UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderator: Jim O'Bryan

Kristine Pagsuyoin
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:28 am

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Kristine Pagsuyoin »

Decision to place? I don't think businesses are dictated to on where they can be placed. Panera I'm sure was the one who chose which location they would build into. And given the number of people who work right down in that area, I don't see either Einstein's or Souper Market hurting for customers at lunch hour. I'm pretty sure the market can support it. (Einstein's is also not local, it's a chain and that particular one needs some serious TLC on the inside).
Again, no one is going to tell a business where they should go, you can't just "place" them wherever you want. Madison has issues, bigger issues than one business can fix. But so did Detroit. You can only focus on so much at once and I'd rather the city focus on one area and fix it before moving to the next, diluting resources will product mediocre results everywhere.

If the city only offered space on Madison, I guarantee Panera probably wouldn't have come. The area isn't conducive to foot traffic, or even steady lunchtime work traffic.


No you can’t force businesses, but you can creative incentives that would work better with a city-wide vision. And yes, come cities and developments (such as Legacy Village) have dictated how many of whatever kind of businesses will be represented. I have heard from many who are connected that some of our local businesses are hurting from too much competition. I know many families & individuals who want to cut back on their expenses and I don't think we can count on the economy bouncing back. Even when it does I don't think it will come back in the same way before this down turn. I think how we live and work is changing and Lakewood has the opportunity to be a trailblazer--if we want it.

A city may have to work in phases and yet can still can have a master plan. Does LA work closely with MAMA? Even if it is not its mission it seems to me it would make sense to stay connected and work together this way. Right now we have so many organizations just doing their own thing –over the long run that will not make our economy stronger. There are some great models out there of cities that were able to bring many factions together for a common vision (Pittsburgh comes to mind). I work with the Lakewood Family Collaborative. We are starting to really understand and grasp how much more effective we can be if we pull our resources together, or the very least, make an effort to communicate. Maybe that is going on—I don’t know. I am asking.

But you think people will drive to Lakewood Hardware if they already have Home Depot in their backyard? I'm not sure I understand.


Meaning, big box stores or strip malls is not the answer. I threw in the Lakewood Hardware comment to say again "good to buy local", and in my opinion, not to bring in businesses that may cause what you already have to struggle & die. I know people do travel to Lakewood to visit our antique stores—that is unique and not everyone can get that experience in the far suburbs. Grow that. There is a lot of potential in Lakewood to create niches that will attract people who will spend their money here.

But I also want to emphasize that transparency doesn't mean necessarily doing what you or I want them to do. There are 50,000+ people in Lakewood all who have different visions for what this city could be.


True enough—until they think the right thing to do is to close a highly effective and much needed elementary school because someone thinks the building is ugly or to make room for a strip mall.

I see a lot of people complaining about the focus on downtown Lakewood or other initiatives and decry the organization for that. But what about those of use who like what's going on downtown and think the changes are positive?



I do want an active, profitable, and safe downtown. But, I also want our efforts to be sustainable over the long-term. We can’t just fix things now and hope that in 10 or 20 years from now that it will still be working. I moved to Chicago after college in the 80’s. I thought Cleveland was getting its act together, but I was shocked to find out the flats had died when I returned less than 10 years later. I live, shop, eat downtown Lakewood. There should be more focus on other areas and I hope that the city will step up their efforts.

I think that our discussion points out that we need balance. Lakewood is diverse—we can’t cater to one subgroup’s vision. It can be all to all who live here if we have a vision and work together in that spirit. Not one group should be able to do whatever they want if it wastes city money or isn't going to sustain our city into the future. Our elected officials are supposed to be the voice of the people--are they listening to everyone or just one group?


Missy--no need to apologize! You sparked some good discussion.
Bryan Schwegler
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Lakewood

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Bryan Schwegler »

Kristine Pagsuyoin wrote:No you can’t force businesses, but you can creative incentives that would work better with a city-wide vision. And yes, come cities and developments (such as Legacy Village) have dictated how many of whatever kind of businesses will be represented.


Sure, I think a masterplan or vision for the city is good, but I also don't want to turn good businesses away if they're going to make really great community partners.

