Appointing Problem

[Colleen Wing]

There was discussion about this issue on another thread and drifted from the topic.

This discussion is about concerns about City Council and School Board being run by appointed officials vs. elected officials.

I agree with Kristine and Rhonda.

My major concern with the issue of appointed officials is the length of time for which they can serve without an election. (almost 2 years)

We could change the charter to state- At the next general election- instead of the next odd year election (not sure the exact wording). It can be done with a majority of council votes or by petition.

The questions would be...which council members would support/pass it and would this help/prevent the concerns raised here

[stephen davis]

This discussion is about concerns about City Council and School Board being run by appointed officials vs. elected officials.

This is mostly a non-issue in Lakewood. Appointments are fairly rare.

I only remember two appointments to the School Board in my 24 years in Lakewood. The most recent one was when Chas Geiger retired (Resulted in the John Kamkutis appointment.). The one before that was in the early 90’s when Board member Marty O’Donnell married a woman from Westlake. He moved into her home and had to give up his seat (Resulted in Ed Favre’s appointment.). Other Board members have been elected since then. Even incumbents have lost elections during that time.

Council has made a few appointments. The most recent was when Ed Fitzgerald was elected Mayor before the end of his Council term.

My major concern with the issue of appointed officials is the length of time for which they can serve without an election. (almost 2 years)

A Council appointment can actually last longer than 2 years, depending on when the vacancy occurs.

We could change the charter to state- At the next general election- instead of the next odd year election (not sure the exact wording). It can be done with a majority of council votes or by petition.

The Charter already reads that way, with the exception of a vacancy occurring less than two years and one hundred five days before the next municipal election. That language is designed to allow an appointee to run for his/her own seat, and for others to run for the appointee’s seat. A vacancy occurring just before an election would not allow candidates time to gather and file petitions before the deadline for the primary. Different language may actually leave the seat open again if no candidate had time to file a petition with the Board of Elections before the deadline.

Here is an excerpt from The Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood:

Vacancies in Council shall be filled by the remaining members thereof, provided that in the event Council does not so appoint a successor within sixty (60) days of the occurrence of a vacancy, the Mayor may fill the vacancy. Such appointee shall hold office for the unexpired term of the member in whose office the vacancy occurs or until his or her successor is elected and qualified. A successor shall be elected at the next regular municipal election, provided that such vacancy occurs more than two years and one hundred five days (2 years and 105 days) prior to the date of such election.

School Board appointments are subject to state law. We cannot change a local charter to alter that process.

The questions would be...which council members would support/pass it and would this help/prevent the concerns raised here

Take a little responsibility as a voter.

When you elect someone, aside from their platforms, or whatever other criteria you might measure them by, you are also electing them to make appointments. If you feel that an elected official has acted improperly in an appointment, you have the power of your vote against them. The democratic process takes care of some of these concerns.

Some might complain of cronyism. Realistically, I can’t see any of these elected bodies appointing someone that a majority of them couldn’t work with. It wouldn’t make sense. As an aside, it may be argued that some appointees have outperformed elected officials, but that is another discussion.

As cynical as I am, I've never sensed any illegality or conspiracy involved in Lakewood appointments. Not that it couldn’t happen, but I haven’t seen the abuse that some Observation Deck participants are worried about.

Based on what I know now, if someone wants to make a campaign issue about this, I guess that’s his/her right, but I would have to judge it as silly demagoguery.

.

[Stan Austin]

Steve--- your recollection of School Board and Council appointments is, as would be expected, accurate. Other than Brian Powers appointment the other recent example would be the appointment of Patrick Corrigan to the Ward 1 seat that was vacated by Brian Corrigan in 2005 as he was tapped for the Law Director position. Pat Corrigan declined to run for election. I think that would indicate that despite the popular name, he wasn't part of any cabal!
When you look at the School Board members who have served over the years there is a common theme or element in their backgrounds. Before being elected, members have almost universally served in the entry level or "training" camps such as PTA or Boosters. When campaigning these candidates always emphasized that experience and since they were elected this experience seems to resonate with Lakewood voters. Since this has been the common path for School Board members it may have the appearance of an "insider" game when in fact it is a very public path, one which is open to anyone.
I have a couple of years on you, Steve, in my historical recollections, such as they are. And, the only period that I can think of where a conscious and deliberate system existed to perpetuate a favored group was during the early 1970s.
At that time Lakewood Republicans under the leadership of Mayor Bob Lawther were in their ascendancy. Tony Sinagra was an up and comer having served as the Mayor's assistant. He was appointed to a Council at Large seat(I don't recall who gave up the seat). He then ran for State Rep against Dick Celeste in 1972. The district then as now was largely Democratic even though Lakewood comprised about 60% of the District. What a Republican campaign did, however, was to highlight the Republican and give him a head start for the next year local Lakewood election. This tactic served Tony well as he came in first in the votes for at large in 1973. Tony then served as a very involved and activist Councilman which provided a very attractive platform to launch a campaign for Mayor.
So, I agree with you that this notion of an insider game is a non issue.
The only possibility of a game being played to deny the voters a choice based on the arguments presented would be the case of Mr. Powers.
If the candidates for the at large seats felt that this was an important issue, one which would resonate with the voters, it would be their role to exploit the issue. I have not seen any candidate do this.
However----don't despair-----there's still a few days left!!!!!! If Mr. Power's appointment is an issue, perhaps we can enlist Otis to lead the charge in the waning days of this election!
Stan Austin

