The Observation Deck

Pam Wetula wrote:The new amended Charter is easier to read and has added an Ethics Article BUT in the areas of transparency - it decreases notifications to the citizenry in a couple of areas.
1. Where the City/ Board of Revisions may make changes without the same notifications to the public we currently enjoy.
2. Where the City wants to acquire a property through Eminent Domain. The notification to the owner has been seriously shortened before the City Council has the right to take it to the courts.

In the spirit or "flexibility" (Kevin Butler) and nimbleness (Mr, Davis -& I do appreciate his work) - we will make changes in Lakewood through Codified Ordinances and empower City Council and any Administration to act quickly with less public notification and scrutiny.

I truly believe the Charter Amendment group was coached by Kevin Butler and Mike Summers to o this direction.

I know we have citizens up in arms about BSL and Opioids and other issues and the Third Amended Charter may pass.

I invite you all to lay down the Second Amended Charter..The document that outlines the changes & the Third Amended Charter and carefully compare the changes.

If you believe an Ethics Clause will hold this or a future administration to acting in the public's best interest instead of their friends financial interests, then I think you are consuming one GIANT Dreamsicle (sp) my friends.

Increasing the Government's power is not the answer in Lakewood, Ohio. A City Charter is designed to protect the interests of the citizens and I feel this new version woefully short.

The prior comment about look who is supporting this amendment should be carefully scrutinized. Many of these people are the same people that did not disclose or lied to the public about the hospital and other issues in the last few years. Many of these people are the same one's who will be making changes on our behalf in the future.

I say vote AGAINST the Third Amended Charter until some changes can be made to protect the public.

IN MY HASTE I SAID THE BOARD OF REVISIONS INSTEAD OF BZA Board of Zoning Appeals - see attached

Marguerite Harkness wrote:Stephen Davis -

Ok, then - YOU were on the charter review commission. Why didn't you TAKE IT OUT???

I guess you think it's OK for City Council to give tax increases whenever they want to. As in - when they find they are $1 million short because of loss of hospital jobs.

VOTE NO ON THIRD AMENDED CHARTER!!!

I never felt it was a negative thing, and don't recall it ever being used. I always regarded it as an emergency provision. I don't have either charter in front of me, and I must admit that I haven't read the entire document since 2014, but I recall that the provision provides limits of millage and time. I know that is not a concise answer, but that is my recollection.

One person cannot just take something out of the charter. That is not how it works. One person can initiate conversation about an amendment, but that is only the beginning of the process.


Steve

.

Steve Davis wrote:

I read these posts in response to my endorsement of the Third Amended Charter and it makes me mourn the loss of public trust. I have talked with enough people and read enough of the disclosures of public records by Brian Essi to understand that loss.

This is the legacy of Michael Summers and his cohorts on council and all the behind-the-scenes players.

They have destroyed something special in Lakewood.

Lori Allen _ wrote:My, my, my. For the most part, it's just the same old names and the same old company. It's like the Lakewood Bilderbergs.

I must say that I am disappointed by a few of the names on the list. I am astounded that they could be swayed so easily. Hopefully now that their names appear on a list with Mike Summers, perhaps they will re-evaluate their thinking.

Folks, open your eyes please. This charter was drafted by folks appointed by Summers and council. Again, it's mostly the same old names.

Do you understand what I'm saying to you? This charter was drawn up by folks appointed by the same folks that appear to have robbed, and appear to still be robbing our city blind before our very eyes to this day.

I suppose the only good news is that, if the charter is approved, there is a way to undo it, especially when our new mayor takes over. I doubt Mike Summers and his gang are in this for the long haul. Most likely, they will continue to bleed the city dry until it bleeds no longer. Then, they will probably leave town.

Folks, please open your eyes and think about this issue, the folks that drafted it, the folks that appointed the committee members, and the folks supporting it. If after this, you still choose to vote for this charter, I can only assume that they were blinded by the mayor.

Four members of the Charter Commission are appointed by the Mayor. Five are appointed by Council. I was appointed by Council every time I served.

In the 1999 charter review, the only one with prior experience was Ken Laino. He also served in 1994. His experience was very helpful. In 2004, Larry Keller and I were the only commissioners with prior experience. Larry also served in 1994. In 2014, I was the only commissioner with prior experience. Dr. Keller was an advisor to the commission. He is a bit of an expert on charters. I think it's helpful for at least one Charter Commission veteran to offer some historical insight to the new commissioners.

In 2014, like in 1999 and 2004, most of the commissioners were new faces to me. I tried to recruit some people to participate, but most couldn't make the time commitment. I did suggest Scott Kermode for consideration as a commissioner. He was appointed by Council, invested himself in the project, and was a real asset, as were all of the other commissioners.

