The Observation Deck

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Kristine Pagsuyoin wrote:As we are talking about clarification--does anyone know if everyone who applied to council will be interviewed or is everyone screened first with only those going forward who make the final cut?

Kristine

There is no laid out process as set by charter, or even council. It is within their power to
appoint anyone simply by any process they agree on. So whatever they do is in addition
to the way it is set now.

Rumors are background checks, and interviews are currently going on as we read this.

I really want to stress there was no process for mayor, and I have no problem with the
way I was treated in that process. Nor am I disappointed with the final outcome. And I
am sure at the end of the day, we will have two new council people.

There are some really good names on the list.

I do hope they interview all the applicants. One of the things I was looking forward to was
an interview and conversation with members of council to share some ideas. I know a
couple of the applicants have some pretty spectacular ideas and it would be squandering a
grate opportunity to not talk with them.

I suppose in the end the most gratifying thing were the many applicants that came forward.
In the mayor's portion we had some people willing to give up some nice paychecks to fill
the gap left by others not so willing to take one for the team. Mike Summers had to think
long and hard about his decision, and how he would handle running the family business.
It wold seem that a proper process would help encourage more people to get involved,
and that could only be a good thing.

Betsy

The process for mayor and council is not a fake process. Though I suppose some of it
could be seen as unneeded. As I mentioned above, their is no process, and so anything
goes in the way city council runs this. Could things have been handled better? I will wait
until after the final decision to weigh in.

As far as Shawn, I suppose that one could say, he has the ability to look down the road,
farther than most.

FWIW


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Betsy

Whew, where to start.

I will try to gather my thoughts over the past couple years and put them out here.

1) Process here is none.

Yes this is troubling, but I can see both sides. A system would be good and only makes
sense. But might handcuff the council in an emergency. This is the charter, and we are a
charter run city. I do know that for the past couple reviews, changes were suggested and
turned down for many things that deal with the mayor, council, and even if we need a
mayor. To my recollection the past two charter reviews after a combined time of 12
months have never gotten a single charter change through. Some feel it is so out of
whack with today that I knew of two groups trying to write a completely new charter that
could then be put to a vote of the people completely by passing council. I was a member
of one of them.

In the mayor's process I was contacted by more than one council person, and given
time to ask questions or raise concerns. While I did, I also agree that Mike Summers was
a safe choice. Mike Summers loves Lakewood, something I think paramount in being
mayor or serving. He is not merely looking to Lakewood as a stepping stone in his career.

Which brings us to preconceived. From day 3 of Ed's term he made it obvious to me and
others that he would love Russo's job should Russo get thrown out. It was also the talk in
every city we have papers including Collinwood, where I am sure you remember at
meetings people like Mike Polensak out out of the blue would ask about Ed, and what I
thought. Over the course of a year I saw Ed go from no connection with the East Side,
to readily being accepted by many that I would have thought could care less. I would say
most of this was from things he was doing in Lakewood, not campaigning. Ed is already
looking to your father's old job of Governor of Ohio, and I see him there in 4 years.

I will also say that Mike Summers has always been spoken of as the successor, and many
ways were looked at regarding how the transition would work if Ed was given Russo's gig.
I believe very early on Kevin Butler said he would not, and then it was discussed that none
of the next three were interested. While we could call this good planning, and why we
elect council people. It is slightly disheartening, the rest of the charade. I also think out
of those 4, Jen Pae would have been an excellent mayor, and Joe Beno certainly has a
grasp on how to run a city. I have never figured out how a law director could become
mayor in days, as it would have to seriously effect cases pending. But Norah Hurley has
also given much to this city.

Which bring us to Mike Summers, all around good guy, and consummate politician since
4th grade (maybe) when he ran for student council president and won. And was in student
government ever since, then moved onto the board and is active along with his wife Wendy
in so many things I am sure we are not far from a Summers Park or Lane somewhere. So
one could argue, sooner or later Mike was going to be mayor. He is a hard worker, with
great appreciation for this city, where it was and where it could go. He is also a person that
is aware of his limitations, and seeks out help when needed. These are all good traits.

I would say the three things that still worry me in all of this is. The potential that this will
continue the views of the school board and council, that real transparency is some how bad,
or corrupts the process. An unwillingness of being able to step into an online discussion
and sort out fact from fiction and calm the huddled masses. Second would be the massive
conflicts of interest that run so deep in this town, it makes outsiders wonder why everyone
is not in court. This city, for real proper growth needs to create breathing space and some
autonomy between those seeking help, and those giving help. For a period of time every
board in this city had the same 10 names on it. Which bring us to the high school clubby
mentality that keeps so many good people from taking part in the process. These are
things that are holding this city back from being even better than it is now. He has 9
months to show his leadership skills, because I know of at least two that will be running
this summer, and rumor is a couple more as well.

Choice, debate, education, free flow of ideas is all good for the city and the process.

I will not speak on council selections until they are over.

Thanks again for taking part in this discussion.

.

Betsy Voinovich wrote:It seems clear that it would be a good idea to have a clear process laid out in the charter in the future.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:To my recollection the past two charter reviews after a combined time of 12 months have never gotten a single charter change through.

Kristine Pagsuyoin wrote:It seems like more people are willing to be appointed and become a part of the establishment, but to run in an election against the establishment is another thing all together. Why is that?

Thoughts?

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.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Missy

Let's test you. A little math, a little economic development, a little soul searching.

Would you approve a loan for say $50,000 to a company from out of the city to open a
branch office here, that would eventually use that money to compete and grab clients
from 3 other long established Lakewood businesses that might be looking at closing their
doors now?

Think for a second, help current Lakewood businesses, or a bullet point on your next flier?

Pay them enough, that they can slash the prices of their services to compete unfairly with
businesses that have been around on both Detroit and Madison for over 25 years with
employees? Now let's not forget, these three Lakewood businesses were able to employee
say 10 people a year ago, but have now cut back to 5 because of losing clients. While
the new business is hired 2.

Take your time, based on a real case. Let's see if you have what it takes. Are you happier
being able to announce one new business, because you will not have to announce the 3
closing their doors. Can you build campaign literature for your next run at getting reelected
or do you care more for the entire city? Do you have what it takes?

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick

Well?

.

Betsy Voinovich wrote: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?

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.