Third Amended Charter

[Lori Allen _]

If you take the time to read the entire charter, it gives our alleged corrupt city officials total control of everything. I believe some of these changes were made so that they could hurry up and push through the alleged illegal and immoral hospital deal.

We will just have to wait a little while and see what develops, then, if necessary, we can concentrate on changing the charter.

[Marguerite Harkness]

Somewhere (where?) -- I had recently read -- that this new Third Amended Charter, is the version written by the Charter Review Commission -- "WITH SOME CHANGES MADE BY CITY COUNCIL."

Is this true? If so, exactly WHAT changes did City Council make to Steve Davis-and-company's version? And when did City Council put those changes in?

Mr. Davis, have you read the version that was mailed to citizens, and compared it word-for-word against the version you had finalized?

I ask this for clarification. Thank you.

[stephen davis]

Somewhere (where?) -- I had recently read -- that this new Third Amended Charter, is the version written by the Charter Review Commission -- "WITH SOME CHANGES MADE BY CITY COUNCIL."

Is this true? If so, exactly WHAT changes did City Council make to Steve Davis-and-company's version? And when did City Council put those changes in?

Mr. Davis, have you read the version that was mailed to citizens, and compared it word-for-word against the version you had finalized?

I ask this for clarification. Thank you.

Marguerite,

I wish I had the paperwork regarding final changes in front of me. Not sure I still have it. I'll just go by memory.

I attended the Committee of the Whole meeting that preceded Council's final vote for the ballot issue. There may have been five Commission members there. There was a list of all the changes they were considering. They were pretty non-substantive changes.

Tom Bullock suggested a number of changes. I don't think any of those were accepted. Maybe one.

The Board of Elections suggested a couple of word changes, for clarity, that were applied to the parts having to do with elections. Those were simple, appropriate, and accepted by Council.

I suggested that the number/percentage of petition signatures required for Referendum, Initiative, and Recall be no higher than the amount required for a Charter Amendment (10 %). State law sets the standard and threshold for that. In the Charter Commission document, Referendum, Initiative, and Recall were set at 15%. At that meeting, Council changed the threshold to 10%. That was certainly the most significant change from the Commission document..

There were a couple of others, but nothing of note.

Yes, this is vague, but not evasive. The Charter, as mailed to the public and placed on the ballot, was a surprisingly intact version of what came out of the Commission.

The chair of the Charter Commission, Tom Brown, was committed to organization and readability. He did a terrific job at rooting out the 180+ word sentences. After a lot of tedious drafting, there really wasn't much to clean up at the end.

Does that help?


Steve

.

[Marguerite Harkness]

Steve,

Yes, that helps, thank you for your notes.

[Pam Wetula]

Steve,

Yes, that helps, thank you for your notes.

Marguerite,

The sheet that shows to the changes is on the city's website. The changes were mostly minor and I believe Kevin Butler and others asked for them. Tom Bullock's suggestions were summarily dismissed. It is on the page that has all Charter documents including, Commission Final Review and both the Second and proposed Third Amended Charter.

This took place at a July City Council meeting. I believe at least one member of the Commission was absent a would have to check my notes.

Those changes were Incorporated into the version of the Third Amended Charter sent through the mail to Lakewood residents.

Pam

[Mark Kindt]

I post this without comment.

[Mark Kindt]

Attached is the full text of the current brief to end the taxpayer litigation on appeal.

The Third Amended Charter is being used as a "sword" against the litigating taxpayers.

Some vindication for the charter cynics, I'd say.

[Pam Wetula]

Attached is the full text of the current brief to end the taxpayer litigation on appeal.

The Third Amended Charter is being used as a "sword" against the litigating taxpayers.

Some vindication for the charter cynics, I'd say.

Mark,

Sadly, I feel sick, not vindicated as a Third Amended Charter cynic. I was really perplexed how you and others who have taken much time to carefully dig into the systemic issues surrounding the DECANTING OF LAKEWOOD HOSPITAL could miss the glaring problems some of us recognized in the Third Amended Charter.(Frankly, I went back to reread the old and the new charters a number of times to make sure I wasn't overstating the problems I saw because people whose opinions I respect were supportive of the new charter.)

The worst is yet to come with this new charter and it will take much time and effort to undo some key areas. Areas that should have been addressed BEFORE the citizens voted. By approving this Charter in it's present form, we have overly empowered a City Administration already prone to acting rashly and in the best interests of their cronies and NOT in the best interests of the citizenry at large.

Too sad...the path Lakewood continues on. I weep and pray that the 2 new Councilpersons harbor the strength to buck this corrupt system. That they are not sucked into the patterns of thought and behavior exhibited by Mayor Summers and his Administration, including the elected City Council.

Thank you for all you have done to illuminate the hospital and surrounding issues and the impact of the Administration's actions on Lakewood's well being. You and Brian Essi have been the rocks of this endeavor, our teachers who present and explain the disaster we have all watched unfold.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to all the Deck personnel and participants. Lakewood is surely enriched by your efforts.

pam

[Mark Kindt]

I, too, was indeed disheartened to read the text of the City's joint appeal brief and the novel use of the new charter as a tactic against citizen litigation.

