "I do have a problem when it gets too much into telling us what we should and shouldn't serve or telling the consumer what they should and shouldn't eat," he said.

Joe Cimperman, who sponsored the ban, is furious. "This is an absolute affront," he told the Dispatch. He says Cleveland will sue to defend the ban. He thinks protecting citizens' health is part of a city's home rule powers.

But lawsuits to defend home rule in Ohio have been failing lately. The state has overturned Cleveland's predatory lending law and its residency requirement for city employees, just to name two. What are the odds a food law will survive?

Thoughtful stance on school reforms gets a little less lonely

"Lesson Plan," Dan Moulthrop's essay in June's Cleveland Magazine, tries to find a middle ground in the polarized debate about Senate Bill 5. Moulthrop, a journalist and former teacher, asks how we can reform education to reward good teaching without waging an all-out war on unions.

It was a lonely place to be, but it's less lonely now. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, who opposes SB5, recently asked state legislators to include merit pay for teachers and new layoff rules in the state's budget. This week, they gave him most of what he asked for. (See below for update.)

The conversation Moulthrop wants to have about teaching is becoming more important. It's starting to look like Republicans overreached with SB5. Ohioans will probably reject the law on the ballot in November. The question is, what happens after that?

Nothing, most teachers seem to hope. WCPN's Ida Lieszkovszky got an earful from some of them about Jackson's stance. So did I, on WCPN's Reporters' Roundtable last week, when our talk about Jackson's move brought a string of anxious calls from teachers. One union official quickly dismissed judging teachers by test scores, then said supervisors' evaluations are too subjective. So is there really no fair way to evaluate teachers?

The question is becoming more urgent. Layoffs by seniority are dismantling the staffs of Cleveland's innovation schools, dismissing teachers carefully chosen for their expertise. Reforms of teacher tenure and layoff rules just passed in Michigan. Ohio voters like the merit pay portion of SB5. Change is coming.

That's Moulthrop's message in his essay for us:

Teachers, administrators, school boards and anyone who cares about their community's schools ... should start conversations about what great teaching really looks like, about classrooms where every student is engaged and focused, seeking the next challenge because they know how satisfying it is to learn something new.

Blogging at the Civic Commons this week, Moulthrop amplifies his point. As carefully and patiently as he did in his essay, he nudges teachers to get ready for reform rather than fight it:

Even if SB5 is repealed, it's unlikely that ten years from now teachers will still be paid and retained based on longevity. If teachers don't involve themselves in crafting a compensation system they can get behind, they may wind up having to deal with something imposed on them. That wouldn't be good for the profession and probably wouldn't be good for students.

Update, 7/8: Actually, Jackson was disappointed with what the General Assembly gave him. He's talking about converting some innovation schools to charter schools in order to preserve their staffs against future layoffs by seniority. The staffs would be de-unionized too. See the Plain Dealer story here.

East Cleveland makes a deal over Huron Hospital; Cleveland goes to court

Cleveland’s suing, but East Cleveland’s cutting a deal. That’s the latest news in the fight over the planned closing of Huron Hospital.

East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton (pictured) and Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove announced today that the Clinic will give the city $8 million over five years to cushion the blow of losing its second-largest employer.

The Clinic also agreed to help with one of East Cleveland’s biggest problems: vacant buildings. Not only will the Clinic demolish the hospital and give the land to the city, it’s also going to knock down a few extra buildings it doesn’t own: some apartments and offices on Euclid Avenue.

Now, Norton, 39, will have to convince East Clevelanders that the deal is worth giving up the fight. He’s already making the case.

“While most cities receive nothing when a hospital closes,” Norton said in a statement, “East Cleveland has worked with Cleveland Clinic to secure financial and other support which will ease our city’s financial pressure, prevent the facility from becoming an eyesore and help us aggressively pursue development opportunities.”

Meanwhile, Frank Jackson’s not giving up. Cleveland filed a federal lawsuit today to try to stop the Clinic from closing Huron’s trauma center, where Cleveland EMS takes 3,000 patients a year.

It’ll be worth watching how East Cleveland and Cleveland get along after this. The last time East Cleveland cut a deal in a big legal battle while Cleveland fought on, it hurt relations between the towns for years. In 1998, when East Cleveland’s Emmanuel Onunwor reached a settlement with the railroad CSX to allow increased train traffic, Cleveland’s Mike White lashed out. He killed talks about Cleveland taking over East Cleveland’s water system, delaying the takeover for a decade.