I can assure you that I was never blinded by the Mayor or any member of Council. I've done this longer than they have.


Steve

.

stephen davis wrote:

Pam Wetula wrote:The new amended Charter is easier to read and has added an Ethics Article BUT in the areas of transparency - it decreases notifications to the citizenry in a couple of areas.
1. Where the City/ Board of Revisions may make changes without the same notifications to the public we currently enjoy.
2. Where the City wants to acquire a property through Eminent Domain. The notification to the owner has been seriously shortened before the City Council has the right to take it to the courts.

In the spirit or "flexibility" (Kevin Butler) and nimbleness (Mr, Davis -& I do appreciate his work) - we will make changes in Lakewood through Codified Ordinances and empower City Council and any Administration to act quickly with less public notification and scrutiny.

I truly believe the Charter Amendment group was coached by Kevin Butler and Mike Summers to o this direction.

I know we have citizens up in arms about BSL and Opioids and other issues and the Third Amended Charter may pass.

I invite you all to lay down the Second Amended Charter..The document that outlines the changes & the Third Amended Charter and carefully compare the changes.

If you believe an Ethics Clause will hold this or a future administration to acting in the public's best interest instead of their friends financial interests, then I think you are consuming one GIANT Dreamsicle (sp) my friends.

Increasing the Government's power is not the answer in Lakewood, Ohio. A City Charter is designed to protect the interests of the citizens and I feel this new version woefully short.

The prior comment about look who is supporting this amendment should be carefully scrutinized. Many of these people are the same people that did not disclose or lied to the public about the hospital and other issues in the last few years. Many of these people are the same one's who will be making changes on our behalf in the future.

I say vote AGAINST the Third Amended Charter until some changes can be made to protect the public.

Pam,

I read these posts in response to my endorsement of the Third Amended Charter and it makes me mourn the loss of public trust. I have talked with enough people and read enough of the disclosures of public records by Brian Essi to understand that loss.

I have been involved with charter amendments, reviews, and commissions longer than the Mayor or any current members of Council have been in office. I have NEVER been told what to think, say, or endorse, by ANYBODY. It wouldn't have worked anyway. Charter commissions are often peppered with lawyers. That can be an asset. I am not a lawyer. Proudly, I can say that it I have been kept as a participant because it is said that I offer a citizen's perspective. I have always argued for open government and citizen access.

I would argue that the proposed charter protects the public better than the current one. It provides more clarity about how a citizen can interact and influence government. It provides a first effort to establish an ethics provision. Also, the new provision about training for elected officials may help those officials understand their proper role and give them insight regarding their legal and ethical obligations.

A vote against the proposed charter by active citizens is probably a vote against their best interests.


Steve

.

Hi Steve,

I so appreciate your consistent work for our beloved City. I just have to respectfully disagree with you. The problem includes the fact that most citizens are not "ACTIVE CITIZENS". Most people run around and are busy with their work and families and will not notice major changes in their city/neighborhood unless they are notified in an ongoing and effective manner by the City BEFORE the changes are made. Even these citizens deserve protection. That is why a Charter is in place - to protect all the citizens and to prevent City Hall from becoming too powerful.

Respectfully,

Pam

Pam Wetula wrote:Hi Steve,

I so appreciate your consistent work for our beloved City. I just have to respectfully disagree with you. The problem includes the fact that most citizens are not "ACTIVE CITIZENS". Most people run around and are busy with their work and families and will not notice major changes in their city/neighborhood unless they are notified in an ongoing and effective manner by the City BEFORE the changes are made. Even these citizens deserve protection. That is why a Charter is in place - to protect all the citizens and to prevent City Hall from becoming too powerful.

Respectfully,

Pam

Pam,

Let me clarify. The proposed charter is clearer and more protective of everybody.

I used "active citizens" to define those who actually desire to interact with our Lakewood government. The charter should provide a road map to understanding and action.

Try reading the current charter to see how many votes it takes for Council to pass a particular type of ordinance. You will find whole numbers, fractions, and percentages of votes. There is no consistency. How many council members do you hope to vote for your issue? How many do you have to sway on THAT issue? Good luck figuring that out.

If you, as an active citizen, intend to run for office, you need an accurate road map to take the proper steps to be on the ballot. That is in the Charter. If it is unclear, you may miss an opportunity.

If you, as an active citizen, want to initiate an ordinance, referendum, recall, or charter amendment, all of the requirements for that action must be available in a clear and understandable way. You can read it yourself, or try, but I can tell you that the current charter is not clear on these points. These actions can be done, but I guarantee you that it is an unnecessarily sloppy process with procedures and deadlines that don't make sense.

