City Charter Change Petition

[dl meckes]

A "527 thing to say."

"According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office."

This is a not-so-sly accusation that I have some party line or some group-think to espouse.

My point was that "fearing teachers" is not a relevant response in the discussion of the potential referendum.

I encourage you to make your points about the positive aspects of your effort rather than using divisive distraction methods, but do whatever you feel works for you.

Since I am learning about the issue and why each side feels the way it does, I had hoped for information that would help me make a decision.

[Jeff Endress]

There are a number of us, products of the Lakewood School system, who indeed, fear teachers. We bear the psychological scars of English class with Miss D. For some, it goes further back to a ruler's crack on the knuckles administered in Fourth grade at McKinley....

What kind of society fears it's teachers?

Those of us still suffering from the recurrent nightmare of being late for English....while forgetting the locker combination...

City workers are allowed to be on the school board and I believe school employees should be allowed to serve on city council

I think that we need to equalize the matter also. So I think we should also exclude city workers from serving on the school board (and perhaps in leadership roles of the PTA)

Is my response tongue in cheek? Absolutely. Is there now, or has there ever been a teacher/custodian/secretary from the Lakewood School District who wished to run for council but because of their employment was denied that privilege? If there is such a person, let them seek the change. If there is no such person, then there is only a tempest in a teapot...

Jeff

[Gary Rice]

As some of you are well, aware, I recently defended teachers in some recent posts.

On the whole, I believe that teachers do indeed care.

But yes, I too experienced a few, shall I say, unforgettable teachers; while growing up in Lakewood.

Teachers reflect the population as a whole, I suppose. The thing is, they have such a public position that, were they unable to support their actions in the classroom, they probably would not be around for very long.

A "difficult" teacher might be thought of, as helping produce higher standards, or thought to bring on excess frustration, depending on the child's perceptions.

A "good" teacher", on the other hand, might be thought of as a positive helper to their students, or as being so soft-hearted, as to perhaps let things slide.

Really good teachers try to balance everything; not an easy task to do.

As you might imagine, teachers have to walk these kinds of tight-ropes every day.

As to the point of running for office? With all that a teacher does, I have no idea where people would ever find the evening and weekend time to devote to that office.

Plus there are ethical and conflict-of-interest laws and concerns that would need to be addressed.

As far as I recall from my experience? I think that a teacher was indeed able to run for office in a community other than the one he/she taught in, but I don't know for sure.

The crux of the issue for me, is that teachers traditionally have not become political figures in the past, due to deeply entrenched traditions.

Now that I'm retired from teaching, I can, and have been, as overtly political as I like. I just do not think that I would have been comfortable doing so while I was employed.

It just would not have felt right to me.

[Suzanne Metelko]

DL, you made my point for me. My 527 remark was aimed at what I perceived as your attempt to divert the discussion from the supposed problem of teachers in city government with some crack about "Why do you hate America". I agree that neither have merit for this discussion. It's not my sentiment, I'm just reporting the news. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[stephen davis]

I'm just reporting the news.

527's, college professors, Bruce Beebe, women’s suffrage, fear of teachers, dog lovers, and almost all that has been reported by the advocates of the charter amendment, are not “the newsâ€Â

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

For everyone's reference...


ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORATE OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CHARTER RELATIVE TO ARTICLE XXIII, GENERAL PROVISIONS, TO PERMIT EMPLOYEES OF THE LAKEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION, RESIDING WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, THE RIGHT TO SEEK PUBLIC OFFICE.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XXIII, Section 6 of the Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood and Article XVIII, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, petitions have been presented to Lakewood City Council requesting an amendment to the Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood: and,

WHEREAS, Lakewood City Council is required by the Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood and the Ohio Constitution to submit the question of whether to amend the charter to the electors and has no discretion to change or otherwise alter the charter amendment presented by petition; and,

WHEREAS, it has been found and determined that the petitions contain a sufficient number of valid signatures;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, STATE OF OHIO,

Section 1. There shall be submitted to the electors of the City of Lakewood at a municipal election, to be held as provided by law, the question of amending Article XXIII, General Provisions, to permit employees of the Lakewood Board of Education, residing within the City of Lakewood, the right to seek public office within the City of Lakewood.

Section 2. That Section 3., Activity of Officials and Employees Restricted, of Article XXIII. General Provisions of the Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood be adopted as follows:

