The Observation Deck

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:22 pm**

Preparing this if needed. :wink:

For the sake of transparency. I am pretty ambivalent about all of this. I can see both sides.
While I like the idea of mayor, I also like the idea of seeing what a professional can do
with this city. I run the hazard of seeing the city go hyper commercialism, or maybe not. I
always like the running wink, wink, nod nod "We have been lucky this far, BUT what if we
are not so lucky in the future."

I have worked for some dismal managers, and have heard of some myopic mayors.

I am a friend, business partner, client, and neighbor of many of the key players on all sides
of this discussion. I respect people on all sides of this discussion.

Am I a shill for City Manager? Really?

Am I ready to kick it.

Hell yes.

.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:53 am**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Preparing this if needed.

For the sake of transparency. I am pretty ambivalent about all of this. I can see both sides.
While I like the idea of mayor, I also like the idea of seeing what a professional can do
with this city. I run the hazard of seeing the city go hyper commercialism, or maybe not. I
always like the running wink, wink, nod nod "We have been lucky this far, BUT what if we
are not so lucky in the future."

.

Jim,

Any idea of what the profile of "a professional" should look like? How should the few recognize/identify such an elite talent when they see her or him? Or maybe it's just what the flavor of the month is...as long as that flavor isn't some "yahoo" who moves the city backwards?

Scott Meeson

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:01 am**

Scott Meeson wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote:Preparing this if needed.

For the sake of transparency. I am pretty ambivalent about all of this. I can see both sides.
While I like the idea of mayor, I also like the idea of seeing what a professional can do
with this city. I run the hazard of seeing the city go hyper commercialism, or maybe not. I
always like the running wink, wink, nod nod "We have been lucky this far, BUT what if we
are not so lucky in the future."

.

Jim,

Any idea of what the profile of "a professional" should look like? How should the few recognize/identify such an elite talent when they see her or him? Or maybe it's just what the flavor of the month is...as long as that flavor isn't some "yahoo" who moves the city backwards?

Scott Meeson

Scott

I suppose some of that is perception. I think Ed FitzGerald took the city the wrong direction
and I am not sure if the current trend of cracking down on residents is the right direction.

I could argue that Lakewood is unprepared for this. What would be nice if this city and
city council understood anything about Lakewood and living here. It seems they are
alien to much of the qualities of living in Lakewood. We just had a totally faux "vision"
process. So what came out of that is more what City Hall dreamed of than residents.

But what "City Manager" allows is the hiring of managers for different aspects that need
to be addressed. And, in a city of this size, and wealth we should be able to look at a long
running resume that also underlines just how good they are. This city is large enough,
complicated enough, and wealthy enough that we do not need to throw it all away with
a City Manager that just dropped out of City Manager school. Matter of fact, IF this even
happens, and I am not sure it will, who Council would hire would either show they are
forward thinking planning people, or complete amateurs hiring friends.

While I hear that this is troubling as we could not get rid of a "City Manager" as easy as
a mayor. I am not familiar with any Lakewood Mayor being removed. So I am not sure confused about that even being a real issue. Also the entire "City Manager" can be
overthrown by the voted of the people. At anytime citizens can place things on the ballot
to vote. Including a return to current policies.

If the Charter review were to not look at this they would be negligent. As pointed out by
Larry Keller the Facilitator, it makes no sense to look at this last, as it causes a complete
change to the charter.

We shall see,

.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:19 am**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:For the sake of transparency. I am pretty ambivalent about all of this.

***

Am I a shill for City Manager? Really?

Jim,

Please.

You are a total "city manager hugger."

The front page - above the fold - headline in the next The Lakewood Observer should read, "Wake Up Lakewood - City Hall Plans To Pickpocket Your Right To Vote!"

Matt

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:25 am**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:If the Charter review were to not look at this they would be negligent.

Jim,

Think about that statement for a minute.

...

Done?

The City Charter Review Commission does not need to review every possible option that could be added to a city charter.

Are they going to discuss declaring the peafowl as the official Lakewood bird?

:roll:

The City Charter Review Commission is only discussing the "city manager" concept because that is what City Hall wants them to discuss ... and recommend.

