The Observation Deck

Funny, one of the many topics that have popped up out of nowhere around coffee tables and lunchrooms is, "Should we bring back partisan elections?" It is not a cure all, but in the past one side would keep the other side honest, and accountable.

Any thoughts?

City Manager? Any thoughts?


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Funny, one of the many topics that have popped up out of nowhere around coffee tables and lunchrooms is, "Should we bring back partisan elections?" It is not a cure all, but in the past one side would keep the other side honest, and accountable.

Any thoughts?

City Manager? Any thoughts?

The "death" of the Lakewood GOP has had an ironic effect: Lakewood is now more conservative than ever.
On paper, Democrats win all the elections and "control" the government.
However, a closer look at issues tells a different story.
Corporate Republicans like Mike Summers have teamed up with Corporate Dems to establish one-party corporate rule.
"Democrats" control council on paper, but the shots are actually being called by Republicans like Mike Summers, Pam Smith, and Jay Foran.
Progressive values have been completely abandoned, and in many cases liberal programs have been rolled back.

For example:
Numerous Republican administration's supported government's role in health care via Lakewood Hospital.
It was Fitzy and Summers that pushed to privatize Lakewood assets to the Clinic.
Jim Kenny himself said on the Deck that City Hall "shouldn't be involved in health care".
It was Fitzy that outsourced the Health Department to the County.
Since the demise of the Lakewood GOP in the mid 2000s, dog whistle racial politics have been common...just look at issues like basketball hoops and pit bulls.

The local so-called "Democratic Club" has been a hotbed of many regressive ideas over the past decade.
The recent scandals regarding Issue 64 are further proof that the group is run for the benefit of privileged insiders.

The Establishment will point to gay rights as a sign that Lakewood has moved left -- that is one issue they point to prop up their progressive "street cred".
But even there, we didn't get equal rights legislation until this year.

Sadly, this all mirrors what has happened at the county and Cleveland city levels over the past two decades. On paper, those governments are controlled by "Democrats".....but when you look at their track record, those governments primarily serve corporate interests.

I commented the other day about how our city council has become a rubber stamp, a blob that acts with groupthink mentality. It wasn't always that way - council votes were usually split.

As I think back, we had, at one time, real Republicans on council. While I didn't often agree with him, Ryan Demro sure kept everyone on council on their toes.

Bridget Conant wrote:While I didn't often agree with him, Ryan Demro sure kept everyone on council on their toes.

Ryan Demro is a major reason that the local GOP is dead.
In 2003 he was the last openly GOP candidate to be elected to City Hall.
His virulent anti-gay nonsense permanently turned young Lakewoodites (now middle-aged Lakewoodites) off to the GOP.

The history of partisan/non partisan elections in Lakewood is interesting. Generally, those who proposed non partisan elections were those of the weaker party or thought the "exposure" of a candidate's party affiliation would harm his (there weren't any hers) election chances.
To wit-- Lakewood was non partisan in the 1950s. Frank Celeste, a Democrat, was elected Mayor in 1956 and 1960. Republican strategists led by Robert Lawther thought that if the elections were partisan - thereby forcing Celeste to "reveal" himself as a Democrat, then Republican fortunes would gain. The City went partisan and Lakewood did in fact elect local Republicans for a ten year period.
Then because of demographics, well qualified Democratic candidates and national trends, local Democrats took the offices during the late 1970s and extending to today.
That shrewd Ryan Demro did in fact recognize that the only chance for Republicans in local Lakewood elections was to disguise party affiliation by going non partisan and he rode that horse in a referendum issue which was presented as a "good government" issue. He was elected to council but by that time Lakewood had run out of Republicans.
I think that a return to partisan elections can by a good step towards accountability. But that begs the question of what if there aren't any Republicans left in Lakewood after this election?
Stan Austin

At the risk of a visit from the FedEx truck, I think the hospital issue has woken many, from all political persuasions, to the possibility of political public service in Lakewood.

I'm uncertain that partisan elections would make a great deal of difference in Lakewood, as it exists. There are, however, a couple of other ideas which I think merit consideration, as paths to broader representation of community opinion…

1. More demographic diversity. Right now, Lakewood City Hall and especially City Council do not look like the community I see elsewhere in Lakewood. Obviously demographics are not everything. (As a college-educated 38-year-old white male Democrat, I look like I'm from central casting even though I fervently disagree with the actions of the current council.) But I think a council that comes from different walks of life would still create some additional space for holding different opinions.

I suspect that structural reasons contribute to the fact that so many council candidates tend to be men from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and at similar stages in life. How much Lakewood could do about that, even in theory, I don't know. I certainly would like to see some outreach all the same. In the meantime, though…

2. Close the appointed-incumbent loophole. Too many people at City Hall obtain office through appointment by other insiders, rather than through campaigning for public support. (I know that at least three members of council plus the mayor arrived in their current office by this route.) Incumbency is a big advantage, and it seems like that advantage is used by people in power to make sure that they remain surrounded by like-minded individuals.

I think we should have a political process in which the favor of the community at large is more valuable than the favor of insiders, to the greatest extent possible. Maybe this means more special elections, maybe it means some council vacancies can remain unfilled until a regular election takes place. Maybe it means that someone appointed to an office cannot run for that same office at the next election. Maybe some combination.

mjkuhns wrote:1. More demographic diversity. Right now, Lakewood City Hall and especially City Council do not look like the community I see elsewhere in Lakewood. Obviously demographics are not everything. (As a college-educated 38-year-old white male Democrat, I look like I'm from central casting even though I fervently disagree with the actions of the current council.) But I think a council that comes from different walks of life would still create some additional space for holding different opinions.

I suspect that structural reasons contribute to the fact that so many council candidates tend to be men from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and at similar stages in life. How much Lakewood could do about that, even in theory, I don't know. I certainly would like to see some outreach all the same. In the meantime, though…

Racial minorities tend to not vote in suburban municipal elections. That's how Ferguson, MO had a white GOP mayor despite being a minority-majority city.
Renters also tend not to vote in odd-year local elections...they usually do not follow the day-to-day operations of City Hall.
This was definitely the case when my family moved here in 1983....my parents were very active voters for federal and state office. However, they would not have known Tony Sinagra from Toni Tenielle.

Let's be candid....a lot of folks like it this way.
As I've mentioned before, the Lakewood Dem Club is as white as any Republican group you can find. That didn't happen by chance.

mjkuhns wrote:2. Close the appointed-incumbent loophole. Too many people at City Hall obtain office through appointment by other insiders, rather than through campaigning for public support. (I know that at least three members of council plus the mayor arrived in their current office by this route.) Incumbency is a big advantage, and it seems like that advantage is used by people in power to make sure that they remain surrounded by like-minded individuals.

Yes, this would be great, although I don't know the legal options.
In keeping with tradition, I expect Summers step down before his term ends to give his heir a "head start" on the next election.