ARTICLE XXIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 3. ACTIVITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES RESTRICTED.
The Mayor, members of Council and the directors of departments shall not, during their term of office, hold any other public office except that of notary public, Reserve Corps of the United States or member of the State Militia, nor shall they hold public employment with the City. The Mayor, members of Council and directors of departments shall not, during their term of office, be interested in the profits or emoluments of any contract with or job, work or service for the City, nor shall the Mayor, members of Council and directors of departments, during their term of office, or any other employee of the City, during their employment by the City, practice law or give legal advice or be associated with another in the practice of law in any matter or controversy in which the City is or may become a party, except on behalf of the City as an officer or employee. This Section shall not prohibit the Mayor, members of Council and the directors of departments and other officials or employees of the City from serving as a member or official of any organization of governments, special unit of government or an organization of governmental officials, whether such organization or special unit of government is organized as a special district, regional council of governments, nonprofit corporation or some other form under the statutes or Constitutions of the State or the federal government. This Section shall not prohibit the Mayor, members of Council and the directors of departments and other officials or employees of the City from serving as a member or an official in any other nonprofit corporation where their service is in the capacity of representing the City. When serving as a member or an official of any organization of governments, special unit of government or an organization of governmental officials, or where the Mayor, members of Council and the directors of departments and other officials or employees of the City’s service are members or officials of a nonprofit corporation permitted by this Section, such persons shall not be deemed to be interested in the profits or emoluments of any contract, job, work or service for the City or other transaction because of any contract or other transaction between the City and such organizations, special unit of government or nonprofit corporation; and the Mayor, members of Council and the directors of departments and other officials or employees of the City may fully participate (a) in their respective official capacities in the deliberations by the City or its agencies, and (b) in their capacity as members or officials of such organization of governments, special unit of government, organization of governmental officials or nonprofit corporation, including the right to vote with respect to such contract, job, work, service or other transaction. Any willful violation of this Section shall constitute malfeasance in office, and any such officer or employee found guilty thereof by a court of law shall forfeit his or her office.

Section 3. The ballots for said election shall, at the top thereof, be entitled “Proposed Charter Amendment, City of Lakewoodâ€Â

[Jim O'Bryan]

From what I hear it is fast tracked to go to the ballot box.




Thanks for stopping by, we all appreciate having council stop in.


.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

City Council will consider this matter at a Special Meeting of City Council on Thursday, March 8th at 6:00pm. Public comment is invited at this time. Please be aware that, as sufficient signatures have been presented, City Council has no authority to alter or amend this ordinance and is required to place it on the ballot.

Steve-- Just a reminder, there is NO RECORD of this issue ever being discussed by any other charter commission except the most recent one. In addition, you failed to mention that Denis Dunn joined me in supporting the effort and Mary Louise Madigan has since changed her position on the issue. Nickie Antonio has also signed on.

Grace-- I assume your comments for me were in jest. Let me share some historical reference for you, as you seem to be taking direction in your thinking from City Council precedent. In 2002, I led an effort to bring non-partisan elections to the City of Lakewood. That issue was opposed by the entire City Council and the Mayor. It was approved by the citizens with 71% of the vote. Fast forward to 2007, more signatures were collected for this issue than the 2002 issue, City Council opposed it. I would bet my life it gets 75-80% of the vote. Also, the non-teaching union rep who opposed the issue at the Council meeting had no intelligible arguments. All he had was a beef with the School Board. When I met with him about this amendment he spent all of the meeting talking about how his union contract was not settled and City Council needed to intervene. I told him that that was not appropriate and ended the meeting. One of my colleagues prompted Mr. Cooper (not an Lwood resident by the way) to come to the meeting and oppose me as a result. He has since been removed and the new union has taken no position on the issue. It should also be noted that Mr. Ken Cooper did not ask his union to take a vote and had no authority to claim such at City Council.

To those of you who like to scheme about my intentions, your inquiries are fair. Let's put it in perspective though:

The Demro Record

1) 2002-- Led effort to create non-partisan elections, approved overwhelmingly by the voters allowing all voters registered as Independents to vote in primary elections for the first time in 50 years.

IT'S ABOUT DEMOCRACY

2) 2006-- Led effort to move public comment to the beginning of City Council meetings to convenience residents and amplify public input, City Council rejected it. Citizens must wait until late into the night to share their concerns, most just give up and leave.

IT'S ABOUT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

3) 2007-- Led an effort to place charter amendment on the ballot that was rejected by City Council. City Council is overruled by the petitioners (1,207 of them) and the issue goes to the ballot this May.

IT'S ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS

Call it what you will, but the record is clear.

I think it is important to clarify that a conflict of interest can only exist under the law if you can show a direct benefit to the member of City Council. This issue came up at the meeting but was left out of previous posts on this board. How does a teacher benefit, personally, from lowering inspection fees for the school system? Union rules are quite clear about promotion and raises, that is why it is called collective bargaining.

Let's go further and turn the tables though. Check out the employment history of members of Council:

President Bob Seelie: Former employee, Cuyahoga County
V.P.: Mike Dever, Administrator, Cuy. County Engineer's Office
Mary Louise Madigan: Cuy. Cty. Dept. of Human Services
Ed FitzGerald: Former County Prosecutor

All former or current public employees. Now let's identify potential conflicts:

We have contracts with the County Engineer for street reconstruction

We have contracts and grants from Cuy. Cty, Dept of Human Services and ML is Chairwoman of the Health and Human Services Commmittee of City Council.

Anything wrong with that? Do these people profit personally from these activities? There is no evidence that that is the case.

