The Observation Deck

Very little conversation today?!

Hmmmmmmm

We could have as many as 4 seats open in council over the next twelve months, and
even more vacancies at the top sports of department directors by January.

In a conversation with Michael Skindell, asked how many council people would go with
Ed? I could see maybe 1, he saw three. Then when it came down to department heads
He thought all might leave and go to county or be replaced by new mayor.

Seems crazy, for 9 months of shake up for the city. Can we recover?

Should the rules for appointments be changed in the charter? It seems odd this is the only
way to replace, as in the case of a serious emergency it could leave the city without leadership for weeks if not months.

Should we allow a person to stay on as department head and also become acting mayor?

Funny how when you read a charter and throwing around scenarios how prepared Lakewood
could be in the future?

City Manager?


FWIW



.

I don't believe that taking a job with the county would make anyone ineligible to serve on Lakewood City Council. We have had several county employees as council members in the past. Taking another elected position is another issue. None of the positions the County Executive will be to filling are elected positions, they are just jobs.

Obviously department directors can't hold two full-time jobs and if they chose to go they would need be be replaced.

Bill

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Should the rules for appointments be changed in the charter? It seems odd this is the only way to replace, as in the case of a serious emergency it could leave the city without leadership for weeks if not months.

I am afraid I just have more questions along these same lines instead of answers...

While the "rules" in terms of the application submission process has been discussed at length over the past few months, I still feel somewhat in the dark about what comes next in terms of the selection process itself. Can anyone shed light on the details of the interviews, timeline, selection committee or individual, etc...? Do these details appear anywhere in the Charter? If not, why not? How should/could these very substantive omissions be remedied in the future?

Margaret Brinich wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Should the rules for appointments be changed in the charter? It seems odd this is the only way to replace, as in the case of a serious emergency it could leave the city without leadership for weeks if not months.

I am afraid I just have more questions along these same lines instead of answers...

While the "rules" in terms of the application submission process has been discussed at length over the past few months, I still feel somewhat in the dark about what comes next in terms of the selection process itself. Can anyone shed light on the details of the interviews, timeline, selection committee or individual, etc...? Do these details appear anywhere in the Charter? If not, why not? How should/could these very substantive omissions be remedied in the future?

Margaret

Well if you read the charter. NOTHING comes next. No obligation to even talk with the
people that put their names in for mayor. No formal moment, no acceptance etc. Nothing.
Council gets to do what they want.

Hence, the ad for the mayor's ball that promises you can meet the new and old mayor.

One would think, committee as usual in Lakewood.

I thought there was a move by Mary Louise Madigan to change the charter that was
knocked down but a member of council this year.

Bill

Good point on the county jobs, and council.

.

Hi Margaret,

I'm with you. I'd like to know what criteria the (remaining) City Council members will use to select our new mayor for NINE LONG MONTHS. I'd like to know that the Council members will be able to say, "this is why we chose this person, he/she will be a competent mayor because..." I'd also like to know what criteria they will use to replace departing Council Members.

It's true that I'm still smarting from the School Board having absolutely no criteria (that they were willing to share) for which elementary schools would stay open and which would close during the Phase 3 process. The School Board didn't use, for example, the school that would serve the largest population of families and children, for criteria. They didn't use the fact that one school would cost twelve million dollars less than the other to renovate. So not student population, not saving taxpayers twelve million dollars, even while we keep hearing that the District has "no money!" so what criteria did they use?

Most disturbing of all was the Board's position (except for Matt Markling, who gave the public a comprehensive list of reasons for opposing the decision of the majority on the Board) that they DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE US ANY REASONS. It doesn't say they have to in their bylaws. The fact that they are elected by the citizens to represent those citizens didn't translate into them having to have good reasons (or ANY reasons) for their actions.

I'm worried that the gaping holes in the School Board's bylaws are mirrored by the gaping holes in our City Charter. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to remedy these omissions in the documents that are supposed to outline how our governing bodies are supposed to function, and how our institutions and the rights of the citizens are protected in each and every situation that can occur.

It seems clear that we as citizens have a right to know what our elected officials are doing, and why. We elected them to represent us, and how they are using our money.

I've heard that we're supposed to have a new mayor this coming Saturday. This seems an impossibly short amount of time for the Council to sort through and vet the applicants, so maybe the rumor I heard was false. Does anybody know?

Betsy Voinovich

Jim--

I guess I was posting my message while you were posting yours. So we are getting a new mayor on Saturday! How exciting!

Tell us about it! I guess as one of the applicants, you've been interviewed about what it is a mayor does, and what sort of plans you'd have for the city? Your background has been gone over, and the Council attempted to determine that you were able to make smart, strong, objective decisions for the city of Lakewood?

Please share. Thanks.

Betsy

I thought Mayor Fitzgerald's resignation wasn't effective until December 31?

well, I guess this would be the first real test of your Mayoral abilities. It's your city. why not tell us who YOU'd like to see fill the different positions.

Lets stop sitting around hoping the right people step forward, instead, how about we actively recruit.

You want to lead this city? then name names. Who do you want, and where?

David Lay wrote:I thought Mayor Fitzgerald's resignation wasn't effective until December 31?

David

I like Ed FitzGerald, and appreciated the hard choices he has made. But I would think the
sooner he can start on the county, the better off we all are. Ohio is the 5th fastest growing
economy, but the CLE+ region is loosing out. Talking about grabbing the anchor on the
Titanic!

