Vote FOR The Third Amended Charter
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:24 pm
I was on the 2014 Charter Commission that drafted the proposed Third Amended Charter for Lakewood. I encourage everyone to vote for it.
I was disheartened by the May 25th cleveland.com interview with Mayor Summers. He should have turned that down and deferred to Council for their views. Other than citizen initiated charter amendments, the charter is Council’s turf, not the mayor’s.
Here’s a link:
http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... te_on.html
I was particularly disappointed with this Mike Summers quote:
"And if it doesn't get approved, it's certainly not the end of the world, but it will be regretful because a lot of good citizens did a lot of hard work to approve it. The existing charter is OK, but it could be better."
That was not encouraging, informative, or helpful. Sure, it’s not the end of the world, but it diminishes the value of the proposed Third Amended document. The amount of hard work shouldn’t be regretful to anyone. It doesn't bother me. I’ve worked on a lot of charter amendments. Not all of those even made it to the ballot. The Mayor missed the point, and then spoke to the non-point. He should have just told the reporter to call Council members.
Voters need to know the value of the proposed charter. It has real value over the “OK” one.
The proposed charter does not assert any significant philosophical difference in the governance of Lakewood. Though I would support some philosophical changes, that does not diminish my support of the Third Amended Charter. Voters have no reason to think that something insidious is being slipped into this proposal. That understanding is critical. I know why any Lakewoodite could have concerns, but the proposed Third Amended Charter is more citizen-centric. Though largely hortatory, there is even a new ethics provision.
The key points of the added value in this document are organization, readability, accuracy, and efficiency.
The benefits of the added value can be realized by our citizens, our elected officials, and our city employees, in their relationships to each other. It also benefits our city’s relationship with the County, especially with the Board of Elections, and with the State of Ohio by accurately defining the tenets of our home rule.
Organization may be related to readability, but it stands as a benefit. The current charter is an organizational disaster. Over the decades, so many added items have just been stuck the document, usually at the end. The items that remain in the proposed charter are now fully integrated into rational categories. A search for information can be more contextual now.
The proposed document is readable. No more 182 word sentences.
Readability benefits citizens in their interactions with our city government. With the Third Amended Charter, citizens should easily understand our government framework, and how to interact as voters, candidates for election, and as policy drivers via Charter Amendment, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. The language in the current charter is nearly impenetrable. I’ve often wondered if that is by design.
Readability helps the Board of Elections understand OUR voting process in detail. Again, it helps the state and courts understand how we define our home rule.
Readability benefits elected officials in their understanding of their jobs and responsibilities. For example, what exists in the current charter is the fuzziest of math that takes Council on a different path of fractions, percentages, and numbers for different voting situations. They really have to research the Council votes required to pass an ordinance depending on the nature of that ordinance. We (The Charter Commission) have mostly simplified that to majority and super-majority approval in a clear and understandable way.
Regarding accuracy, I don’t know how the Charter Commission could make all sections related to ballot issues more accurate. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but our process, in concert with the Board of Elections, delivered a reliable and understandable roadmap for all voter interaction, be it petitions for election, referendum, initiative, charter amendment, or voting dates. You have to remember that up to about 17 or 18 years ago, our charter required actually making an “X” with a pencil in a box on a printed ballot to vote. That was way past the time of voting systems that didn’t require a pencil. Integrating our voting requirements with the BOE is critical.
Some sections, particularly Finance, have been edited to reflect changes in normal practices and state law.
Efficiency has been addressed. The new document allows for a more “nimble” government. Some departments and redundancies have been eliminated in the proposed charter. This can allow for allocation of government resources as needed. Council will vote to appropriately transition some previous charter items into ordinances for continuity.
Would I change anything? Yes. I favor a change of form of government from Council-Mayor to Council-Manager. Without that, I would adjust some of the distribution of powers between the Council and Mayor. I would also take the last vestige of partisan politics out of the charter. That vestige is in the Civil Service Commission. The makeup of the Civil Service Commission is one Democrat, one Republican, and one Independent. Seriously? Where do Libertarian, Green Party, whatever, fit in? Two-thirds of our Lakewood voters are independent. Party affiliation should not be a consideration in this case.
Those are just a few philosophical differences worth future discussion. Again, none of them diminish my support of the new charter. The proposed charter is a great foundation for moving forward. It is a lot better than our “OK” one.
I’ve been involved in every charter review and commission in the last 18 years. I was a committee member in a successful citizen initiative to amend the charter. I have assisted City Council with numerous charter amendments. I am pretty excited that Lakewood, with voter approval, can have a more understandable and mechanically correct charter.
