The Observation Deck

Brian Essi wrote:

mjkuhns wrote:
So the pending vacancy, and the process of appointing a replacement, both begin January 1, 2020. The process would therefore be up to the 2020 city council (or the new mayor if council does not appoint a replacement in 60 days).

Is there an established process or precedent for a process?

Is this an open process?

How does one apply?

Yes there is precedent, council had four vacancies in three years between 2011-2014. For my part I can say that I expect the process to be open and forthright without any of the sort of horse-trading some seem to anticipate. I don’t expect there to be any formal deliberation until 2020; as mentioned earlier, the decision is for the next council to make. That shouldn’t prevent anyone who wishes to be considered from saying so. We’ve already had two people publicly state their intentions to seek the seat today. But speaking for myself I won’t make a decision about support until the new council is sworn in, a process is established, and all applicants have formally come forward. I expect we will have plenty of people stepping up offering to serve their community on council.

I expect we will have plenty of people stepping up offering to serve their community on council.

Which should mean there will be no excuse for choosing a party hack or a good old boy’s cronie, or any divisive figure.

Council will be watched closely and people are expecting a LOT more transparency and honesty.

Dan OMalley wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

mjkuhns wrote:
So the pending vacancy, and the process of appointing a replacement, both begin January 1, 2020. The process would therefore be up to the 2020 city council (or the new mayor if council does not appoint a replacement in 60 days).

Is there an established process or precedent for a process?

Is this an open process?

How does one apply?

Yes there is precedent, council had four vacancies in three years between 2011-2014. For my part I can say that I expect the process to be open and forthright without any of the sort of horse-trading some seem to anticipate. I don’t expect there to be any formal deliberation until 2020; as mentioned earlier, the decision is for the next council to make. That shouldn’t prevent anyone who wishes to be considered from saying so. We’ve already had two people publicly state their intentions to seek the seat today. But speaking for myself I won’t make a decision about support until the new council is sworn in, a process is established, and all applicants have formally come forward. I expect we will have plenty of people stepping up offering to serve their community on council.

But will there be a formal opportunity for public comment?

Kate McCarthy wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:

Peter Grossetti wrote:

mjkuhns wrote: The process would therefore be up to the 2020 city council).

Please remind us who the six members will be comprising "the 2020 city council" (minus the empty mayor-elect George seat)? Thank you in advance.

You’ll have Rader, O’Malley, Schachner, Litten, Neff, and Bullock voting.

I’d hope they’d realize what a polarizing choice Pae would be.

I think if they voted to appoint her it would be political suicide and used against them in future elections. I've encountered people from all walks and political stripes in Lakewood who feel the Lakewood Community Facebook page is a joke and the management of it authoritarian. They are familiar with her name and when I tell them she's the finance director they are shocked and wonder when does she have time to do her job. They have created a bubble over there and don't realize most of the people in Lakewood don't live in that bubble.

I am attaching the letters of complaint that I sent to the OHIO ACLU in 2017 and 2019 about the City's misuse of social media in disregard of resident free speech rights.

Out the gate, Ms. Pae has already disqualified herself to represent Lakewood citizens in virtually any capacity by her conduct as a public employee. The City of Lakewood was lucky that it wasn't sued over these practices.

Mark Kindt wrote:

Kate McCarthy wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:

Peter Grossetti wrote:

mjkuhns wrote: The process would therefore be up to the 2020 city council).

Please remind us who the six members will be comprising "the 2020 city council" (minus the empty mayor-elect George seat)? Thank you in advance.

You’ll have Rader, O’Malley, Schachner, Litten, Neff, and Bullock voting.

I’d hope they’d realize what a polarizing choice Pae would be.

I think if they voted to appoint her it would be political suicide and used against them in future elections. I've encountered people from all walks and political stripes in Lakewood who feel the Lakewood Community Facebook page is a joke and the management of it authoritarian. They are familiar with her name and when I tell them she's the finance director they are shocked and wonder when does she have time to do her job. They have created a bubble over there and don't realize most of the people in Lakewood don't live in that bubble.

I am attaching the letters of complaint that I sent to the OHIO ACLU in 2017 and 2019 about the City's misuse of social media in disregard of resident free speech rights.

Out the gate, Ms. Pae has already disqualified herself to represent Lakewood citizens in virtually any capacity by her conduct as a public employee. The City of Lakewood was lucky that it wasn't sued over these practices.

Attorney Kindt Letter to ACLU of Ohio 1-14-2019.pdf

And therein lies Pae’s problem and a major impediment to her being appointed to council.

She talked out of both sides of her mouth.

She claimed she could delete people and censor speech because she was running her own personal page.

Then it dawned on people how much time she was spending tending to that page during work hours. Were taxpayers paying a $100k+ salary for Ms Pae to be on Facebook all day?

To counter the “waste of taxpayer dollars” accusation, she then contended the mayor asked her to run the page to “get out information” to residents. In that case, we are back to square one - a social media presence on behalf of the city must abide by First Amendment law.

As you see, it was a circular argument - much like the ones Trump makes.

I would think that this issue, which created much concern among residents, and caused division, would be carefully examined were she to be considered for the appointment.

