The Observation Deck

Dan Alaimo wrote:And again I raise the question, do these candidates - any and all of them - have the time to devote to this demanding job they are running for?

Jason Shachner wrote:I have spent my entire career in the non-profit and government sectors and understand the necessity of transparency when you hold a position in the public trust. As an Assistant Prosecutor, I am bound by high ethical standards and my conduct is closely scrutinized. My position is also dependent on my credibility. Every day, I appear in front of judges and juries and ask them to trust my arguments. That is why in my position even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided. If there is ever an argument to be made, no matter how tenuous, that our office has a conflict, I immediately inform the elected prosecutor to determine if a special prosecutor must be assigned.

I have reviewed Ordinance Nos. 03-19 and 04-19, and agree with them principal but not in form. There are numerous clarifications and conflicts that must be resolved for the ordinances to effectuate their purpose. Additionally, the ordinances contain redundancies that may be less effective than what is currently in place. For instance, Ordinance No. 03-19 confusingly creates new defined terms that appear to be restatements of defined terms contained in R.C. 3517. Likewise, expenditures on issues are currently governed by R.C. 3517.12 and the ordinance does not adequately explain how the ordinance and current state law will work in conjunction with each other, especially as it relates to enforcement. It is important to explore the possible unintended consequences to ensure that the intent of the ordinances are met.

I will never apologize for taking the time to do my research before I provide an answer to a question, especially one as consequential as the one you raised. As a councilperson, I will carefully review and scrutinize all legislation, and work with my fellow councilpersons to ensure that we are drafting good, enforceable policy.

lrodriguezcarbone wrote:I have a different perspective and read on the proposed campaign finance and ethics ordinances as introduced by Councilperson Rader over 9 months ago. Debate on these issues are essential to the public process and I commend and appreciate Mr. Shachner, and all the other candidates and public officials for sharing their point of view on this forum. It was not clear which parts of each ordinance aside from the example cited by Mr. Shachner, were contradictory and duplicative of state law, but the Ohio Constitution empowers municipalities to local self-government (i.e. home rule). Because of this, and citing my own experience as a public administrator of Federal enforcement laws with state and local cooperation, I state and further clarify my viewpoint and position on the legislation as proposed.

Home rule empowers municipalities to enforce laws that can be duplicative or even contradictory to state laws. The existence of home rule demostrates an understanding that cities are responsible for codifying and interpreting state laws locally, but also that some state laws are inadequate in addressing some issues due to extenuating locally-based circumstances. Often, home rule allows cities to clarify and expand on state law and the specific administrative processes utilized locally to carry out the law. Because of the nature of home rule, local laws and state laws need not necessarily work with each other, local ordinances may (and often) restate elements of state laws, and may further clarify them for local purposes. For example, when Councilperson John Litten first brought an ordinance to council to raise the smoking and vaping age to 21, it conflicted with state law at the time (though it does not now), yet city council passed that ordinance locally. The eventual duplication of this law at the state level does not invalidate the local ordinance, for all intents and purposes of enforcement.

I invite people reading this forum to view Ohio Revised Code 149.43 et. seq., commonly referred to as Ohio Open Records law (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43). My disagreement with using state law in the administrative process locally in this instance is that the state rules, as written, do not seem to provide enough process protection for members of the public seeking public information. Instead of establishing a clear and accountable process for answering and carrying out requests for public information, our state law does not specify a time limit for responding to open records requests, only that responses are prompt. In this instance, I believe that our state law must be clarified locally. I would highly recommend an adoption of an administrative process similarly employed in Federal FOIA requests. These details, I believe, should be codified locally and residents aware of their rights to, as well as the limitations of, the requests, the process for requesting records, how residents can appeal a request, and what they can expect in the form of redacted information.

This process is spelled out in detail in our Federal laws, including recourse through appeal for the information requestor should the request for information be denied. There have been several lawsuits brought against our city for violating state ethics laws. Lawsuits for any city are very costly to tax payers. It is in the best interests of the public, and the city, that our ethics laws are as clear as possible and are in line with the efficient and effective use of public funds.

Public debate is, as I mentioned, essential to the public process. It has been over 9 months since the original ordinance was introduced to council. As far as I am aware, there has been no further public discussion, nor addendum, nor change to the ordinance proposed by city council members. I believe this ordinance is an important element of public responsibility to residents and that we need to include residents in the process of determining what path our city should take with respect to this issue. I will reaffirm my public statement that I will work in earnest to pass this legislation, in an amended form, if appropriate with input from members of council and the community, if elected to city council.

