The Observation Deck

In anticipation of the vacancy that will be created on approximately March 1st by Kevin Butler's (Ward 1) appointment to the position of Law Director, applications are now being accepted for an interim Ward 1 councilperson.

Resume and cover letter should be sent to the Clerk of Council, 12650 Detroit Road, Lakewood, OH 44107, or by email to council@lakewoodoh.net by no later than 5pm on Wednesday, February 16th, 2011.

The appointee's term will last until the 2011 November general election. Should the appointee wish to retain their seat beyond this date, they must run for (and win) election at that time.

Now who is ready to step forward and serve their neighbors in Ward 1?

Margaret Brinich wrote:In anticipation of the vacancy that will be created on approximately March 1st by Kevin Butler's (Ward 1) appointment to the position of Law Director, applications are now being accepted for an interim Ward 1 councilperson.

Resume and cover letter should be sent to the Clerk of Council, 12650 Detroit Road, Lakewood, OH 44107, or by email to council@lakewoodoh.net by no later than 5pm on Wednesday, February 16th, 2011.

The appointee's term will last until the 2011 November general election. Should the appointee wish to retain their seat beyond this date, they must run for (and win) election at that time.

Now who is ready to step forward and serve their neighbors in Ward 1?

You know, I am curious. When we have three At-Large Council People, and at least two
of them live in Ward One. Is this really necessary? I mean it is not like we have zero
representation. Both Monique and Brian return phone calls promptly, unlike in the next
Ward over which supposedly has a councilman.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Margaret Brinich wrote:In anticipation of the vacancy that will be created on approximately March 1st by Kevin Butler's (Ward 1) appointment to the position of Law Director, applications are now being accepted for an interim Ward 1 councilperson.

Resume and cover letter should be sent to the Clerk of Council, 12650 Detroit Road, Lakewood, OH 44107, or by email to council@lakewoodoh.net by no later than 5pm on Wednesday, February 16th, 2011.

The appointee's term will last until the 2011 November general election. Should the appointee wish to retain their seat beyond this date, they must run for (and win) election at that time.

Now who is ready to step forward and serve their neighbors in Ward 1?

You know, I am curious. When we have three At-Large Council People, and at least two
of them live in Ward One. Is this really necessary? I mean it is not like we have zero
representation. Both Monique and Brian return phone calls promptly, unlike in the next
Ward over which supposedly has a councilman.

.

Jim,

You honestly cannot be talking about this councilman?

Scott Meeson wrote:You honestly cannot be talking about this councilman?

Scott

This is not about who, really. I really meant with have three At-Large Council People
eager to return calls. And a Ward I have a business in has a councilman who doesn't.
To me a body assures nothing. Dedication, accountability and love for a community does.

It is about do we really need to appoint anyone for Ward1 council? Or can we trust the
others to not take horrible advantage of Ward 1 because of this and keep us in their
thoughts and plans. Allowing those interested in running for office to get their
acts together.

It seems to me, and I would ask our City Charter Expert Steve Davis, do we have to go
through this yet again. Is it mandatory?

This past 4 months has seemed like a City Government virtual Driver's Ed movie. You know
in five minutes you have opportunities to make 30 mistakes and accidents.

Just curious.



.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:It is about do we really need to appoint anyone for Ward1 council? Or can we trust the others to not take horrible advantage of Ward 1 because of this and keep us in their
thoughts and plans. Allowing those interested in running for office to get their
acts together.

It seems to me, and I would ask our City Charter Expert Steve Davis, do we have to go
through this yet again. Is it mandatory?

I'm not an expert, but the answer is yes. Read below.

