Vote FOR The Third Amended Charter

[stephen davis]

I was on the 2014 Charter Commission that drafted the proposed Third Amended Charter for Lakewood. I encourage everyone to vote for it.

I was disheartened by the May 25th cleveland.com interview with Mayor Summers. He should have turned that down and deferred to Council for their views. Other than citizen initiated charter amendments, the charter is Council’s turf, not the mayor’s.

Here’s a link:

http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... te_on.html


I was particularly disappointed with this Mike Summers quote:

"And if it doesn't get approved, it's certainly not the end of the world, but it will be regretful because a lot of good citizens did a lot of hard work to approve it. The existing charter is OK, but it could be better."

That was not encouraging, informative, or helpful. Sure, it’s not the end of the world, but it diminishes the value of the proposed Third Amended document. The amount of hard work shouldn’t be regretful to anyone. It doesn't bother me. I’ve worked on a lot of charter amendments. Not all of those even made it to the ballot. The Mayor missed the point, and then spoke to the non-point. He should have just told the reporter to call Council members.

Voters need to know the value of the proposed charter. It has real value over the “OK” one.

The proposed charter does not assert any significant philosophical difference in the governance of Lakewood. Though I would support some philosophical changes, that does not diminish my support of the Third Amended Charter. Voters have no reason to think that something insidious is being slipped into this proposal. That understanding is critical. I know why any Lakewoodite could have concerns, but the proposed Third Amended Charter is more citizen-centric. Though largely hortatory, there is even a new ethics provision.

The key points of the added value in this document are organization, readability, accuracy, and efficiency.

The benefits of the added value can be realized by our citizens, our elected officials, and our city employees, in their relationships to each other. It also benefits our city’s relationship with the County, especially with the Board of Elections, and with the State of Ohio by accurately defining the tenets of our home rule.

Organization may be related to readability, but it stands as a benefit. The current charter is an organizational disaster. Over the decades, so many added items have just been stuck the document, usually at the end. The items that remain in the proposed charter are now fully integrated into rational categories. A search for information can be more contextual now.

The proposed document is readable. No more 182 word sentences.

Readability benefits citizens in their interactions with our city government. With the Third Amended Charter, citizens should easily understand our government framework, and how to interact as voters, candidates for election, and as policy drivers via Charter Amendment, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. The language in the current charter is nearly impenetrable. I’ve often wondered if that is by design.

Readability helps the Board of Elections understand OUR voting process in detail. Again, it helps the state and courts understand how we define our home rule.

Readability benefits elected officials in their understanding of their jobs and responsibilities. For example, what exists in the current charter is the fuzziest of math that takes Council on a different path of fractions, percentages, and numbers for different voting situations. They really have to research the Council votes required to pass an ordinance depending on the nature of that ordinance. We (The Charter Commission) have mostly simplified that to majority and super-majority approval in a clear and understandable way.

Regarding accuracy, I don’t know how the Charter Commission could make all sections related to ballot issues more accurate. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but our process, in concert with the Board of Elections, delivered a reliable and understandable roadmap for all voter interaction, be it petitions for election, referendum, initiative, charter amendment, or voting dates. You have to remember that up to about 17 or 18 years ago, our charter required actually making an “X” with a pencil in a box on a printed ballot to vote. That was way past the time of voting systems that didn’t require a pencil. Integrating our voting requirements with the BOE is critical.

Some sections, particularly Finance, have been edited to reflect changes in normal practices and state law.

Efficiency has been addressed. The new document allows for a more “nimble” government. Some departments and redundancies have been eliminated in the proposed charter. This can allow for allocation of government resources as needed. Council will vote to appropriately transition some previous charter items into ordinances for continuity.

Would I change anything? Yes. I favor a change of form of government from Council-Mayor to Council-Manager. Without that, I would adjust some of the distribution of powers between the Council and Mayor. I would also take the last vestige of partisan politics out of the charter. That vestige is in the Civil Service Commission. The makeup of the Civil Service Commission is one Democrat, one Republican, and one Independent. Seriously? Where do Libertarian, Green Party, whatever, fit in? Two-thirds of our Lakewood voters are independent. Party affiliation should not be a consideration in this case.

Those are just a few philosophical differences worth future discussion. Again, none of them diminish my support of the new charter. The proposed charter is a great foundation for moving forward. It is a lot better than our “OK” one.

I’ve been involved in every charter review and commission in the last 18 years. I was a committee member in a successful citizen initiative to amend the charter. I have assisted City Council with numerous charter amendments. I am pretty excited that Lakewood, with voter approval, can have a more understandable and mechanically correct charter.

.

[Brian Essi]

Mr. Davis,

Thank you for your service to the Lakewood Community.

[Mark Kindt]

I intend to vote for the Third Amended Charter.

However, I believe that it is likely to be defeated, primarily due to a natural voter backlash against shenanigan's at City Hall.

It will be perceived as another attempt by City Hall to put one over on the voters.