.
I was disheartened by the May 25th cleveland.com interview with Mayor Summers. He should have turned that down and deferred to Council for their views. Other than citizen initiated charter amendments, the charter is Council’s turf, not the mayor’s.
Here’s a link:
http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... te_on.html
I was particularly disappointed with this Mike Summers quote:
"And if it doesn't get approved, it's certainly not the end of the world, but it will be regretful because a lot of good citizens did a lot of hard work to approve it. The existing charter is OK, but it could be better."
That was not encouraging, informative, or helpful. Sure, it’s not the end of the world, but it diminishes the value of the proposed Third Amended document. The amount of hard work shouldn’t be regretful to anyone. It doesn't bother me. I’ve worked on a lot of charter amendments. Not all of those even made it to the ballot. The Mayor missed the point, and then spoke to the non-point. He should have just told the reporter to call Council members.
Voters need to know the value of the proposed charter. It has real value over the “OK” one.
The proposed charter does not assert any significant philosophical difference in the governance of Lakewood. Though I would support some philosophical changes, that does not diminish my support of the Third Amended Charter. Voters have no reason to think that something insidious is being slipped into this proposal. That understanding is critical. I know why any Lakewoodite could have concerns, but the proposed Third Amended Charter is more citizen-centric. Though largely hortatory, there is even a new ethics provision.
The key points of the added value in this document are organization, readability, accuracy, and efficiency.
The benefits of the added value can be realized by our citizens, our elected officials, and our city employees, in their relationships to each other. It also benefits our city’s relationship with the County, especially with the Board of Elections, and with the State of Ohio by accurately defining the tenets of our home rule.
Organization may be related to readability, but it stands as a benefit. The current charter is an organizational disaster. Over the decades, so many added items have just been stuck the document, usually at the end. The items that remain in the proposed charter are now fully integrated into rational categories. A search for information can be more contextual now.
The proposed document is readable. No more 182 word sentences.
Readability benefits citizens in their interactions with our city government. With the Third Amended Charter, citizens should easily understand our government framework, and how to interact as voters, candidates for election, and as policy drivers via Charter Amendment, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. The language in the current charter is nearly impenetrable. I’ve often wondered if that is by design.
Readability helps the Board of Elections understand OUR voting process in detail. Again, it helps the state and courts understand how we define our home rule.
Readability benefits elected officials in their understanding of their jobs and responsibilities. For example, what exists in the current charter is the fuzziest of math that takes Council on a different path of fractions, percentages, and numbers for different voting situations. They really have to research the Council votes required to pass an ordinance depending on the nature of that ordinance. We (The Charter Commission) have mostly simplified that to majority and super-majority approval in a clear and understandable way.
Regarding accuracy, I don’t know how the Charter Commission could make all sections related to ballot issues more accurate. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but our process, in concert with the Board of Elections, delivered a reliable and understandable roadmap for all voter interaction, be it petitions for election, referendum, initiative, charter amendment, or voting dates. You have to remember that up to about 17 or 18 years ago, our charter required actually making an “X” with a pencil in a box on a printed ballot to vote. That was way past the time of voting systems that didn’t require a pencil. Integrating our voting requirements with the BOE is critical.
Some sections, particularly Finance, have been edited to reflect changes in normal practices and state law.
Efficiency has been addressed. The new document allows for a more “nimble” government. Some departments and redundancies have been eliminated in the proposed charter. This can allow for allocation of government resources as needed. Council will vote to appropriately transition some previous charter items into ordinances for continuity.
Would I change anything? Yes. I favor a change of form of government from Council-Mayor to Council-Manager. Without that, I would adjust some of the distribution of powers between the Council and Mayor. I would also take the last vestige of partisan politics out of the charter. That vestige is in the Civil Service Commission. The makeup of the Civil Service Commission is one Democrat, one Republican, and one Independent. Seriously? Where do Libertarian, Green Party, whatever, fit in? Two-thirds of our Lakewood voters are independent. Party affiliation should not be a consideration in this case.
Those are just a few philosophical differences worth future discussion. Again, none of them diminish my support of the new charter. The proposed charter is a great foundation for moving forward. It is a lot better than our “OK” one.
I’ve been involved in every charter review and commission in the last 18 years. I was a committee member in a successful citizen initiative to amend the charter. I have assisted City Council with numerous charter amendments. I am pretty excited that Lakewood, with voter approval, can have a more understandable and mechanically correct charter.
.