Matt

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:25 am**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote:If the Charter review were to not look at this they would be negligent.

Jim,

Think about that statement for a minute.

...

Done?

The City Charter Review Commission does not need to review every possible option that could be added to a city charter.

Are they going to discuss declaring the peafowl as the official Lakewood bird?

The City Charter Review Commission is only discussing the "city manager" concept because that is what City Hall wants them to discuss ... and recommend.

Matt

Matt

I really do not think that comment is correct, or even relevant.

Let's say, City Hall is forcing the City Manager agenda. Why wouldn't they just do it?
Instead of putting together some faux committee? Makes no sense.

But let's say they are, which again I do not see happening. It is well within the rules and
laws, correct? All of this is spelled out in the charter.

While you joke about peafowl, Lakewood just took a law off the books banning "suspicious
people." I believe there are still laws on the books about farmland, which might be needed
with urban farming or perhaps not. It would be within the City Charter Revue to place
ownership of livestock in from of Council, and perhaps us.

But what Dr. Keller was referring to was... Many of the laws that they will be looking at that
cover and govern council, mayor, meetings, succession, etc. Are completely different from
the laws that govern our current government. It was also pointed out that One as it would
be a complete rewrite on the Charter is a lot of work, a lot of work. It was also pointed out
that it would take a lot more work from everyone, as they would be starting fresh, and that
none of it might ever be adopted. That language says to me, "Do I really want to do that,
as opposed to getting the current one better?"

Steve Davis is a complete FREAK for City Manager. He has the most experience and in his
day to day life deals with a City that has one. I do not see anything convincing Steve to
vote against the idea. The rest are not as easy to understand. It should be noted that
Steve could have tried for the "powerful" chairperson position, but did not. Another golden
opportunity to "fix the game" missed.

However, I have found some interesting things about one of your premises for being ANTI
try City Manager. It is far easier to get council people out of office or recalled than the
mayor. So in theory it could be easier to get rid of a bad city manager than a mayor.

I do not know anyone that believes City Manager is a panacea for all that ails one of the
best most stable communities in Ohio. Even Mr. Davis.

Also I see three on Council that believe they could be mayor, 2 with the numbers to support it.

.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:50 am**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote:If the Charter review were to not look at this they would be negligent.

Jim,

Think about that statement for a minute.

...

Done?

The City Charter Review Commission does not need to review every possible option that could be added to a city charter.

Are they going to discuss declaring the peafowl as the official Lakewood bird?

Matt

Matt,

Hottest Rumor: Tom Bullock wants the hen to be the official bird in the "Wood."

Scott

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:21 pm**

OK, I will play for the peanut gallery with reservation...

While not looking at EVERY option, do we not want they to be aware of possibilities?

While you in the PG are much younger than I, I have seen a couple changes and laws
written in my time, that needed cleaning up.

Is the the Commissions Job to regulate toy helicopters owned by the city? Maybe? Do they
look at other charters to see?

My experience with Charter Reviews, which is limited and was an "Anarchist Group" headed
by Anthony Sinagra, was the charter has become old and cumbersome and should be
rewritten in its entirety. This was a group that was not pro-city manager, which I would not
have that hard of time backing either.

I am not as dissatisfied with our current government as you two seem to be. I merely
question some of the tremendous opportunities that have been missed or squandered,
seriously doubt that a professional would let the sheer amount of myopic pettiness that
often surrounds these missed opportunities. And I know we all agree with that comment.

Is a City Manager better, I would have said 50/50 until I found out how much easier it is
to get a councilperson out of office as opposed to a mayor. I bet you would not have to
remove too many council people before the heat got to a city manager.

So they do not have to look at EVERYTHING.

.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:33 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:I am not as dissatisfied with our current government as you two seem to be. I merely question some of the tremendous opportunities that have been missed or squandered, seriously doubt that a professional would let the sheer amount of myopic pettiness that often surrounds these missed opportunities. And I know we all agree with that comment.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:37 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:OK, I will play for the peanut gallery with reservation...

While not looking at EVERY option, do we not want they to be aware of possibilities?

.

Jim,

Possibilities are created with elections!!