I also disagree with Mr. Davis on philosophical grounds: I believe that the city administration has seriously abused its home rule powers and, if unchecked, will continue to abuse those power. The city needs to abandon home rule and also return to a fully partisan ballot.

[stephen davis]

Mark,

Thanks for the response.

I intend to vote for the Third Amended Charter.

After reading your post, I wonder why you say this.

However, I believe that it is likely to be defeated, primarily due to a natural voter backlash against shenanigan's at City Hall.
It will be perceived as another attempt by City Hall to put one over on the voters.

Prior to the mass mailing about the Third Amended Charter, I doubt that most people in Lakewood knew we had a charter. After the mailing, awareness was probably raised by a few percentage points. I can't guess how voting may go.

I also disagree with Mr. Davis on philosophical grounds: I believe that the city administration has seriously abused its home rule powers and, if unchecked, will continue to abuse those power. The city needs to abandon home rule and also return to a fully partisan ballot.

I'm comfortable with your disagreement. I was speaking strictly for myself and trying to make the point that many ideas can be injected into a conversation of governance. Not all of them make it through the democratic process.

Regarding home rule, we all know that designing or codifying an ideal is a lot different from constructing and enforcing that ideal. I think your frequent thoughtful posts here have documented that fact. That said, I'm not sure we should give up ideals.


Steve

.

[Mark Kindt]

I am voting for the Charter because of the new ethics-in-government provisions. For Lakewood, this represents a bold progressive move into the era of the Bull Moose party and Woodrow Wilson.

[Dan OMalley]

FYI. I received this from the pro-charter campaign this morning:

"Endorsers of Issue 24 include: Mayor Mike Summers, State Senator Michael J. Skindell, State Representative Nickie Antonio, County Councilmember Dale Miller, City Councilmembers: David Anderson, Tom Bullock, John Litten, Cindy Marx, Ryan Nowlin, Sam O’Leary, Dan O’Malley, City Council candidate: Tristan Rader, Former City Councilmembers Tom Brown and Pam Smith, the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, Law Director Kevin Butler, Local Republicans: Jay Carson, Joel Egertson, and former Mayor David Harbarger, Other Local Leaders: Brian Bardwell, Steve Bennett, Troy Bratz, Karolyn Isenhart, Dr. Larry Keller, Andrew A. Meyer, Kristine Pagsuyoin, Ryan Puente, Jesse Schmidt, Mark Schneider, Jason Shachner, Debra Sweeney, Tom Wagner"

[Brian Essi]

FYI. I received this from the pro-charter campaign this morning:

"Endorsers of Issue 24 include: Mayor Mike Summers, State Senator Michael J. Skindell, State Representative Nickie Antonio, County Councilmember Dale Miller, City Councilmembers: David Anderson, Tom Bullock, John Litten, Cindy Marx, Ryan Nowlin, Sam O’Leary, Dan O’Malley, City Council candidate: Tristan Rader, Former City Councilmembers Tom Brown and Pam Smith, the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, Law Director Kevin Butler, Local Republicans: Jay Carson, Joel Egertson, and former Mayor David Harbarger, Other Local Leaders: Brian Bardwell, Steve Bennett, Troy Bratz, Karolyn Isenhart, Dr. Larry Keller, Andrew A. Meyer, Kristine Pagsuyoin, Ryan Puente, Jesse Schmidt, Mark Schneider, Jason Shachner, Debra Sweeney, Tom Wagner"

I guess Steve Davis did not make the list. Talk about marginalization! Wow!

[Marguerite Harkness]

Anybody READ IT?

Anybody read the section that says:

TAX INCREASE BY CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL CAN INSTITUTE A TAX INCREASE WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.


On ethics: It makes no difference what this charter says about ethics training, we ALL know our current city hall officials will have none of it.


VOTE NO ON CHARTER ISSUE 24!!

[cameron karslake]

If Summers is for it, I am against it.

That man has done enough damage to this city! Not to mention the possible tax increase mentioned above.

I also agree with Marguerite that ethics provision or not, this government couldn't care less. It's incredibly obvious that they don't give a damn about ethics or the taxpayers.

[stephen davis]

Anybody READ IT?

Anybody read the section that says:

TAX INCREASE BY CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL CAN INSTITUTE A TAX INCREASE WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

That is not new. Look at the current charter. It just might be easier to find in the proposed charter.

.

[Pam Wetula]

The new amended Charter is easier to read and has added an Ethics Article BUT in the areas of transparency - it decreases notifications to the citizenry in a couple of areas.
1. Where the City/ Board of Revisions may make changes without the same notifications to the public we currently enjoy.
2. Where the City wants to acquire a property through Eminent Domain. The notification to the owner has been seriously shortened before the City Council has the right to take it to the courts.

In the spirit or "flexibility" (Kevin Butler) and nimbleness (Mr, Davis -& I do appreciate his work) - we will make changes in Lakewood through Codified Ordinances and empower City Council and any Administration to act quickly with less public notification and scrutiny.