The Lakewood City Charter wrote:ARTICLE III. SECTION 2. QUALIFICATIONS AND VACANCIES.
Each member of Council shall have been for at least one (1) year immediately prior to the date of taking office both a resident and qualified elector of the City. Each member of Council elected from a ward of the City shall be a resident of the ward from which such member was elected. All members of Council shall continue to be residents and qualified electors of the City and, if elected or appointed from a ward, shall be and continue to be a resident of that ward. Any member who ceases to possess such qualifications shall forthwith forfeit his or her office. Vacancies in Council shall be filled by the remaining members thereof, provided that in the event Council does not so appoint a successor within sixty (60) days of the occurrence of a vacancy, the Mayor may fill the vacancy. Such appointee shall hold office for the unexpired term of the member in whose office the vacancy occurs or until his or her successor is elected and qualified. A successor shall be elected at the next regular municipal election, provided that such vacancy occurs more than two years and one hundred five days (2 years and 105 days) prior to the date of such election. Any vacancy that results from a recall election shall be filled in the manner provided by Article XXII of this Charter.

Steve

.

I wonder with a declining population, why do we need 7 council people? Maybe 3 wards and 2 at large would be enough? Pay them a little more and expect more out of them?

We have less people and physically Lakewood is not that big. I think we could easily do it with 5 city council people.

I believe seven is a good number for council. The city's population has not fallen by 28 percent (unless you go all the way to 1970). Plus, the number of serious issues facing the city has grown since 1970. Rising poverty, aging housing, aging infrastructure, etc. Given their modest pay, council members are a good value for the taxpayers.

Other points to consider:

*Fewer council seats would increase the cost of running for office, thereby tightening control of the politically entrenched.

*Seven council seats offers greater possibility for diversity than five. More council seats equates to a more opportunity for grassroots candidates, racial minorities, gays, Republicans and others to be represented on council.

Steve

Thank you.


Bryan

Cleveland Hts has 5 At-Large council people and no wards. They did away with wards with
the simple belief that all of them should have the well being of all of Cleveland Hts in
their heads and hearts, and that a "ward" system was severely outdated and over kill for a
city of their size. If we were to do this, which I think would take a change of the charter
it could have saved the city the cost of the recent raise, and possible all of the hoops we
have recently gone through.

Example they would still have a pool of great candidates to pull from instead of call for
more applications again.

Maybe it is time to trim back.

Another thing Cleveland Hts has is a City Manager, that would have saved us some of that
shuffling as well. While giving continuity to the city.

FWIW


.

Jim, that's interesting. I was originally going to suggest getting rid of the actual ward system in my post, but I thought that might go too far.

But now that I think about it, especially given the compact geographical nature of the city, the ward system just seems like overkill. Any council person should be able to respond to the needs of any citizen pretty easily. And it's not like our ward council people are fighting each other for development dollars, etc. We're just not big enough for that. Now if I saw Juris and Bullock get into a fist fight over who's gonna get the next cell phone store or check cashing place, then maybe it would make sense, but that stuff just doesn't happen here.

And as a constituent, you wouldn't be stuck with the possibility of only dealing with a dud for a council person if you're unlucky. We had that in Ward 3 for awhile (which is the only experience I personally know since I've owned a home), and that changed when Summers got elected, but I feel for anybody who still has to deal with an unresponsive council person.

Mike,
I understand what your'e saying, but I just don't agree. So the cost to run a campaign goes from $3000 to maybe $5000 - $7000 at most (which is the avg for an at-large post based on recent stats). That's not a huge jump and can be more than offset by increased population donating to campaigns.

But more important, is that the world has changed greatly in many ways since the original system was set up or last changed significantly. Maybe it's time to really re-examine the whole thing. Why be shackled to an old system that may not be the best any longer? We need to broaden our thinking and be open to radical new ideas.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:But more important, is that the world has changed greatly in many ways since the original system was set up or last changed significantly. Maybe it's time to really re-examine the whole thing. Why be shackled to an old system that may not be the best any longer? We need to broaden our thinking and be open to radical new ideas.

Bryan

Another thing that would be interesting is to go back see if anything decision would be
changed by pulling out two votes. I am willing to be no. As you point out this group
really votes together, except a token opposite once in awhile.