Finally, those of us in the teaching profession do take comments about being unprofessional personally. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a teacher. My job in teaching, especially in Social Studies, is to present both sides and let students decide where they fall. You can be held professionally liable if you cannot justify your lesson plans. There is established case law surrounding these issues. I would not expect anyone to know it unless they have to live it. If you would like references I would be happy to recommend them. I will continue to encourage everyone to think carefully about this and consider how you would feel if your rights were restricted in this way. It's easy to feel unrestricted if you have never had the desire to make change and the understanding that public policy is an effective way to do it.. So try to think of it from the perspective of those of us who have stepped up to do so.

[Charyn Compeau]

Ryan,

I all truthfulness, I doubt that there would be any real conflict that would preclude someone from being able to fulfill the duties of both positions.

My concern, however, is that there would be a public perception of such a conflict.

Even if there is no basis for accusations of favorable or unfavorable treatment of children based upon a parent's political views compared to the representatives, even if there is no basis for a parent to fear speaking to or against a council person, or a council person's ideas, there is still a significant chance that both of these situations might be perceived as a problem by some parents.

When it comes to children, there are people that tend to look for external reasons for their child's woes in school, both academically and behaviorally. And the desire to find such external "causes" can cause some very skewed perceptions and beliefs. Where our children are concerned the emotions run much higher - so I believe this is a bigger issue for school employees than it is for say... a city employee that works in the parks division.

I believe and trust in the teachers as well as the people that devote their time and energies to running for local office; however, we live in a litigious and suspicious society; therefore, I have to note that I am concerned that the potential for divisiveness in this circumstance is high and the potential for a negative impact on our school system is to great.

Can you please speak to these concerns and why you do not feel they merit restricting school employees from sitting on council? And how wold such concerns be addressed if the did become an issue should someone employed by the schools win such a seat.

Kind regards,
Charyn

[dl meckes]

As a frequent visitor to council, I am concerned about the characterization that citizens are not being heard.

It is usual that citizens are heard as docket items they wish to address are discussed.

It is also normal for citizens who wish to bring new issues to council to wait until the end of the meeting.

My experience over many years tells me that it's best to address the business on the agenda first and have comments or discussion last.

To be fair, there have been some exceptions, but from the time I first started attending council meetings at least 15 years ago, I have been favorably impressed by the acceptance of citizen input.

[Lynn Farris]

I tremendously appreciate Ryan's efforts to move public comments to the begining.

I know that when issue 47 began the comments were at the begining, but I'm sure as a result of us coming and talking, they moved it to the end, so they wouldn't have to hear it. This is wrong. There are people that come with small children and I know that we have ended up sitting in council meetings past midnight many times. I have seen many people get discouraged and leave.

That may be what some on council want - but it isn't what a democracy needs.

Sure, DL you can sign up to discuss items on the agenda and talk about them at the appropriate times - but often citizens come to address problems that they are facing that can be very real. By moving them to the end - the newspaper (Maybe not Stan, our intrepid reporter) but the others have left so there is less impact and sometimes you do have to wait a very long time which isn't always feasible when you have small children at home.

Thank you Ryan.

I think there is a fair amount of pro and con to the amendment and I got to hear a lot of it, when I was on the Charter Review. On controversial issues like this, let the citizens vote and the majority will rule.

[Jeff Endress]

Lynn

Just to be on the cynical side. moving comments to the beginning also allows those interested to say waht's on their mind......then leave. This then allows the remaining business to be conducted without a bunch a prying eyes!

Jeff

[dl meckes]

Citizens go to address council for many reasons.

It is quite rare for there to be issues that draw large groups of people who wish to address council and not all issues are of equal merit.

Lynne- I hear what you're saying and I'd say that if enough people want to yell at council over an issue that perhaps other meetings should be scheduled to focus on particular hot button issues.

I could be incorrect, but if memory serves, the last vote on the skatepark was taken out of docket order due to the huge group of citizens who were interested in that one issue.

I think council president Bob Seelie has tried to be more flexible regarding comments and I think I'd prefer to see flexibility in that area rather than hard and fast rules.

Many council meetings have such a small audience of civilians that you can practically hear crickets.

It's really a shame, because these meetings are very interesting.

[Danielle Masters]

I could be incorrect, but if memory serves, the last vote on the skatepark was taken out of docket order due to the huge group of citizens who were interested in that one issue.

You are correct, but having the media there was probably a large part of the reason for the move. It also helped to change the majority of the votes.

Comments should be moved forward for everyone not just for citizens that are able to garner tons of community support. I feel for the people that come to address an issue that is of great importance to them only to have to sit through a whole council meeting. While many of us find them interesting many people do not. I can't imagine that it would be a large inconvenience for council to let the citizens go first, considering council members are there for the entire meeting. I highly doubt that it would add that many minutes to the meetings either.

[dl meckes]

Danielle-

That depends entirely on who shows up to speak and why they are there.

If you spend a lot of time at council meetings, you may develop a different opinion.

I also don't necessarily want to sit through every comment before council gets down to important, "less interesting" issues.

And like Jeff, I hate to think that there are no citizens sitting in watching council at work.

Important decisions are made during boring meetings, like the committee of the whole or budget hearings. These boring meetings are open to the public, but the public usually doesn't show up.

Citizens usually only shows up when something "interesting" happens.

It's a real shame.