[Jim O'Bryan]

Take a little responsibility as a voter.

When you elect someone, aside from their platforms, or whatever other criteria you might measure them by, you are also electing them to make appointments. If you feel that an elected official has acted improperly in an appointment, you have the power of your vote against them. The democratic process takes care of some of these concerns.

Some might complain of cronyism. Realistically, I can’t see any of these elected bodies appointing someone that a majority of them couldn’t work with. It wouldn’t make sense. As an aside, it may be argued that some appointees have outperformed elected officials, but that is another discussion.

Stephan

You were the one that taught me to "take responsibility as a voter" and that they "really
do not work for us" on the level many like to believe.

We have to study and understand candidates, as we are choosing them to do the best job
they can for all of us. This is why we have elections.

However this rash of wondering about appointments is not just paranoia. It is well earned.
Mayor Edward FitzGerald has never made it a secret to me that, if the chance came
up to serve the county, and bring honesty and integrity back to county government
he would certainly like to be called on.

I can honestly say that in every city I go and work with elected officials they ask about
Mayor FitzGerald in connection with the Auditor's seat. This has gone from "What do
you think..." to them saying "I think Ed FitzGerald would be a great choice for..." and I
have to agree.

So what we ended up with was talk of the Mayor not finishing his term, followed by the
Chas Geiger quitting debacle, followed by the Tom Bullock well I served a couple
weeks time for me to move on, followed by the talk of Nickie maybe moving on within
a year of election, followed now by talk on the street that Betsy might move on after
the election, brought on by a combination of loose lips from a Phase III leader, to Betsy's
own indecisiveness over whether to run or retire, and the links back from all of this to
Lakewood's secret government, that never answers questions and prefers back alleys
and clandestine meetings instead of serving or even answering the public. And you have
a community that wants elected officials to stop playing games.

Look at many of the questions to candidates, Will you stay(not answered by most), what
clubs and efforts do you support(not answered by most), and the very powerful well
oiled machine of "Friends of Ed FitzGerald" dominating the political scene with money
from outside of Lakewood, and you get an electorate that is a little uneasy.

Then through in the new political credo in Lakewood "The less you talk about ideas,
platforms, and what you are going to do the better your chance is to get elected. Let
the machine power you to victory. DO NOT talk!

As I said, and I know you agree. We have a pretty good group of officials right now. Even
the ones I rarely agree with I know to be hard working. I suppose in this day and age
that is something.

However, I would throwout there, that working together well, is not a campaign slogan.
The history books are filled with groups that worked together well, and that is not always
the best. Matter of fact, the best that democracy has given us usually emerges from the
fight of two sides finding compromise that works for all.

The views expressed here are the views of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the
views of every person in Lakewood.

FWIW

.

[stephen davis]

So what we ended up with was talk of the Mayor not finishing his term, followed by the Chas Geiger quitting debacle, followed by the Tom Bullock well I served a couple weeks time for me to move on, followed by the talk of Nickie maybe moving on within a year of election, followed now by talk on the street that Betsy might move on after the election, brought on by a combination of loose lips from a Phase III leader...

Jim,

All that hearsay and talk is cheap. Your indictments are out of scale relative to these murmurings.

The Mayor may or may not leave before the end of his term. Antonio and Bullock may lose to Brady.

Betsy has served us well. Hopefully she stays her term, but I'm not worried about her leaving. Even with the perpetual talk by those threatening to run for School Board, we usually, as now, have uncontested races for those seats.

