Council Should Support the Charter Amendment

[kate e parker]

glad to see this board live up to its reputation.

I come here every day and see the same thing. each morning when I come here, I hope to see thoughtful persuasion on the issue. thoughtful and reasoned explanations for why Lakewood hospital should be saved. instead, I see the same clique badmouthing the other side in post after post after post. i'm not talking about the mayor. i'm talking about citizens that we are all neighbors with. please don't respond with "well, the other side talks shit". who cares. this is the observer not some seventh-grader's blog. I come here to get my Lakewood info. the observer has been very good to me in that regard. too many people have quit coming here because of the online bullies. cut it out. you guys have a lot going for you on this issue. so take the high road. if they can't be persuaded, then don't take the bait. it makes this place look bad.

I love the observer and even though I don't agree you guys a majority of the time, I need the observer. I need my finger on the pulse of this town. however, it's getting harder to weed through the childish posts. you're better than that, observers.

kate

[Bridget Conant]

kate

In this particular situation I'd have to disagree with you. Why? Because what the mayor and the law director did was egregious. They deliberately and willfully changed words to make it easier for them to argue against the ballot issue. What they did is nothing less than criminal. They attempted to completely subvert the democratic process.

I can understand the intensity of feelings resulting from that slap in the face. NO citizen should have to worry about their local elected officials acting in such a manner.

And you might not have known this, but Todd was on FB haranguing the SLH group, so he's no shrinking violet being chased away here. Its an act and he got called out on it and is now playing the victim. He can give as good as he gets.

[Jennifer Pae]

From thelawdictionary.org:

What is REGISTERED VOTER?
a person who has recorded his name in the voting register and is entitled legally to cast a vote.

What is ELECTOR?
A duly qualified voter; one who has a vote in the choice of any officer; aconstituent.

What is QUALIFIED VOTER?
the term that describes a person who fulfills all of the qualifications that are needed to vote.

The law department drafted Ordinance 27-15. Again, the proposed ballot language in Section 2 of the ordinance does not change the language of the charter amendment, and the board of elections is who decides the final language of the ballot question which is then approved by the Secretary of State.

The term was most likely changed since the public is more familiar with the term "registered voter" versus "elector," and they pretty much mean the same thing as shown above.

[Bridget Conant]

And Jen, now that you are a law expert, you should know that elector and voter have been used interchangeably by the Ohio legislature. The use of elector may mean "qualified to vote," "registered to vote," or "VOTER."

Changing "elector" to "registered voter" was improper, subverted the intent of the initiative, and presented a barrier to the issue being able to be passed. As I noted earlier, NO other issue in Ohio has had to meet the requirement of a majority of registered voters, EVER.

And you know that.

[Bill Call]

effect until such ordinance is approved by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Lakewood at a general election"

What is the meaning of the word is?

The language in the amendment is clear in its meaning and intent. A majority vote means a majority vote. It does not mean a majority of those not voting.

Citizens try very hard to make their meaning clear and politicians try even harder to misinterpret and obfuscate.

Here is an example:

In Missouri the citizens insisted that any new stadium be "built adjacent to an existing convention facility,”.

Seems clear enough so that's how the law was written. However, a judge ruled that adjacent can mean many miles away.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 857ac.html

The Mayor and his supporters continue to lie when the truth serves them better. Of course the Clinic and the Mayor will spend a lot of money to spread the lie. Lakewood Hospital is a $140 million a year business with 150,000 patient encounters. The Clinic wants that business in Avon and the Mayor wants the Foundation money and Hospital investments for his friends.

They will do or say anything to get it.

If they attempt to push through a vote on the Hospital before the election get ready for all hell to break loose. Recall elections, lawsuits and more.

The question to the Mayor is: Is your desire for a recreation center so great that you will poison the political discourse in Lakewood for years to come?

It's also a question for Council.

[Jim O'Bryan]

More lies from the mayor, law director and council president, parroted by minions who cannot
think for themselves.

TRUTH

No matter what it says, it take only a majority of votes in any election. They are lying.

Why, because all it would take is a charter amendment to change the charter, and
City Hall not only knows it, they have spoken of it in private.

More BS, more misleading by City Hall.

Slowly becoming compulsive liars.

.

[Brian Essi]

From thelawdictionary.org:

The law department drafted Ordinance 27-15. Again, the proposed ballot language in Section 2 of the ordinance does not change the language of the charter amendment, and the board of elections is who decides the final language of the ballot question which is then approved by the Secretary of State.

The term was most likely changed since the public is more familiar with the term "registered voter" versus "elector," and they pretty much mean the same thing as shown above.

Jenn,

I know you are just the damage control messenger walking this back, but:
1. Yesterday it was the Butler had "input".
2. Today the "law department drafted...ballot language in Section 2 of the ordinance does not change the language of the charter amendment...that pretty much means the same thing..."

But in fact what Butler drafted ballot language that change the language:
The Charter language: “… a majority vote of the electors of the City of Lakewood at a general election.”
Summers/Butler language: “… an affirmative vote by a majority of the registered voters of the city for passage…”

So, the important words changed are NOT "electors" to "registered voters".
The important words changed are: "majority vote of" and "at a general election" which were deleted and Butler added "affirmative vote by a majority"

We can keep asking WHY Butler and Summers did what they did and you will keep avoiding that answer--and I will keep ascribing a motive as to WHY.