Ed is honest and takes responsibility for his actions.

This will be a massive step forward for this county.

Bret

Who are you asking?

.

Actually, my understanding is that the claim of "meet the new mayor" at the Mayor's Ball has since been rescinded. Now, whether that means just not formally announced is unclear and somewhat concerning given the lack of official Charter language weighing in on this process.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Bret

Who are you asking?

.

well, if it will help out, I'd be glad to ask everyone I know... both of them.

There seems to be a recurring themed in these posts whether it refers to decisions made by the School Board or City Council.
That theme can be variously described as -- "what are you thinking, how do you decide, what are your thought processes."
I don't know of any charter, no matter how well written, or law which could compel an elected official to voluntarily and openly answer those questions.
As in any relationship the citizen/representative relationship is one that is ultimately based on a visceral instinct.
Sometimes that instinct is an accurate predictor, and sometimes it is faulty.
But, you can't write it into existence.

Stan Austin

Stan Austin wrote:There seems to be a recurring themed in these posts whether it refers to decisions made by the School Board or City Council.
That theme can be variously described as -- "what are you thinking, how do you decide, what are your thought processes."
I don't know of any charter, no matter how well written, or law which could compel an elected official to voluntarily and openly answer those questions.
As in any relationship the citizen/representative relationship is one that is ultimately based on a visceral instinct.
Sometimes that instinct is an accurate predictor, and sometimes it is faulty.
But, you can't write it into existence.

Stan Austin

Stan

Good post and good thoughts but let me take a stab at answering this.

What I think we are dealing with in these questions and comments is an ever rolling history
of events here in Lakewood where people are asked to help discuss, take part, actually
work to chart Lakewood's future, and then decisions made that seem to be completely
contrary to the thoughts and discussions by the group.

At that point the participants, feel cheated and demand answers why. As they have time
invested, they have a right to ask that question. No wait, every citizen has a right to ask
why a decision was made, and what was the criteria. From that point it is up to the person
or group to decide if they care to answer it. Far too often, decisions are made, questions
asked, and no reason is ever given.

While a person can argue correctly that it is not in the charter, or worded for any of these
groups to say why or how. I would say that it is for the best of all if residents are allowed
to ask, get answers and processes reviewed. Nothing is ever harmed by vetting.

FWIW


Betsy

There is no process spelled out in the charter. It does not say how names should be gathered
It does not spell out criteria, questions to be asked, etc. Does not even ask for it to be
far and equal. It is so vague that a person could get a call in the middle of the night and
be told, "You are now the mayor." It would be legal, correct, and proper. I knew that going
in, and I fully accept that. Though one might also think, it leaves way to much room for
questions asked down the road, and that some things in the charter should be looked at
including "temporary mayor" that could be a department head that would keep that job
and pay and become acting mayor. So there is no issue until the next election.

It is funny that the more people I speak to the more that are amazed that the "Law
Director" is the first choice, at a time when that person might be the busiest, and involved
in the most long term processes. Could the Law Director put themselves on the stand to
testify for...? Who knows.

Funny how these moments, bring up so many other things. The reason one hears for no
one stepping up is "They would not want a pay cut." Well this indicates to me that maybe
just maybe the mayor's job should pay enough that we never hear that again. While one
would hope that any citizen would served if called, the truth is far different. If this city
were to look at city managers, something that certainly deserves another look, then this
city would need to pay nearly twice as much for quality in that position. AND, the city
would be wise to pay city council more money, and perhaps get more help in their office.
(Go back and search I have been saying this for years)

With that said I got a call from Council President and my City Council Representative Kevin
Butler, telling me that interviews are being considered, and possibly this week or early next.

So it would seem that council has decided on their format for making the decision.

.

Let me tell you exactly how it works.

1) City Council asks for applications for the open positions.
2) Councilmembers begin to examine the ranks of their political party to see who would be able to get re-elected after being appointed.
3) Councilmembers encourage those people to apply.
4) Sham interviews are held at city hall, where a majority of council probably already knows who it wants to appoint. Yet it's important that they go through the motions so it actually looks like they might give someone from outside traditional political circles a chance.
5) At the conclusion of the interviews the members of council go through rounds of voting on the candidates. They start with the whole list and will be told to pick the top three. Then a new list will be generated and they will be told to vote again for the top three from that list. This continues until the individuals are selected to fill the vacant positions. At least this is how it worked when Bob Seelie was President of Council.

Betsy/Margaret et al, remember this is a wholly political process and nothing else. There is no objective measurement of a candidate's skill level or experience. In fact, a really interesting way to do it would be to mask all of the candidates resumes and conduct interviews behind a screen with a disguised voice. I guarantee that under those conditions the councilmembers would probably pick someone other then who they originally intended to.

I was witness to the appointment of Patrick Corrigan to city council, along with other board and commission members. At that time I specifically remember Mike Dever making the remark that "we needed to appoint someone who would be able to get re-elected." I reminded him that that was a political concern and not one that should be considered during the interview process. Republican or Democrat, in the history of Lakewood it has always been about who you know and how you support the party power structure. It has little to do with qualifications or serving the community.

I saw Mary Ann Crampton sitting on a bench in the INA buildng with a tarp, open on her lap. Is she camping out for a seat?

Hows about a sleep-in candidacy?