But Jackson is not as vindictive as White. He may also understand Norton’s position. East Cleveland gets $1 million a year in income taxes from Huron Hospital’s 800 employees. The city’s entire budget is only $26 million. Now Norton plugs that financial hole for a while and buys time to try to attract businesses to all that vacant land.

To read my Dec. 2009 profile of Norton, "Who Wants to Be Mayor of East Cleveland?", click here.

Pepper Pike, Orange, Moreland Hills & Woodmere may merge in 2014

Everyone talks about regionalism, but no one ever does anything about it. Until today, when Pepper Pike, Orange, Moreland Hills and Woodmere's mayors announced they’re looking into merging their towns together by 2014.

OK, so launching a study, with Cuyahoga County’s help, isn’t exactly action. It’ll take three steps and 2½ years to merge: first the study, then a formal merger commission in 2012, then approval by all four towns’ residents in 2013.

Still, it’s big news, a leap of faith by all four mayors, and a provocative move compared to regionalism baby-steps such as shared fire departments. County executive Ed FitzGerald, who called the press conference, now has something to show for his regionalism efforts beyond his underwhelming no-poaching proposal this month.

“[I hope] it will give encouragement to a lot of other mayors that I know are having these conversations, but having them very quietly,” FitzGerald said this morning.

The four mayors said their goal is to lower taxes across the four suburbs by creating a more efficient government. Even the sight of the four of them together — old and young, men and women, three white and one black — seemed like a mini-poster-moment for regional unity.

“I think it’s time for leaders in smaller communities to try to come together,” said Woodmere Mayor Charles Smith.

“It does not make sense,” said Pepper Pike Mayor Bruce Akers, “for a county of this size to have 57 political subdivisions.”

The merger would make the three villages and one city into a medium-sized suburb of 13,500 people. The mayors have bounced around possible names for a combined town: Chagrin Hills, maybe.

At first glance, it seems like a good marriage. The four towns already share the Orange school district, a recreation department, senior citizens’ programs and a library. Each brings something: Pepper Pike (population 5,979) and Moreland Hills (3,320) are wealthy residential communities with little industry. Orange (population 3,323) has more of a mix of homes and shopping. Woodmere, the tiniest at 884 people, has the Eton Collection and its retail workers’ income taxes.

The Pepper Pike, Moreland Hills and Woodmere mayors sounded sold on the idea. Orange Mayor Kathy Mulcahy was more skeptical. She thanked FitzGerald and his regionalism point man, Ed Jerse, for “giving us the tools to study the concept” and “really measure whether there were savings” from consolidation.

“Everyone’s been touting that as the panacea for all that ails us,” Mulcahy said. “And I want to see the numbers that show us where the savings are and that it truly is the way to go.”

Moreland Hills Mayor Susan Renda said she thinks the four towns can become “a test case for other communities in the region.” That’s why this is a big step. Lots of towns in Cuyahoga County could become stronger in a union with their neighbors.

FitzGerald built drama by announcing the press conference overnight but not naming the four merger-curious mayors. So I bounced the mystery around the magazine offices this morning: Who’s merging? Parma-Parma Heights-Brooklyn and a wild card? Makes sense for Brooklyn, since it’s losing American Greetings. North Randall-Warrensville Heights? Newburgh/Cuyahoga/Brooklyn/Garfield Heights?

It’s easy to play with the map and brainstorm bigger towns. But it’s painstaking to merge tax rates and town halls and weave through the lengthy merger process in state law. Voters, like Mulcahy, will ask tough questions: what’s in it for us?

Besides, even the tiniest towns have an identity and don’t want to lose it. The mayors said they’ll talk about ways to preserve their towns’ identities in a bigger burb.

“Our community will not be gobbled up,” said Woodmere’s Smith. “This will be something to sustain our community, to curb costs, and to preserve the integrity of our community.”

(Photo, left to right: Pepper Pike Mayor Bruce Akers, Woodmere Mayor Charles Smith, Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald, and Moreland Hills Mayor Susan Renda. Orange Mayor Kathy Mulcahy, not visible, is standing behind Smith.)