If we're going to limit businesses types, let's start with bars and see how that goes. ;)

I have heard from many who are connected that some of our local businesses are hurting from too much competition. I know many families & individuals who want to cut back on their expenses and I don't think we can count on the economy bouncing back. Even when it does I don't think it will come back in the same way before this down turn. I think how we live and work is changing and Lakewood has the opportunity to be a trailblazer--if we want it.


But if local businesses can't stand up to competition, then I think they need to look at their strategy and business plan. The point is not to have subpar local businesses and support them by preventing other businesses from coming in, the point is they should become better at what they do because of the competition in order to keep the business. That's capitalism and ultimately benefits the consumer and the business.

A great example is the number of small places in Lakewood that don't accept credit cards. Sorry, you're not getting my business as that's how I prefer to pay and rarely carry cash. Most of generation is the same way. I know it's more expensive, but if you want to get the business, especially spur of the moment, you need to accept them. It's a cost of doing business, just like heat or lights.

They don't change, that's their choice, but they also face the consequences of not changing and can't blame anyone but themselves. And that's just one example.

A city may have to work in phases and yet can still can have a master plan.


Agreed, but who's responsibility is it to set that plan? I would look to the Mayor and our City Council since that's really their job. Have they done that or even attempted to do that?

There is a lot of potential in Lakewood to create niches that will attract people who will spend their money here.


Absolutely!

I do want an active, profitable, and safe downtown. But, I also want our efforts to be sustainable over the long-term. We can’t just fix things now and hope that in 10 or 20 years from now that it will still be working.


And how do you know for sure what's being done now won't be working? I'd also challenge that anything done now won't be working in 20 years if it fails to continue to adapt and change to the environment and situation.

Our elected officials are supposed to be the voice of the people--are they listening to everyone or just one group?


I wonder if they're listening to anyone at all sometimes. :)

Missy--no need to apologize! You sparked some good discussion.

Absolutely agree, the discussion is awesome!
Missy Limkemann
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:13 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Missy Limkemann »

Ok good. Glad I could spark some good discussion. Oh and I was just asking about the perks just to ask a question, learn things. Nothing implied in that quesiton. Again wanting to learn and grow as a person and want to learn more. I like knowledge and I love to learn.
Time is precious, waste is wisely
Betsy Voinovich
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:53 am

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Betsy Voinovich »

Charlie Page wrote:The talk on the street even before the election was that Mike Summers would our next mayor if Ed won. I don’t find it peculiar that Shawn Juris put his name in to be considered for only for Ward 3. He was simply playing the odds.


I don’t know Mike Summers as well as some but I wouldn’t consider him an insider. I think anyone who was a School Board member for that length of time and on City Council would be in a position to know a lot of people and be part of many activities. If being in the know is the standard of labeling someone as an insider, then there are a lot of insiders here in beautiful Lakewood.


Hi Charlie,

Yeah, I'm a little late in getting back to this, but I figure it's relevant today as the Council Interviews are going to be conducted in the city auditorium right now.

I disagree that "playing the odds" and submitting an early application for Ward 3 isn't a peculiar thing for Shawn Juris to do. "Word on the street" is not knowing that a seat will definitely be open to the degree that you actually submit an application.

"Playing the odds" isn't a process. "Word on the street" isn't a process.

This is why it's so great that there is an actual process going on at the city auditorium today. I'm very pleased that it's open to the public, but I'm a veteran of a public process that was completely false. Having said that, I think this is really great and I hope as many people as possible attend. I think the City Council and the new mayor have the potential to do things right. And by that I mean, represent the people who elected them, and realize that the money they are using and that pays their salaries, is the public's money.

Betsy Voinovich
Betsy Voinovich
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:53 am

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Betsy Voinovich »

Betsy Voinovich wrote:
Charlie Page wrote:
I don’t know Mike Summers as well as some but I wouldn’t consider him an insider. I think anyone who was a School Board member for that length of time and on City Council would be in a position to know a lot of people and be part of many activities. If being in the know is the standard of labeling someone as an insider, then there are a lot of insiders here in beautiful Lakewood.