(I was focused on some of the potential gains related to government ethics in my support of the new charter.)

I voted in favor of a new charter only to see the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Lakewood Hospital Association and our own City use it against us right out of the box.

[Pam Wetula]

I, too, was indeed disheartened to read the text of the City's joint appeal brief and the novel use of the new charter as a tactic against citizen litigation.

(I was focused on some of the potential gains related to government ethics in my support of the new charter.)

I voted in favor of a new charter only to see the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Lakewood Hospital Association and our own City use it against us right out of the box.

Hi Mark

I know you felt the inclusion of Government Ethics in the Third Amended Charter was a positive and so did I until I read that Section. Very weak in my opinion and not sufficient to hold the toes to the fire of those city administrators and officials who lack a base moral compass that leads towards good. ( I also realize that you were doing so much analysis on your own time & that having the time to analyze the new Charter as you have on Civic Accountability etc... There are only so many hours in the day!)

The proof is here before us so soon. There will not be an ethics violation in the use of the new charter against citizen legislation, although it is clear that those involved in this, such as Law Director Kevin Butler, couldn't wait to get The Third Amended Charter passed so that they could use it against us. I am sure that Butler knew that he would do this a very long time ago.... Unfortunately, our new Ethics Section will not help us here.

There is another thread about Hate in Lakewood. I have never come so close to this emotion than in the last 2 years and I may have stepped over the line. If I have, then I am going to rot in hell like some of the people involved in this hospital debacle and the other upcoming horrors we may experience as a result of the Third Amended Charter.

God Bless Us One and All...

pam

[Dan Alaimo]

I saw this after Mark's other post. I see.

Recall, anybody?

[mjkuhns]

I feel obliged to ask anyone who might be qualifed to speculate: is the inclusion of this a serious legal argument?

Or is it more likely just throwing any and everything at the wall, stick what may?

At this point, I have read enough legal filings to conclude that more-is-more often wins out over economy of messages.

I have also concluded that filings of or involving Lakewood's law department aren't shy about what they claim as supportive. And that perhaps, therefore, stressing about something being commandeered to that end may rank relatively low among reasons to be upset.

[Bridget Conant]

I have also concluded that filings of or involving Lakewood's law department aren't shy about what they claim as supportive. And that perhaps, therefore, stressing about something being commandeered to that end may rank relatively low among reasons to be upset.

I agree with Matt.

The briefs filed by the city in several recent cases have been arrogant, but didn’t have the law behind them to support their contentions.

A recent example is in the Charlie case. The city actually asserted that the Ohio Appeals Court ruling striking down Reynoldsburg’s pit bull law as unconstitutional was “INCORRECTLY DECIDED.”

I’m sure the courts will look kindly on that argument - the Supremes got it wrong! That's the extent of the argument?

Most of the brief in the taxpayer lawsuit was just a complete rehashing of the briefs they filed in the original case; they must’ve been short on time.

[Pam Wetula]

I have also concluded that filings of or involving Lakewood's law department aren't shy about what they claim as supportive. And that perhaps, therefore, stressing about something being commandeered to that end may rank relatively low among reasons to be upset.

I agree with Matt.

The briefs filed by the city in several recent cases have been arrogant, but didn’t have the law behind them to support their contentions.

A recent example is in the Charlie case. The city actually asserted that the Ohio Appeals Court ruling striking down Reynoldsburg’s pit bull law as unconstitutional was “INCORRECTLY DECIDED.”

I’m sure the courts will look kindly on that argument - the Supremes got it wrong! That's the extent of the argument?

Most of the brief in the taxpayer lawsuit was just a complete rehashing of the briefs they filed in the original case; they must’ve been short on time.

Hi Bridget and Matt,

Then we should be seriously concerned about the competency of Summer Administration, in this instance, the Law Department.

They are wasting City time, the court's time, the citizens' time in their attempts to swing decisions their way! Perhaps someone in our Law Department is suffering from dementia and can no longer function properly. Maybe Kevin Butler needs help. Or maybe he/they just do not have a moral compass to guide his/their actions.

Perhaps we shouldn't feel "upset" - But we should be DAMN ANGRY at these attempts to work against the very citizens the city is supposed to support and represent. This has gone on too long.

Including the Third Amended Charter information is just another one of their games designed to delay any final rulings until the 5.7 acres have been turned over for that $1 and Carnegie and that jackass Ed Fitzgerald makes a big buck. The fact that it does not truly support their argument is not the issue for me.

As an aside: The tag team of Bryce Sylvester & Sam O'Leary stated at the Community Meeting concerning the hospital site that Ed Fitzgerald may be working for Carnegie but he will have NOTHING AT ALL to do with this project. Do you believe that? I certainly don't.

I think we should be angry as long as our Administration is operating in this manner...with .ridiculous - even frivolous court filings. That may fly in the private sector but I do not for a moment believe it is appropriate in the public sector and by public officials trying to cover their asses on past wrongdoings. We need to make even more serious changes in our leadership as soon as possible.

[T Peppard]

It just gets worse. As if this leadership could not sink further.

I, too, am disheartened. It is appalling that they’ve used this new charter to dismiss their wrongdoings.