The Observation Deck

A Victory for the People:
Council's unanimous vote last night (8/31/15) (to put the Charter Amendment on the November ballot) is a VICTORY for the entire Lakewood community.
It is a confirmation of the rights of an informed citizenry to utilize the democratic process to direct their government.
This Charter Amendment, when approved by the voters on November 3, 2015, will grant all registered Lakewood voters a voice in the future of Lakewood Hospital.

(Not that everybody on Council was HAPPY about being forced into this position - but they DID vote UNANIMOUSLY.)

This Charter Amendment says that City Council can not close Lakewood Hospital as a fully-functioning inpatient hospital, unless they get an affirmative vote of a majority of voters at a general election.

What does it say about CCF closing the hospital?

Phil,
The charter amendment says nothing about CCF closing the hospital. It is council that has the power, right now, to absolve CCF of their lease by accepting the Letter of Intent (LOI) presented to them via a unanimous vote of the Lakewood Hospital Association. This amendment says that any ordinance concerning the closure of the hospital must be approved by a majority of voters that vote in an election. The charter amendment concerns only the voters of Lakewood and our city council.

BTW, it's really the Lakewood Hospital Association that is trying to close the hospital. The LHA has failed in their mission and sat by as the CCF has removed service after service at the hospital. At this point, the CCF is just using the LHA, in their self imposed weakened state, to get everything they want out of Lakewood's market, including an absolute monopoly of healthcare in Lakewood. Razing of the hospital buildings guarantees the CCF of this monopoly. Part of the reason the CCF is not so "hip" on running our hospital is that they don't own the building. This "deal" would change that. The CCF WANTS their "facility fees"!

Phil Florian wrote:What does it say about CCF closing the hospital?

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... inance.pdf

Note electors vs voters.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3501:

(N) "Elector" or "qualified elector" means a person having the qualifications provided by law to be entitled to vote. (So an elector is a person who is registered to vote.)

(O) "Voter" means an elector who votes at an election.

Actually, Todd, a qualified voter is one who merely possesses the qualifications, age and residency, to vote. They may not necessarily be REGISTERED to vote.

So many details! Perhaps lawyers can keep themselves busy arguing over it, but the Ohio legislature has made it abundantly clear who it means when it talks about voters and electors in referendum and initiative ballot issues:

After receiving the referendum petition, the Secretary of State must submit the law, section, or item, as set forth in the petition, to the electors of the state for their approval or rejection at the next regular or general election in any year that occurs 60 days after the petition is filed. The law, section, or item cannot go into effect until approved by a majority of the electors voting on the referendum, but if only a part of a law is being challenged, the part that is not being challenged is not prevented or delayed from going into effect.18Referendum petitions must be filed within 90 days after the Governor files the law in question with the Secretary of State.
A law the electors propose by initiative and approve is not subject to the Governor’s veto

See:
http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/membersonly/126ballotissue.pdf

Its just not that hard. Only those who go to the polls matter. Various courts have held that abstention is equivalent to accepting the majority position. Therefore, it has long been accepted that it is sufficient that the majority of those who actually vote in an election will determine the outcome.

Bridget Conant wrote:See:
http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/membersonly/126ballotissue.pdf

Its just not that hard. Only those who go to the polls matter. Various courts have held that abstention is equivalent to accepting the majority position. Therefore, it has long been accepted that it is sufficient that the majority of those who actually vote in an election will determine the outcome.

The issue I'm noticing is the dates on the items you keep referring to, except for, I think, one. Wondering if they had an issue with the word Elector so they revised it in 2007, then going forward Elector means something different than Voter?

http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/membersonly/126ballotissue.pdf
September 18, 2006.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3501
09-29-2007