Hi Charlie,

I forgot to address this part of your post. The point of calling Mike an insider, as I took it anyway, from Scott Meeson's post, was that Mike Summers had the ultimate inside track to becoming mayor. His way of being "in the know" was that he himself and others, like Shawn Juris, "knew" who was going to be appointed to the mayor's job.

As Jim O. has pointed out several times, there is no clearly defined process, so the Council can do whatever they want. What I take issue with is acting like there is a process by making it public that the PROCESS WILL BE asking the public to submit applications for the mayoral appointment and acting like these applications will actually be considered.

This might not be written down in the city charter, but stating that "this is what we are going to do" to the public-- functions as the Council telling the public how it will be.

I understand how it can be said that I sound naive, wanting elected officials to do what they say when "everybody knows how it's really going down". What I'm saying is that I don't like it. It's a waste of the public's (and the applicants') time if it's a sham.

I'd like to see the Council say (for example) "We're looking at Mike Summers for mayor. We've traveled down the line of succession that's in the Charter, nobody wants it, so now, the first thing we're going to do, is look among the group that's already here, serving the city, in the Council." How hard would that be? How responsible? Why the need to pretend that the public was included in the process? Why the need of the public's supposed endorsement to be able to act? We elected the Council, we expect them to do the best they can and share with us what is in front of them and why they are doing what they are doing. A simple explanation like that would be acceptable, and wouldn't have wasted peoples' time.

I'm not saying that this was or is a faux process, nor that I would like the public to be excluded from this process. I'm just saying that if it's going to happen, it should be real.

School Board Vice President Matt Markling made a massive effort towards transparency, at the end of the Phase 3 process, when he asked his fellow Board Members to please share the criteria for the choice they made in closing Grant school. They refused to share their criteria or any reasons at all not only with the public, (And the Phase 3 Committee itself) but with a fellow Board member, causing Mr. Markling to wonder how the decision had been made, and motivating him to bring up Sunshine Laws.

Though his efforts thus far have not produced results (No-one knows why the choices have been made, except for the INSIDERS! who actually made the choices, right in the face of the committee that was supposed to figure out the choices, and of course right in the face of the public.) Maybe when Mr. Markling becomes President of the School Board in this coming year, we will see some changes in policy that will protect the interests of Lakewood's children and the rights of Lakewood's voters.

I bring this up in this thread because, as everyone knows-- because I sound like a broken record--I'm hoping the City will take a lesson from the School Board. That process was very damaging to the spirit of the city, as Meg Ostrowski pointed out so eloquently in her post, earlier in this thread.

Meg Ostrowski wrote:
Time is such a precious commodity. It behooves the school district, city and community organizations to be respectful and appreciative of citizens’ time. Any process that leaves participants feeling otherwise causes them to become vigilant or worse (and more common) disengaged.

Lakewood is special in that so many of its citizens participate when called upon. I would hate to see us lose that edge because citizens feel repeatedly manipulated, used or ignored in situations where decisions have already been made and a process is a waste of that precious time.


Lakewood is special-- the national media seems to know all about it--- most walkable, best place to raise a family, etc.

It's time we started treating each other within the city-- in the relationships between residents and between elected officals, elected bodies and community groups-- as the special people, and city that we are.

Betsy Voinovich
Charlie Page
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Lakewood

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Charlie Page »

Betsy Voinovich wrote:I disagree that "playing the odds" and submitting an early application for Ward 3 isn't a peculiar thing for Shawn Juris to do. "Word on the street" is not knowing that a seat will definitely be open to the degree that you actually submit an application.
"Playing the odds" isn't a process. "Word on the street" isn't a process.

This is why it's so great that there is an actual process going on at the city auditorium today. I'm very pleased that it's open to the public, but I'm a veteran of a public process that was completely false. Having said that, I think this is really great and I hope as many people as possible attend. I think the City Council and the new mayor have the potential to do things right. And by that I mean, represent the people who elected them, and realize that the money they are using and that pays their salaries, is the public's money.

Betsy Voinovich


I agree that playing the odds and gossip are not processes. The actual process lies with Council members. And I applaud them for opening up the interview process to the public. This makes me believe there are many good candidates and wanted to see how they do under pressure of a crowd (assuming more than a few members of the public showed up). If there were only a few strong ones, Council might have made the decision without a public interview process.