If we have an outstanding talent(s) within the boundaries of Lakewood that would like to run this city, learn to develop,cultivate and maintain relationships that may enable you to win an election for mayor!.... Yes, actually work your ass-off and sell the public on why you should be leading this city. Don't be a wussy by benefiting from the intellectual diarrhea of the frightened few. Believe in the people who fund your freaking revenue streams!

Scott

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:57 pm**

Scott Meeson wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote:OK, I will play for the peanut gallery with reservation...

While not looking at EVERY option, do we not want they to be aware of possibilities?

.

Jim,

Possibilities are created with elections!!

If we have an outstanding talent(s) within the boundaries of Lakewood that would like to run this city, learn to develop,cultivate and maintain relationships that may enable you to win an election for mayor!.... Yes, actually work your ass-off and sell the public on why you should be leading this city. Don't be a wussy by benefiting from the intellectual diarrhea of the frightened few. Believe in the people who fund your freaking revenue streams!

Scott

Possibilities are created with opportunities, and plans. Something no mayor has done since
the days of Tom George. Could this be the opportunity we have all waited for?

I will never forget the day I walked into Nate Kelly's office and asked to see "The Plan" that
was so often talked of and the studies. Nate pointed to an artist's concept on the wall of
a Detroit Avenue Streetscape. Not a study, not a plan, and artists idea...

This was repeated again after he left office with the current "Planning" Director.

I am not sure about you, but this frightens me.

I am also not really moved by the fact that it would seem nothing the city has done actually
adds to the quality of Life that we are so often noted for outside of the city. Never does
the aux things make us better, but Melt, Root, LEAF organic things that went outside
the normal city venues that are held up high as why Lakewood is great.

Wouldn't it have been nice if just one article said, "Their DowntowN is fabulous!"? but
no, instead they openly talk of the disdain for chains and big box stuff.

I love this city, I am proud of this city, I am proud of the schools, proud of the library,
isn't it time we could be proud of City Hall?

.

.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:05 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Possibilities are created with opportunities, and plans. Something no mayor has done since the days of Tom George. Could this be the opportunity we have all waited for?

No.

Simply because "City Hall and Friends" - including you - think that Fitz! and Summers were and are horrible mayors doesn't mean that we need to change the system of government in the 'Wood.

We are only talking about 6 years of bad mayors according to "City Hall and Friends" - and you.

Just six years!

Scott is right.

Opportunity comes at the ballot box.

This is a pure power grab to disenfranchise residents.

You know that to be true, Jim.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:I love this city, I am proud of this city, I am proud of the schools, proud of the library, isn't it time we could be proud of City Hall?

Yes.

So, let's just elect a mayor that we can all be proud of in this great city we call, home.

Matt

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:52 pm**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
You know that to be true, Jim.

Matt

Matt

Are you saying I can be bought?

That I am a shill?

That money, can by my silence?

What or why would I be lying about any of this.

What I know to be true, is that you are convinced some fix is in, and hat I can be
bought off. Neither is true, and you know that, as my friend, and as one of my lawyers.

.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:07 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Are you saying I can be bought?

No.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:That I am a shill?

No.

But your fellow "city manager huggers" need to stop having you fight their fight alone.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:That money, can by my silence?

No.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:What or why would I be lying about any of this.

You are not.

You are all for a city manager.

I am not.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:What I know to be true, is that you are convinced some fix is in, and hat I can be bought off. Neither is true, and you know that, as my friend, and as one of my lawyers.

I am convinced that the fix is in.

I do not believe that you can be bought off.

I am your friend.

I am your lawyer.

The bill is in the mail.

Matt

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:26 pm**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
But your fellow "city manager huggers" need to stop having you fight their fight alone.

Matt

Matt

I cannot speak for the other, how do you say, "City Manager Huggers" but I can tell you
I am not fighting their fight for them.

If I walk into a courtroom and defend myself, I would be a... ?

Idiot,

Correct,

Why?

Because professional lawyers knows the laws, and a good one can work wonders.

Right?

.

The Observation Deck

Charter Review - The Observations

Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations

Re: Charter Review - The Observations