Voting is the best protection we have in our relationship with government. What needs better protection than voting? The proposed charter is as correct as we could make it for citizens, candidates, and issues. It is also clear to our city government and the Board of Elections.

I want to point out that when I contacted the Board of Elections about a meeting to sync up our voting process with theirs, they were giddy. We were apparently the first community in the county to ever ask. They rolled out the red carpet with assistance in process, language, and deadlines. It was helpful for us and them. The BOE and the Ohio Secretary of State have the charters of every charter community. The BOE must certify that petition filings are eligible, correct, and timely relative to each community's charter. If the charter language is ambiguous, or the deadlines don't allow time for Spanish translation, it can cause problems.

Clarity helps all citizens, "active" or not.


Steve

.

stephen davis wrote:

Pam Wetula wrote:Hi Steve,

I so appreciate your consistent work for our beloved City. I just have to respectfully disagree with you. The problem includes the fact that most citizens are not "ACTIVE CITIZENS". Most people run around and are busy with their work and families and will not notice major changes in their city/neighborhood unless they are notified in an ongoing and effective manner by the City BEFORE the changes are made. Even these citizens deserve protection. That is why a Charter is in place - to protect all the citizens and to prevent City Hall from becoming too powerful.

Respectfully,

Pam

Pam,

Let me clarify. The proposed charter is clearer and more protective of everybody.

I used "active citizens" to define those who actually desire to interact with our Lakewood government. The charter should provide a road map to understanding and action.

Try reading the current charter to see how many votes it takes for Council to pass a particular type of ordinance. You will find whole numbers, fractions, and percentages of votes. There is no consistency. How many council members do you hope to vote for your issue? How many do you have to sway on THAT issue? Good luck figuring that out.

If you, as an active citizen, intend to run for office, you need an accurate road map to take the proper steps to be on the ballot. That is in the Charter. If it is unclear, you may miss an opportunity.

If you, as an active citizen, want to initiate an ordinance, referendum, recall, or charter amendment, all of the requirements for that action must be available in a clear and understandable way. You can read it yourself, or try, but I can tell you that the current charter is not clear on these points. These actions can be done, but I guarantee you that it is an unnecessarily sloppy process with procedures and deadlines that don't make sense.

Voting is the best protection we have in our relationship with government. What needs better protection than voting? The proposed charter is as correct as we could make it for citizens, candidates, and issues. It is also clear to our city government and the Board of Elections.

I want to point out that when I contacted the Board of Elections about a meeting to sync up our voting process with theirs, they were giddy. We were apparently the first community in the county to ever ask. They rolled out the red carpet with assistance in process, language, and deadlines. It was helpful for us and them. The BOE and the Ohio Secretary of State have the charters of every charter community. The BOE must certify that petition filings are eligible, correct, and timely relative to each community's charter. If the charter language is ambiguous, or the deadlines don't allow time for Spanish translation, it can cause problems.

Clarity helps all citizens, "active" or not.


Steve

.

Steve,

I agree that the sync of our voting process with the County Board of Elections is desirable. BUT, you have not addressed the 3 areas that I question, Board of Zoning Appeals, Eminent Domain and Tax increases without proper notification (brought up by Marguerite!).

Clarity of language IS a good thing but Lack of Transparency when City Council effects change without proper notification or REDUCED notification to it's citizenry is NOT a good thing. We have ample proof that the current and past (Fitzgerald) Administrations are prone to covert actions and lies. We have proof of those lies and lack of transparency. With some of the changes to the Charter Amendment, they won't have to lie, they are just empowered to act in their own and their friends' best economic interests. This is not appropriate. We need to maintain more control over our elected and appointed officials. We know they will not impose Ethical standards on themselves. The Ethics Provision in the new Charter Amendment is too general and weak and combined with less transparency per a policy of "flexibility"- we are widening the door for more potential abuse of power in this city.

Again, the Third Amended Charter has some good components including accessible language, some thoughtful reorganization and of course, the sync with the BOE.

HOWEVER, the Third Amended Charter has some serious flaws that can negatively impact our city and it's citizens. Until we correct those areas, we should NOT put it into service.

Respectfully,

pam

But you (Charter Commission, not just you as one person) still:

REMOVED the hospital, in AUGUST 2014, before the citizenry even had any CLUE that City Hall was destroying the hospital behind closed doors;

Made Eminent Domain a FASTER PROCESS for City Hall to take a citizen's property;

Retained City Council's ability to INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES without a vote of the people;

Streamlined City Council's ability to do as they please, with LESS NOTICE to the people;

Thereby worsening the already-opaque "transparency" which we as citizens are entitled to.