BTW, how did it go? What are your impressions of the candidates?



Betsy Voinovich wrote:I forgot to address this part of your post. The point of calling Mike an insider, as I took it anyway, from Scott Meeson's post, was that Mike Summers had the ultimate inside track to becoming mayor. His way of being "in the know" was that he himself and others, like Shawn Juris, "knew" who was going to be appointed to the mayor's job.

I obtained my knowledge of the ‘word on the street’ at least third or fourth hand. Basically gossip or hearsay. I can’t speak to how or if Shawn Juris heard this or if it was pure speculation on his part.

I mean no disrespect to the others who submitted their names in consideration for Mayor, but I can’t think of a better person for the job than Mike Summers. Once I heard he threw his hat in the ring, I thought he’s pretty much guaranteed to get it. Not because he has influence over the rest of Council but because of the work that he’s done on Council and as Chair of the Finance Committee. IMO, he is a big part of why the City’s been able to stay afloat (financially speaking) over the last few years. There’s no other candidate that matches his experience, business acumen and knowledge of Lakewood. He was a hands down winner in my book (Jim – you were a close second, FWIW). Who knows, maybe Shawn thought this way too?

Whomever is appointed to either the at large or ward 3 seat will have to stand for election in Nov 2011. The way elections are staggered, the at large seat will be up for general election two years later while the ward 3 seat will serve the entire four year term. This will give the ward 3 member more time to build his/her reputation and campaign dollars. Maybe this entered into his rationale? I don’t know. Maybe he thought they wouldn’t extend the deadline for applications two times? If he was an insider, he would have known the deadline was going to be extended.




Betsy Voinovich wrote:As Jim O. has pointed out several times, there is no clearly defined process, so the Council can do whatever they want. What I take issue with is acting like there is a process by making it public that the PROCESS WILL BE asking the public to submit applications for the mayoral appointment and acting like these applications will actually be considered.

This might not be written down in the city charter, but stating that "this is what we are going to do" to the public-- functions as the Council telling the public how it will be.

I understand how it can be said that I sound naive, wanting elected officials to do what they say when "everybody knows how it's really going down". What I'm saying is that I don't like it. It's a waste of the public's (and the applicants') time if it's a sham.

The charter spells out a line of succession but ends when no one in the line wants it and its turned over to Council to oversee the process. I think Council President Butler did a good job outlining a fair process.

It’s not naïve to want elected officials to do what they say they are going to do. It’s what they should do. If they don’t, they should at least be able to explain why. They should be able to explain their rationale and decision making process. Maybe circumstances changed. Fine, just tell me.





Betsy Voinovich wrote:I'd like to see the Council say (for example) "We're looking at Mike Summers for mayor. We've traveled down the line of succession that's in the Charter, nobody wants it, so now, the first thing we're going to do, is look among the group that's already here, serving the city, in the Council." How hard would that be? How responsible? Why the need to pretend that the public was included in the process? Why the need of the public's supposed endorsement to be able to act? We elected the Council, we expect them to do the best they can and share with us what is in front of them and why they are doing what they are doing. A simple explanation like that would be acceptable, and wouldn't have wasted peoples' time.

I'm not saying that this was or is a faux process, nor that I would like the public to be excluded from this process. I'm just saying that if it's going to happen, it should be real.

I think if Council looked only at Mike Summers (and I’m not saying they did) and no one else, they would have potentially violated the charter. Anyway, I don’t think Council put on a faux process only to select Mike for Mayor. I think they truly evaluated every submission fairly.



Betsy Voinovich wrote:School Board Vice President Matt Markling made a massive effort towards transparency, at the end of the Phase 3 process, when he asked his fellow Board Members to please share the criteria for the choice they made in closing Grant school. They refused to share their criteria or any reasons at all not only with the public, (And the Phase 3 Committee itself) but with a fellow Board member, causing Mr. Markling to wonder how the decision had been made, and motivating him to bring up Sunshine Laws.