Cleveland Hts is very much a sister city and there is much that could be learned over there.

Good and bad.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Cleveland Hts has 5 At-Large council people and no wards.

Jim,

I looked it up. Cleveland Heights has 7 Councilpersons. You are correct about them all being At-Large.

I've talked to many people at Cleveland Heights City Hall about their government. They believe that their elected officials should represent the entire city. Their Council hires the City Manager who, by the way, works without a contract. In this case, Robert Downey works at the pleasure of Council. He can be fired tomorrow, but he's been there for many years. President of Council is also the Mayor.

I think their Council members earn slightly more than ours, and the President/Mayor earns slightly more than the other members of Council. (This is only a recollection. I don't have numbers in front of me.)

Cleveland Heights has enjoyed a long period of continuity in its management. Because of that continuity and the ability to take a long look, they have been able to plan better than many area communities. Although they have not been spared by the current economy, I know that they anticipated it, and were cutting back on expenses and personnel years before Lakewood even gave it a thought.


Steve


.

My only concern with getting rid of the ward system would be that each area of Lakewood share similiar issues, but they also have very unique ones as well. I don't feel that Ward 1 residents could relate to some issues that Ward 4 might have and consider important for them. For a council person to live in that specific area helps as well. So if we got rid of the wards, I would be concerned that candidates from certain wards might have an advantage and all might be elected from one area, in turn, ignoring concerns of people in other areas of the city.

Folks--- a little history lesson----

The structure of Lakewood's Council has always been on a low simmer with an occasional blast on high for as long as my knowledge goes back which is to the early 1950s. I studied Council, and election statistics going back that far in preparation for my own campaigns. Also, I was dating at the time Cindy Ward, whose Dad, Thomas Ward, was on Council since 1940 and was a great source of knowledge and inspiration for me.
Basically, the system of ward representation combined with at large representation is meant to be the best of both worlds---parochial interests competing with city wide interests. Four of one and three of the other help equal the odds. In addition, staggering the elections so that every two years there is the potential to significantly change council adds the possibility of competition.
Now, let's throw in a dose of partisanship. Up until the 50s Lakewood was non partisan although most of the elected officials were Republican. One notable exception was the above mentioned Tom Ward, who because of infighting amongst the Republicans was able to be elected (he was a Democrat) Council President. (As an interesting side note, during WWII, Ward served overseas in the Army and Republicans on council tried to have him removed. Frank Celeste was elected Mayor in the mid 50s. He was a Democrat. Republicans thought that if the City switched to a partisan form of government it would "out" (to use today's terms) Celeste and with the label "Democrat" would cause him to lose support. He was reelected. Here, it might be pointed out that all attempts to go partisan or non partisan are ALWAYS. ALWAYS based on partisan reasons. The party which is out wants a change or the party that's in wants a change.
Now, to the actual boundaries of wards. Over the years there have been proposals to have as an example, six wards and one president elected at large. There have been other proposed configurations. These proposals have ALL originated from those who at the time thought they were being excluded.
It has been a well known fact that a large number of public positions are filled by folks from certain areas of the City. So, some of the proposals such as the one mentioned above, were meant to limit that perceived over representation.
So---- having presented a brief history of the structure of council along with some of the efforts to change and the motives behind those efforts, and having been a participant, observer and reporter of the structure--- I would say that our current council structure is one of those fortuitous phenomena that has served Lakewood well.
But, our Charter lays out the procedures if any one or group wants to change it!

Stan Austin

stephen davis wrote:I think their Council members earn slightly more than ours, and the President/Mayor earns slightly more than the other members of Council. (This is only a recollection. I don't have numbers in front of me.)

Just to answer Steve's question:

Lakewood's Civil Service Commission reports that Cleveland Heights' council president, known there as its mayor, made $11,840 in 2010 and the remaining six councilmembers made $9,270. (Cleveland Heights' city manager made $125,000.)

Kevin,

Thanks for the clarification.

Steve

.