Laura Rodriguez-Carbone, Candidate for Lakewood City Council Ward 1

lrodriguezcarbone wrote:

lrodriguezcarbone wrote:I have a different perspective and read on the proposed campaign finance and ethics ordinances as introduced by Councilperson Rader over 9 months ago. Debate on these issues are essential to the public process and I commend and appreciate Mr. Shachner, and all the other candidates and public officials for sharing their point of view on this forum. It was not clear which parts of each ordinance aside from the example cited by Mr. Shachner, were contradictory and duplicative of state law, but the Ohio Constitution empowers municipalities to local self-government (i.e. home rule). Because of this, and citing my own experience as a public administrator of Federal enforcement laws with state and local cooperation, I state and further clarify my viewpoint and position on the legislation as proposed.

Home rule empowers municipalities to enforce laws that can be duplicative or even contradictory to state laws. The existence of home rule demostrates an understanding that cities are responsible for codifying and interpreting state laws locally, but also that some state laws are inadequate in addressing some issues due to extenuating locally-based circumstances. Often, home rule allows cities to clarify and expand on state law and the specific administrative processes utilized locally to carry out the law. Because of the nature of home rule, local laws and state laws need not necessarily work with each other, local ordinances may (and often) restate elements of state laws, and may further clarify them for local purposes. For example, when Councilperson John Litten first brought an ordinance to council to raise the smoking and vaping age to 21, it conflicted with state law at the time (though it does not now), yet city council passed that ordinance locally. The eventual duplication of this law at the state level does not invalidate the local ordinance, for all intents and purposes of enforcement.

I invite people reading this forum to view Ohio Revised Code 149.43 et. seq., commonly referred to as Ohio Open Records law (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43). My disagreement with using state law in the administrative process locally in this instance is that the state rules, as written, do not seem to provide enough process protection for members of the public seeking public information. Instead of establishing a clear and accountable process for answering and carrying out requests for public information, our state law does not specify a time limit for responding to open records requests, only that responses are prompt. In this instance, I believe that our state law must be clarified locally. I would highly recommend an adoption of an administrative process similarly employed in Federal FOIA requests. These details, I believe, should be codified locally and residents aware of their rights to, as well as the limitations of, the requests, the process for requesting records, how residents can appeal a request, and what they can expect in the form of redacted information.

This process is spelled out in detail in our Federal laws, including recourse through appeal for the information requestor should the request for information be denied. There have been several lawsuits brought against our city for violating state ethics laws. Lawsuits for any city are very costly to tax payers. It is in the best interests of the public, and the city, that our ethics laws are as clear as possible and are in line with the efficient and effective use of public funds.

Public debate is, as I mentioned, essential to the public process. It has been over 9 months since the original ordinance was introduced to council. As far as I am aware, there has been no further public discussion, nor addendum, nor change to the ordinance proposed by city council members. I believe this ordinance is an important element of public responsibility to residents and that we need to include residents in the process of determining what path our city should take with respect to this issue. I will reaffirm my public statement that I will work in earnest to pass this legislation, in an amended form, if appropriate with input from members of council and the community, if elected to city council.

Laura Rodriguez-Carbone, Candidate for Lakewood City Council Ward 1

Mark Kindt wrote:

lrodriguezcarbone wrote:

lrodriguezcarbone wrote: Public debate is, as I mentioned, essential to the public process. It has been over 9 months since the original ordinance was introduced to council. As far as I am aware, there has been no further public discussion, nor addendum, nor change to the ordinance proposed by city council members. I believe this ordinance is an important element of public responsibility to residents and that we need to include residents in the process of determining what path our city should take with respect to this issue. I will reaffirm my public statement that I will work in earnest to pass this legislation, in an amended form, if appropriate with input from members of council and the community, if elected to city council.

Laura Rodriguez-Carbone, Candidate for Lakewood City Council Ward 1

I have emphasized this paragraph in color, because it remains clear to me that Laura Rodriguez-Carbone has established clear leadership on this issue in the Ward 1 City Council Race. She has a strong understanding of the nature of the solutions that will lead to an improved compliance environment in Lakewood. I'm on board with all of this!