But it is a fact that Butler/Summers changed the language. It is a fact that political operatives like Jay and Todd went viral with the change and obfuscated the origins of that change before the language was made public.

So Jenn, you must know by now that the Board of Elections rejected Butler/Summers' language on the ballot question and inserted the original charter language in a completely redrafted ballot question so we'll all await the next prepared statement in this shell game of words and political drama as to how Team Summers will spin the result.

Sincerely,
Brian--a.k.a. the unabashed seventh grader

[Sean Koran]

Jenn,

Thank you for explaining that the City's Law Department drafted the ballot language to be submitted to the Board of Elections.

You claim that the proposed ballot language does not change the charter amendment language because "elector" and "registered voter" are synonymous. Assuming that is true, the charter amendment and the ballot language drafted by the Law Department are still vastly different:

- "approved by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Lakewood," which simply means a majority of those who show up to vote in the election

v.

- "requiring an affirmative vote by a majority of the registered voters of the city," which would require a majority vote from all persons registered to vote in Lakewood, regardless of how many of those people actually show up to vote.

Do you believe that the ballot language from the Law Department accurately reflects what the charter amendment requires?

EDIT: Looks like Brian beat me to it.

[Ryan Salo]

Yesterday shortly after my post about the board of elections I received a message from one of the current city council members, who I will not name. They asked me where I was getting the idea that the language had been changed, which confused me since it the information is readily available. Once I explained that, I was told by the council member that there was no difference and that I was just spewing the SLH talking points....

WOW

[Bridget Conant]

They deliberately changed it in an attempt to make the passage of the issue harder. They got caught.

And they want to say you're spewing SLH talking points?

[Bridget Conant]

LOVE the Lakewood Hospital Emergency Room ad from Cleveland Clinic.

The ER is Ready! Then it says "Let us Direct you!"

To Avon, perhaps?

[Dan Alaimo]

I've been out of the loop for a couple of days and return to this forum to find a hailstorm of controversy, and it's more than a bit confusing. Could someone explain it to me simply? When I last saw this discussion, Council had just approved the amendment for the ballot and City Hall was complaining about the wording. Although I found it written in legalese, after the 2nd or 3rd pass I understood it, and didn't see anything objectionable, although I think I understand the objections.
So:
* Who wrote the language in the amendment linked to by Cleveland.com?
* Was this the same as what the petitioners saw?
* Was this the same as what council approved?
* Will this be the same as what will appear on the ballot?
* Did anyone change the wording along the way? If so, what did Summers, Butler, et al, have to do with it?
* If the wording is problematic, can it be fixed by working with the elections board?

For the record: I'm a supporter of SLH and not a troll.

[Brian Essi]

Dan,

Great questions.

Here are the answers as I know them:

*Who wrote the language in the amendment linked to by Cleveland.com?
Answer: An elections lawyer working with the folks who call themselves the Right to Vote Committee

* Was this the same as what the petitioners saw?
Answer: Yes--the Board of Elections verified the petitions with that language and the signatures.

* Was this the same as what council approved?
Answer: Yes as to the charter amendment language, but No as to the ballot question.

* Will this be the same as what will appear on the ballot?
Answer: Yes as to the charter amendment language, but No as to the ballot question that Council approved. The Board of Elections struck down what Butler and Summers proposed.

* Did anyone change the wording along the way? Yes If so, what did Summers, Butler, et al, have to do with it? They created a bogus ballot question to confuse the public and manufacture what you call a "hailstorm of controversy" and campaign issue to take the focus off of Summers' bad behavior and make SLH look bad."

* If the wording is problematic, can it be fixed by working with the elections board?
Answer: The Board of Elections has already reflected Summers/Butler's language and corrected the language


Here is copy of the Ballot question corrected by the Board of Elections that contains virtually identical language from the charter amendment on the petitions.

Proposed Charter Amendment
City of Lakewood

A majority affirmative vote is required for passage.
Shall the Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood be amended to create an automatic referendum, requiring an affirmative vote by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Lakewood at a general or special election for passage, on any ordinance adopted by council that would cause Lakewood Hospital to no longer be a full-time and full-service hospital and medical facility providing, without limitation, inpatient diagnostic, medical, surgical, and psychiatric care for a continuous period longer than twenty-four hours?
Yes
No

Update 9/2/15

I am told that that the Board of Elections has sent this down to the Secretary of State's Office in Columbus for it's approval which in not guaranteed. I am told that Summers and Butler may protest and continue to pursue their language that would give registered voters who do not vote the right to determine the outcome of the vote--which would be, as Summers has said, "DIABOLICAL". If Summers and Butler are successful, it would be the first ballot question of its kind in the history of Ohio elections.

Please note that I was not involved in the creation or promotion of the charter amendment in any except that I did sign a petition when my doctor asked me to. I am NOT a member of SLH although I do support much of what they are fighting for.

[Dan Alaimo]

Brian: Many thanks! That was extremely helpful in providing clarity to what seemed to be a muddy situation. You do good work, BTW. Thanks for all you have done on behalf of the hospital.