Again, can you fairly serve ALL residents when you have a DOCUMENTED history of high handedly dismissing, and worse, excluding residents from conversation and the information you claimed you wanted to disburse to them?

Ethics In Government and Campaign Finance Reform

For me, the primary criteria for an appointment to city council would be a resident with:

1. A clear and express commitment to openness, transparency, honesty, and accountability in local government, but not as mere buzz words;

2. A clear and express commitment to the timely passage of the Rader ethics-in-government and campaign finance reform legislation;

3. Little or no prior relationship with the Summers administration, the closing of the hospital, or the disposition of hospital assets to favored developers or foundations;

4. But registered as an independent or (yikes) even a Republican.

I would like to see the elected government of Lakewood be less of a single-party enclave and become more politically diverse.

Dan Alaimo wrote:

Dan OMalley wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

mjkuhns wrote:
So the pending vacancy, and the process of appointing a replacement, both begin January 1, 2020. The process would therefore be up to the 2020 city council (or the new mayor if council does not appoint a replacement in 60 days).

Is there an established process or precedent for a process?

Is this an open process?

How does one apply?

Yes there is precedent, council had four vacancies in three years between 2011-2014. For my part I can say that I expect the process to be open and forthright without any of the sort of horse-trading some seem to anticipate. I don’t expect there to be any formal deliberation until 2020; as mentioned earlier, the decision is for the next council to make. That shouldn’t prevent anyone who wishes to be considered from saying so. We’ve already had two people publicly state their intentions to seek the seat today. But speaking for myself I won’t make a decision about support until the new council is sworn in, a process is established, and all applicants have formally come forward. I expect we will have plenty of people stepping up offering to serve their community on council.

But will there be a formal opportunity for public comment?

I would hope so. I suspect the appointment will happen in the form of a resolution which, like any other piece of legislation, can be formally commented upon.

The appointee should be someone who ran in the recent council elections.

Brad Presutto is an obvious choice since he received more votes than other defeated council candidates.

Bill Call wrote:The appointee should be someone who ran in the recent council elections.

Brad Presutto is an obvious choice since he received more votes than other defeated council candidates.

I would support and cheer for Brad or Laura, but realistically it needs to be a someone with demonstrated neutrality.

Why would you not include Presutto or Rodriguez-Carbone in the neutral camp?

Neither of them were involved in the hospital debacle and both ran clean campaigns.

They weren’t affiliated with long-standing Dem operatives, unlike other candidates.

I think it’s unfair to imply they are not neutral.

Mark Kindt wrote:Ethics In Government and Campaign Finance Reform

For me, the primary criteria for an appointment to city council would be a resident with:

1. A clear and express commitment to openness, transparency, honesty, and accountability in local government, but not as mere buzz words;

2. A clear and express commitment to the timely passage of the Rader ethics-in-government and campaign finance reform legislation;

3. Little or no prior relationship with the Summers administration, the closing of the hospital, or the disposition of hospital assets to favored developers or foundations;

4. But registered as an independent or (yikes) even a Republican.

I would like to see the elected government of Lakewood be less of a single-party enclave and become more politically diverse.

Let me add one more point. Point No. 5, is what I will label as "fire-in-the-belly".

5. No matter who is appointed, that appointment comes with a unique burden -- the willingness to run for election when the term expires. Not every one is prepared to sign-up for that future. On this point, all individuals that ran unsuccessfully for a city council seat in 2019 probably qualify on Point 5.

Bridget Conant wrote:Why would you not include Presutto or Rodriguez-Carbone in the neutral camp?

Neither of them were involved in the hospital debacle and both ran clean campaigns.

They weren’t affiliated with long-standing Dem operatives, unlike other candidates.

I think it’s unfair to imply they are not neutral.

C'mon.

Like a lot of others, you seem to think the hospital is still the main issue. Brad and Laura are Progressive Democrats (like me) who ran against the two new council people. The others, except Tristan, are all middle-of-the-road Dems. I agree with Mark Kindt that it's not good that we are only talking about Dems here, but the alternative ain't gonna happen.

I like both of them, I would like to see either of them on council, but in terms of this date in November 2019, Laura and Brad are not neutral.

As far as I know, only two people have publicly stated they are interested in the council seat soon to be vacated by Meghan George ... Jenn Pae and Laura Rodriguez-Carbone. Laura, in my opinion, would be great and is not a divisive person. Why do we need to speculate about some mythical neutral person? Laura is completely independent, eminently qualified, and would bring some much needed diversity to our elected government.

Kate McCarthy wrote:As far as I know, only two people have publicly stated they are interested in the council seat soon to be vacated by Meghan George ... Jenn Pae and Laura Rodriguez-Carbone. Laura, in my opinion, would be great and is not a divisive person. Why do we need to speculate about some mythical neutral person? Laura is completely independent, eminently qualified, and would bring some much needed diversity to our elected government.

Okay, say I'm the new Council, comprised mostly of people who are, to varying degrees, sympathetic to the "old guard." Convince me that Laura is neutral. I'd ask the same about Jenn Pae but really there's hardly anyone here to ask.

Dan-- I would say that Laura is objective. It might be a fine line but nevertheless important. Stan