And by the way: City Council made some changes, after the specific changes that the Charter Commission identified in their long document 3 years ago.

Exactly WHAT changes did City Council insert/delete in this Charter? And WHEN did they put those changes in? Were these in secret Committee of the Whole meetings?

Pam Wetula wrote:Steve,

I agree that the sync of our voting process with the County Board of Elections is desirable. BUT, you have not addressed the 3 areas that I question, Board of Zoning Appeals, Eminent Domain and Tax increases without proper notification (brought up by Marguerite!).

Clarity of language IS a good thing but Lack of Transparency when City Council effects change without proper notification or REDUCED notification to it's citizenry is NOT a good thing. We have ample proof that the current and past (Fitzgerald) Administrations are prone to covert actions and lies. We have proof of those lies and lack of transparency. With some of the changes to the Charter Amendment, they won't have to lie, they are just empowered to act in their own and their friends' best economic interests. This is not appropriate. We need to maintain more control over our elected and appointed officials. We know they will not impose Ethical standards on themselves. The Ethics Provision in the new Charter Amendment is too general and weak and combined with less transparency per a policy of "flexibility"- we are widening the door for more potential abuse of power in this city.

Again, the Third Amended Charter has some good components including accessible language, some thoughtful reorganization and of course, the sync with the BOE.

HOWEVER, the Third Amended Charter has some serious flaws that can negatively impact our city and it's citizens. Until we correct those areas, we should NOT put it into service.

Respectfully,

pam

Pam,

I have no recollection of changes relative to your two accusations. We talked to number of Board and Commission members. Our discussions were about how many members might be more appropriate and other minor things. I don't remember any of the substantive changes you cite. The proposed changes overall are not substantive.

Like the U.S. Constitution, the Charter is a framework for government. It is not generally used for specific policy. There is an Administrative Code for that.

The proposed charter, to my mind, does not let anybody get away with any more than they can already. The charter does not address enforcement, mostly because it can't.

Vote against the proposed charter if you must, but you are still left with a tax issue you are concerned about (I'm not.), and many other things in the current charter that can hinder our city.


Steve

.

Marguerite Harkness wrote:But you (Charter Commission, not just you as one person) still:

REMOVED the hospital, in AUGUST 2014, before the citizenry even had any CLUE that City Hall was destroying the hospital behind closed doors;

Made Eminent Domain a FASTER PROCESS for City Hall to take a citizen's property;

Retained City Council's ability to INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES without a vote of the people;

Streamlined City Council's ability to do as they please, with LESS NOTICE to the people;

Thereby worsening the already-opaque "transparency" which we as citizens are entitled to.

And by the way: City Council made some changes, after the specific changes that the Charter Commission identified in their long document 3 years ago.

Exactly WHAT changes did City Council insert/delete in this Charter? And WHEN did they put those changes in? Were these in secret Committee of the Whole meetings?

Margueritte,

I think it's worth making the point that I was but one of nine Commissioners. I choose to write here on my own. I don't speak for the 2014 Charter Commission, but as a citizen, just like you.

Council did make a number of small changes. They were addressed during a Committee of the Whole meeting in the Auditorium before the regular Council Meeting. They voted to put the Third Amended Charter on the ballot that night. There was an audience. I was there with a handful of other Commissioners. It was not secret.

Guilty as charged on the tax issue. It was not our invention, but I don't oppose it. Vote against the proposed charter and it's still there.

Other than the Hospital, I just plain disagree with your other charges.

The Hospital issue is interesting. For many years, I had discussed streamlining the Charter. Some parts are redundant, unnecessary, or obsolete. As a commission, we recommended moving some parts to become ordinances. The Hospital, among other things was a target for that. To my mind, the Hospital had a long lease and it was unlikely that the city would ever run a municipal hospital again, like it did when my mother-in-law retired as a nurse there.

The next Charter Commission will not be appointed until 2024. Eliminating Lakewood Hospital from the charter would clear the way for distant negotiations. Of course, I was unaware that there was a plan for dismantling the Hospital. I was shocked by the announcements that came later.

The 2014 Charter Commission ran past the deadline for the proposed charter to go on the ballot that year. There was no rush to do so. If the Charter had gone on the ballot in 2014 without the Hospital in the Charter, it wouldn't have made any difference. Obviously, the Hospital was not even protected in the current charter.