Though his efforts thus far have not produced results (No-one knows why the choices have been made, except for the INSIDERS! who actually made the choices, right in the face of the committee that was supposed to figure out the choices, and of course right in the face of the public.) Maybe when Mr. Markling becomes President of the School Board in this coming year, we will see some changes in policy that will protect the interests of Lakewood's children and the rights of Lakewood's voters.

I bring this up in this thread because, as everyone knows-- because I sound like a broken record--I'm hoping the City will take a lesson from the School Board. That process was very damaging to the spirit of the city, as Meg Ostrowski pointed out so eloquently in her post, earlier in this thread.

Meg Ostrowski wrote:
Time is such a precious commodity. It behooves the school district, city and community organizations to be respectful and appreciative of citizens’ time. Any process that leaves participants feeling otherwise causes them to become vigilant or worse (and more common) disengaged.

Lakewood is special in that so many of its citizens participate when called upon. I would hate to see us lose that edge because citizens feel repeatedly manipulated, used or ignored in situations where decisions have already been made and a process is a waste of that precious time.


Lakewood is special-- the national media seems to know all about it--- most walkable, best place to raise a family, etc.

It's time we started treating each other within the city-- in the relationships between residents and between elected officals, elected bodies and community groups-- as the special people, and city that we are.

Betsy Voinovich

It’s obvious that you are still stinging from the Phase 3 charade, as am I. I came in late to Phase 3 (around April) but I quickly felt like we were being herded in a particular direction. For me, the moment of truth was the June meeting at Lincoln when the table vote came. I remember looking at the audience during the meeting and seeing a lot of faces that were not at the previous meetings and thinking the deck is stacked. Remember that?

I applaud Matt Markling for standing up to his fellow board members and asking for their criteria in public. Openness, honesty, integrity and transparency in 2011! I hope the Phase 3 charade encourages others to run in 2011.
I was going to sue her for defamation of character but then I realized I had no character – Charles Barkley
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14196
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Jim O'Bryan »

Charlie Page wrote: I applaud Matt Markling for standing up to his fellow board members and asking for their criteria in public. Openness, honesty, integrity and transparency in 2011! I hope the Phase 3 charade encourages others to run in 2011.


Charlie

As do I and an ever growing group of Lakewood residents. There is nothing more
impressive in public service that actually trusting the people you are working for.

But in this town without pity, it also transparency and openness that often carries the
hefty price from those who believe we do not deserve it.

Especially in election years.

How about a little theme song.



.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Scott Meeson
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:08 pm

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Scott Meeson »

Betsy Voinovich wrote:
Maybe when Mr. Markling becomes President of the School Board in this coming year, we will see some changes in policy that will protect the interests of Lakewood's children and the rights of Lakewood's voters.

Betsy Voinovich


Is it a given that Matthew John Markling will become President of the School Board in 2011?
If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development.
- Aristotle
Colleen Wing
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Colleen Wing »

The School Board President has always rotated accordingly without incident. I can only assume the same will happen this year. Cue Gary...
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14196
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Jim O'Bryan »

Colleen Wing wrote:The School Board President has always rotated accordingly without incident. I can only assume the same will happen this year. Cue Gary...



Colleen

I do believe that Debra Sweeney was never Board President. Not sure if that was power
structure or bad timing.


.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Betsy Voinovich
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:53 am

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Betsy Voinovich »

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Colleen Wing wrote:The School Board President has always rotated accordingly without incident. I can only assume the same will happen this year. Cue Gary...



Colleen

I do believe that Debra Sweeney was never Board President. Not sure if that was power
structure or bad timing.


.


Does anybody know if Deb Sweeney was the next in line for rotation and didn't become president when it was her turn, or whether her turn hadn't come up before she left office? I don't know how it's supposed to work.

I do know that Matt Markling is the Vice President of the School Board now, and is due, according to the rotation, to become president in 2011. I agree with Charlie. Matt is an exemplary School Board member, taking time not only to interact with the schools and the community, but to make sure that he explains as clearly as possible what's going on within our school system to the citizens of Lakewood. And he keeps getting appointed to committees and winning awards from different groups in the state of Ohio because of his performance.

I also think that Superintendent Madak has done his best to be as transparent and as accountable as he can be in many many difficult situations.