I truly believe the Charter Amendment group was coached by Kevin Butler and Mike Summers to o this direction.

I know we have citizens up in arms about BSL and Opioids and other issues and the Third Amended Charter may pass.

I invite you all to lay down the Second Amended Charter..The document that outlines the changes & the Third Amended Charter and carefully compare the changes.

If you believe an Ethics Clause will hold this or a future administration to acting in the public's best interest instead of their friends financial interests, then I think you are consuming one GIANT Dreamsicle (sp) my friends.

Increasing the Government's power is not the answer in Lakewood, Ohio. A City Charter is designed to protect the interests of the citizens and I feel this new version woefully short.

The prior comment about look who is supporting this amendment should be carefully scrutinized. Many of these people are the same people that did not disclose or lied to the public about the hospital and other issues in the last few years. Many of these people are the same one's who will be making changes on our behalf in the future.

I say vote AGAINST the Third Amended Charter until some changes can be made to protect the public.

[Marguerite Harkness]

Stephen Davis -

Ok, then - YOU were on the charter review commission. Why didn't you TAKE IT OUT???

I guess you think it's OK for City Council to give tax increases whenever they want to. As in - when they find they are $1 million short because of loss of hospital jobs.

VOTE NO ON THIRD AMENDED CHARTER!!!

[Lori Allen _]

My, my, my. For the most part, it's just the same old names and the same old company. It's like the Lakewood Bilderbergs.

I must say that I am disappointed by a few of the names on the list. I am astounded that they could be swayed so easily. Hopefully now that their names appear on a list with Mike Summers, perhaps they will re-evaluate their thinking.

Folks, open your eyes please. This charter was drafted by folks appointed by Summers and council. Again, it's mostly the same old names.

Do you understand what I'm saying to you? This charter was drawn up by folks appointed by the same folks that appear to have robbed, and appear to still be robbing our city blind before our very eyes to this day.

I suppose the only good news is that, if the charter is approved, there is a way to undo it, especially when our new mayor takes over. I doubt Mike Summers and his gang are in this for the long haul. Most likely, they will continue to bleed the city dry until it bleeds no longer. Then, they will probably leave town.

Folks, please open your eyes and think about this issue, the folks that drafted it, the folks that appointed the committee members, and the folks supporting it. If after this, you still choose to vote for this charter, I can only assume that they were blinded by the mayor.

[Marguerite Harkness]

Lori, It may help if you will please also post on the VOTE NO on CHARTER - to keep that visible. Thanks!

[stephen davis]

The new amended Charter is easier to read and has added an Ethics Article BUT in the areas of transparency - it decreases notifications to the citizenry in a couple of areas.
1. Where the City/ Board of Revisions may make changes without the same notifications to the public we currently enjoy.
2. Where the City wants to acquire a property through Eminent Domain. The notification to the owner has been seriously shortened before the City Council has the right to take it to the courts.

In the spirit or "flexibility" (Kevin Butler) and nimbleness (Mr, Davis -& I do appreciate his work) - we will make changes in Lakewood through Codified Ordinances and empower City Council and any Administration to act quickly with less public notification and scrutiny.

I truly believe the Charter Amendment group was coached by Kevin Butler and Mike Summers to o this direction.

I know we have citizens up in arms about BSL and Opioids and other issues and the Third Amended Charter may pass.

I invite you all to lay down the Second Amended Charter..The document that outlines the changes & the Third Amended Charter and carefully compare the changes.

If you believe an Ethics Clause will hold this or a future administration to acting in the public's best interest instead of their friends financial interests, then I think you are consuming one GIANT Dreamsicle (sp) my friends.

Increasing the Government's power is not the answer in Lakewood, Ohio. A City Charter is designed to protect the interests of the citizens and I feel this new version woefully short.

The prior comment about look who is supporting this amendment should be carefully scrutinized. Many of these people are the same people that did not disclose or lied to the public about the hospital and other issues in the last few years. Many of these people are the same one's who will be making changes on our behalf in the future.

I say vote AGAINST the Third Amended Charter until some changes can be made to protect the public.

Pam,

I read these posts in response to my endorsement of the Third Amended Charter and it makes me mourn the loss of public trust. I have talked with enough people and read enough of the disclosures of public records by Brian Essi to understand that loss.

I have been involved with charter amendments, reviews, and commissions longer than the Mayor or any current members of Council have been in office. I have NEVER been told what to think, say, or endorse, by ANYBODY. It wouldn't have worked anyway. Charter commissions are often peppered with lawyers. That can be an asset. I am not a lawyer. Proudly, I can say that it I have been kept as a participant because it is said that I offer a citizen's perspective. I have always argued for open government and citizen access.

I would argue that the proposed charter protects the public better than the current one. It provides more clarity about how a citizen can interact and influence government. It provides a first effort to establish an ethics provision. Also, the new provision about training for elected officials may help those officials understand their proper role and give them insight regarding their legal and ethical obligations.

A vote against the proposed charter by active citizens is probably a vote against their best interests.


Steve

.