I figured it would be. It always seemed that the charter implied that the city may run a hospital OR it could lease hospital operations at the hospital. I had a number of conversations with Kevin Butler, after the closing announcement, about this at the grocery store and other places. I kind of called him out on that. He explained that, by charter, the city MAY run a hospital, the city may lease the Hospital, but it was not a MAY run a Hospital and lease it if they didn't run it. It was just "MAY, OR MAY NOT" by his interpretation. I thought that could have been challenged, especially considering the charter intent and the historic context of support by the city. So there, Lakewood Hospital was lost because of the word "MAY" in the current charter. There should also have been an "OR". Go ahead and look that up in the current charter. The elimination of a three letter word, or the addition of a two letter word, may have saved the hospital for years to come.

See how important words are? That's why we work so hard to be organized and specific.

I had nothing to do with the Lakewood Hospital provision that is in the current charter. It predates my involvement.

To you, and anyone else, accuse away. I don't intend to keep going around and around on this. I always acted in good faith. I believe my fellow commissioners did too. I respect their work on the proposed charter. It was a hard-working bunch that gathered resources and information from inside and outside the city. Debate was intense. Drafting was tedious. We didn't always agree, and nobody got everything they wanted, but the result is a document that I think we are all proud of.


Steve

.

Mr. Davis,

An attorney wrote me the following:

"In 2005 the taxpayers, citizens, and residents of Lakewood circulated a charter amendment which gave Lakewood voters the right to vote on all city income tax increases; those where the tax rate was increased, and those where the tax credit was reduced; this was approved and this is contained in Article 3, Section 9 of the Second Amended Charter; the proposed Third Amended Charter eliminates this right to vote in its entirety; the Third Amended Charter is a deceptive way to take away protections for the taxpayers, citizens, and residents."


Can you help me out here and explain with precise quotes from the current and proposed charter how the attorney is wrong?

Or verify that he is right?

Frankly, the only reason I believe anyone would want to vote for the third charter, would be Summer's supporters.

We all know how whenever there is an election, Mr. Summers appears to always put one of his supporters on the Deck to cause friction and confusion.

Here it is plain and simple: Do you want your alleged criminal council members and mayor to raise your taxes whenever they want and for whatever amount?
If you disagree with these clowns, they will be able to continue forward with their plans while law suits and referendums are still pending.

I believe they are only putting this charter on so they can push forward the demolition and construction of FitzGerald's company's free give a way of the hospital property. This is being done before the results of the investigation being conducted by the Attorney General's office as we speak. Yes folks, certain individuals are being investigated for voter fraud.

Mr. FitzGerald appears to have a fake company and web site that is not even registered with the Secretary of State.

VOTE NO. TAKE YOUR CITY BACK FROM THESE ALLEGED CRIMINALS!

Mr. Summers, how many members of your Deck cover up crew will you be calling on speed dial to cover up this post? Mr. Summers, believe me, you are no genius, we know your habits regarding the Deck and who your followers are.

Brian Essi wrote:Mr. Davis,
An attorney wrote me the following:

"In 2005 the taxpayers, citizens, and residents of Lakewood circulated a charter amendment which gave Lakewood voters the right to vote on all city income tax increases; those where the tax rate was increased, and those where the tax credit was reduced; this was approved and this is contained in Article 3, Section 9 of the Second Amended Charter; the proposed Third Amended Charter eliminates this right to vote in its entirety; the Third Amended Charter is a deceptive way to take away protections for the taxpayers, citizens, and residents."

Can you help me out here and explain with precise quotes from the current and proposed charter how the attorney is wrong?
Or verify that he is right?

Good and useful question, Mr. Essi.

Brian Essi wrote:Mr. Davis,

An attorney wrote me the following:

"In 2005 the taxpayers, citizens, and residents of Lakewood circulated a charter amendment which gave Lakewood voters the right to vote on all city income tax increases; those where the tax rate was increased, and those where the tax credit was reduced; this was approved and this is contained in Article 3, Section 9 of the Second Amended Charter; the proposed Third Amended Charter eliminates this right to vote in its entirety; the Third Amended Charter is a deceptive way to take away protections for the taxpayers, citizens, and residents."


Can you help me out here and explain with precise quotes from the current and proposed charter how the attorney is wrong?

Or verify that he is right?

I echo Mr. Essi's question.

Another question: is this Charter affected if the Ohio Attorney General's investigation of alleged voter fraud produces results contrary to the initial results? This is a very long shot, but what would happen in a case where the amount of non-existent voters/addresses adds up that Mr. Skindell should be Mayor and that the two hospital referendums were to keep the hospital? Would the Charter or anything in it be affected? Again, a long shot, but we don't know for sure.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the the City Hall gang wouldn't try something like this, all I can say is "I hope that Kool-Aid tastes good".