However, I would throwout there, that working together well, is not a campaign slogan.

You would prefer that the business of government grind to a halt?

The history books are filled with groups that worked together well, and that is not always the best.

No, the history books are are dominated by groups that didn't work well together.

Matter of fact, the best that democracy has given us usually emerges from the fight of two sides finding compromise that works for all.

Just two sides? Consensus is reached when a group finds workable solutions within the 3-D scatter chart of human experience and opinion.

Steve

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Tad snippy today?

Jim,

All that hearsay and talk is cheap. Your indictments are out of scale relative to these murmurings.

The Mayor may or may not leave before the end of his term. Antonio and Bullock may lose to Brady.

Betsy has served us well. Hopefully she stays her term, but I'm not worried about her leaving. Even with the perpetual talk by those threatening to run for School Board, we usually, as now, have uncontested races for those seats.

First off talk is not cheap, it provides great insight into the people that say it, repeat it,
and even believe it.

But you make my point. To be talking about this for as long as the conversations have
been going on in the halls of power, makes me a little nervous. One could easily have
said that Ed, Chaz and Bullock were not really forth coming during their elections.
Though I believe Ed was more candid.

To need the appointment as part of the charter makes sense. But to plan on it from the
day of elections or even before the election seems slightly disingenuous to the whole
election thing, doesn't it? "I will run as an incumbent, as they get reelected easier, and
then step down and we can appoint..." Say that in the mirror with a Russian accent and
it gets pretty creepy.*

Betsy has served us well. Hopefully she stays her term, but I'm not worried about her leaving. Even with the perpetual talk by those threatening to run for School Board, we usually, as now, have uncontested races for those seats.

Again you make the point. Betsy has served us well I was happy to see her come out and
run again. I am willing to bet many are. But IF she were quit early, the next person
has at best a 50/50 shot at being as good as Betsy or Linda.

Again, you believe talk is cheap, or one can say where there is smoke there is fire. No
matter it offers insights. When a person says, "X will step down and I am going to be
appointed..." it stirs my curiosity.

Matter of fact, the best that democracy has given us usually emerges from the fight of two sides finding compromise that works for all.

Just two sides? Consensus is reached when a group finds workable solutions within the 3-D scatter chart of human experience and opinion.

I say two, as you so well point out, the more discussion the merrier, which brings me
back full circle to the point we have both made before. "The trouble starts when one
group are sure they know what is right for everyone."

While I think we have a good group in council, one could easily ask for their list of
major accomplishments. Pit Bulls? Cleveland style trash pick up? The over funding
and over powering of the Politcal Action Committe er CDC known as LakewoodAlive?
The massive cuts to seniors? Crime? I could say budget, but as you told me before, the
city, by law, must balance the budget.

*"I will run as an incumbent, as they get reelected easier, andthen step down and we
can appoint..." Say that in the mirror with a Russian accent and it gets pretty creepy.

For added Halloween/Election fun, try it with different accents. British like Queen
Elizabeth, French, Cuban, for my liberal friends try Hugo Chávez, it is still pretty creepy!
.

[Shelley Hurd]

The passing of the amendment occurred due in large part because the everyday voter believed it was to address vacancy’s brought about by Major Illness, Family responsibility, Military Service, Death and other UNFORESEEN events.

So once again the Lakewood residents did what was “right” for this City.


Lakewood is first and foremost a Community. A fact residents always remember. So, the residents just did what we always do when we passed the amendment for appointments, residents did what’s right and what we saw as a way to ease the impact of an elected officials personal tragedy and responsibility as if they were a fellow human being. Residents did what was right for Lakewood and what was right to do for a fellow member of our community.

The everyday voter was definitely naive and did not foresee the nefarious, unscrupulous and teetering on illegal way it could and WOULD be exploited by those folks who view Lakewood residents as mere pawns in their personal game of Monopoly.

The taint smeared on Lakewood by this exploitation is inescapable. Any deal, appointment, contract, grant awards…. Must now be viewed carefully for whom and why it was made and entered into.

Many are poking around now. Many more are asking questions.

The everyday resident of Lakewood foots the bill for this game. And are demanding answers and action.

How do we assure grant awards are being given to and used for the interest of Lakewood residents?
How do we help residents to KNOW the representatives they elect are working for their interests?
How do we assure residents that deals made are in their best interest?
How do we assure residents have a vote on the ascension of political positions?


The Public Trust is gone.


How do we get the public trust back?
Do we involve an outside investigation? Who/what agency do residents engage to do such an investigation?