Thanks.

Betsy Voinovich
Bill Call
Posts: 3319
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Bill Call »

Scott Meeson wrote:
Betsy Voinovich wrote:
Maybe when Mr. Markling becomes President of the School Board in this coming year, we will see some changes in policy that will protect the interests of Lakewood's children and the rights of Lakewood's voters.

Betsy Voinovich


Is it a given that Matthew John Markling will become President of the School Board in 2011?


My guess is that he will become President only if he agrees to post less and inform less. I don't think he will agree to that. Then what? Will the board give in?
Will it matter?
Justine Cooper
Posts: 775
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:12 am
Location: Lakewood

Re: UPDATED-Who Has Put Their Name In For City Council-UPDATED

Post by Justine Cooper »

Betsy Voinovich wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Mike might be the ultimate insider, has all the makings of one. But unlike the many
conversations I have with them where I always walk away feeling like some insolent child,
I feel he listens, and even learns from our conversations.

In all seriousness, many in government here, too many, feel like the only thing truly
holding them back is the residents and businesses. To be honest, I can only think of two
that do not believe most of us are ignorant, huddled masses that could never possibly
understand what they do, so why bother even talking with us about it.

I am hoping Mike will continue to open the door so eventually residents are welcomed
back into the discussion of our city.

However, I want to wait on council until the decisions are made.

The very first question I was asked by a member of council about being mayor was, "Have
I made up with LakewoodAlive, and can I work with them." I find this odd, as in all other
communities I have worked with, EDCs and CDCs are controlled by the elected officials not
the other way around. I also know of at least two people running for School Board that have
been told, "They better make nice with LakewoodAlive or they will not get in." If you
notice a fall off in participation from a couple elected officials here it was because of this.

Funny, I would have thought at least on member would ask, "What ideas do you have for
this city?" But then I am a wide-eyed liberal that still believes the system can work.

FWIW

PS - I have never said no to anything LakewoodAlive has asked of the Observer. They
cannot say the same thing. The Observer asked for one very, very, very small favor, and
were told NEVER! I guess the LO just got too greedy. :wink:


.


Hi everybody,

Happy Monday--

For parents out there, two more weeks til the kids get out of school for Christmas break!!

Jim, I am cheered by what you say about Mike Summers, and his willingness to listen. If this whole open call for public submissions for mayoral applicants was an inauthentic process, and Mike is the ultimate insider, it's at least comforting to know that he sounds like a good guy.

A couple things are really bothering me.

Your mention of the City Council asking you if you could get along with Lakewood Alive as a prerequisite to being allowed to be considered for mayor, in and of itself, and the fact that it points back to Shawn Juris again, and the big debate on the Deck in March when Lakewood Alive's Annual Report, and their lack of transparency with money was being defended by Mr. Juris. He spoke not only as a member, but the ultimate defender of Lakewood Alive.

And he's the one who happens to know early who the appointed mayor will be? And is so confident that he puts his name in for his soon-to-be-vacated seat?

Another troubling thing is that while Mike Summers, in his Observer mayoral candidate interview, mentioned an impressive amount of involvement in civic groups, he didn't mention his service with Lakewood Alive whatsoever. Why? He's on their Board of Directors. Isn't he proud of that?

Maybe he is aware that as you mention, the relationship Lakewood Alive has with our city is the reverse of the ones most CDC's and EDC's have within their cities. Lakewood Alive behaves as if they run the city, including its elected officials and Board members-- but though they have plenty of public money, they are not elected by the public, and in the opinion of some, have not proven that they have an understanding of what's most valuable about Lakewood. Maybe Mike doesn't claim them because he would like it if the whole city voted for him in the Fall, because the whole city feels that he represents them.

As I said before, people seem very pleased that he is the new mayor, and Jim, the things that you have to say about him are very encouraging.

Maybe under Mayor Summer's care some new processes that are authentic will be instituted, and for the next chapter of his life in public service, "the ultimate insider" will step outside, into this beautiful, promising city that he has already served so well.

Betsy Voinovich

You must be psychic Betsy
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive" Dalai Lama
Post Reply