The Ohio Attorney General?

The Election Committee?

Who as any other input?


The Public trust IS gone. How do we now get it back?

[stephen davis]

YIKES!!! It's like my TV only gets Fox News!

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

YIKES!!! It's like my TV only gets Fox News!

.

Come on you can do better.

Well I guess we can all go back to work then.


.

[sharon kinsella]

Let's talk for a moment about a shadow government shall we?

Ed Favre - Lakewood Alive member
Ed Fitzgerald - Lakewood Alive member
Brian Powers - Lakewood Alive member
Nickie Antonio - Lakewood Alive member
Monique Smith - Lakewood Alive member

Organization receiving the largest amount of federal funding distrbuted through the city - Lakewood Alive.
Monique Smith - Committee that makes decisions about federal money distributed to non- profits.
Ed Fitzgerald, Brian Powers and Nickie Antonio part of governing body deciding where those funds go to.

Those are just the ones I know.

"By the twitching in my thumbs, something wicked this way comes."

[J Hrlec]

Just a question based on the comment below....

The Public trust IS gone. How do we now get it back?

Is the public trust gone? Was there a poll of all residents and a high percentage return of results that the Lakewood public doesn't trust our city government's officials, operations and/or processes?

Or should "public" in this statement be replaced with "my" or "people I know or speak to".

I just want to know if there are stats to back such a broad statement or if this is simply propaganda trying to push a point by saying a broad group believes it. Feedback?

[Shelley Hurd]

Just a question based on the comment below....

The Public trust IS gone. How do we now get it back?

Is the public trust gone? Was there a poll of all residents and a high percentage return of results that the Lakewood public doesn't trust our city government's officials, operations and/or processes?

Or should "public" in this statement be replaced with "my" or "people I know or speak to".

I just want to know if there are stats to back such a broad statement or if this is simply propaganda trying to push a point by saying a broad group believes it. Feedback?

At this point time will tell where, the motion of the wheels which are already turning, shall bear out what exactly is the truth.

Certanly all sides will be more inlightened and perhaps shocked when that which will be comes to pass.

[Bill Call]

Let's talk for a moment about a shadow government shall we?

Ed Favre - Lakewood Alive member
Ed Fitzgerald - Lakewood Alive member
Brian Powers - Lakewood Alive member
Nickie Antonio - Lakewood Alive member
Monique Smith - Lakewood Alive member

Organization receiving the largest amount of federal funding distrbuted through the city - Lakewood Alive.
Monique Smith - Committee that makes decisions about federal money distributed to non- profits.
Ed Fitzgerald, Brian Powers and Nickie Antonio part of governing body deciding where those funds go to.

Those are just the ones I know......

I'm a Lakewood Alive member (don't ask me why) and no one every asks be how I would spend the money. What's the good in belonging to a secret cabal if I'm not let in on any of the secrets?


I don't have any problem with someone choosing to resign two years into their term. I am a little troubled by people announcing their intention to resign while they are running for reelection.

Nickie Antonio has done a fine job on council and deserves reelection. But if she does not intend to complete her term then the voters should at least know who the replacement is going to be. On the other hand some people will vote for Ms Antonio because of her position on "national" issues.

Ed Fitzgerald is proabably the best Mayor Lakewood has had in 40 years. I think the City will miss him but I don't begrudge him his shot at higher office.

I think that we need at least one independent voice on council, someone who can say no, now and then, in a quiet and respectful kind of way.

What has the most influence a well designed mailing or a couple of posts seen by a couple of thousand people?

I thought the Mayor's last mailing was well done and positive. I thought Demro's and Shields most recent mailings were also well done. But I'm not a professional. The professionals will say the way to win is down and dirty. I don't agree.

[Ed FitzGerald]

Bill-

Out of curiosity, I checked the LakewoodAlive membership list online. I was surprised to see Jim O'Bryan is a member.

Jim, are you the person who is actually pulling the strings behind the curtain? Well done, I never even suspected you.

[Charlie Page]

I'm a Lakewood Alive member

Bill and the rest of the Deck...I have a confession to make - I too along with my wife are members of LakewoodAlive.

I don’t think we're called members anymore, just 'Friends of LakewoodAlive' although we appear in the Membership section of their website.

Names I did not see were the three council candidates that didn't make it past the primary. Must have been the LA Machine working against them.

Also, John Kamkutis is not a member either. How on earth did he get appointed to the school board if not part of The Machine? Could it be that board members are capable of independent thought and making decisions on their own?