As I was looking for an old blog post that I wanted to link to, I came across several older posts with predictions and realized how smart I really am. (Heh heh.)
I predicted the Bengals would finish 6-10 (they were 4-11-1--not too far off).
I predicted Driehaus's victory.
I wished (but didn't predict) that Greg Harris could be on Council instead of John Cranley. (An aside here: I'm glad that Harris is now on Council, but am presently a bit disappointed with him. Nearly a week ago, I emailed him regarding a matter that seems to be important to him, and haven't gotten a response--not even a "sorry, it's really busy, hope to answer you soon." I know it's got to be tough getting use to the faster-than-you'd-think pace of the life of a Councilmember, and I'm just a dumb blogger. But I am voting in November.)
Of course, I also predicted that Martha Good would win, that the Portune-Rothenberg race would be close, that Groppe would retain her office, and that Obama would win far fewer states than he actually did.
So I got the easy stuff right, and missed wildly on the tougher questions. Maybe I'm not so smart after all. Just lucky. What's that expression about the sun shining on a lame dog's ass.....?
UPDATE (2/16/2009): I just received an email from Greg Harris indicating he didn't receive the email I sent. So I'm resending my email, and my prior "disappointment" has now been vanquished.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Why Don't I Ride The Bus? And Would I Ride The Streetcar?
I've lived in Cincinnati since 2000 (with one year away while I worked for a federal judge). In all that time, I've never used public transportation in Cincinnati. During brief periods of time that I've been without a car, I didn't go to SORTA's trip planning page; I dialed 411 and found a cab.
Why?
It's certainly not an aversion to public transportation. I grew up in Buffalo (until I was 14) and Pittsburgh (for high school), and in both cities rode the bus frequently. I spent a few years in Chicago, where I rode both the bus and the "el." I lived in New York for a summer, and reveled in busses, trains, and subways there (in fact, I had an unbreakable "never drive in Manhattan" policy, and was too impoverished to take cabs). And on visits to D.C. and Moscow, I've happily used public transportation.
Some of the problem, no doubt, is lack of familiarity with bus routes in Cincinnati. If I wanted to catch a bus to Hyde Park from downtown, for instance, I have no earthly idea how to do it. Some of it is discomfort with Cincinnati's geography generally: if it weren't for my Tom-Tom, I might still be wandering around the West Side after my most recent excursion there.
But lack of familiarity can't explain it all, can it? Certainly, the first time I was in NYC, I had no idea how to get to Yankee Stadium from midtown Manhattan. But somehow, I found the "D" train and got there in time for a game.
In Cincinnati, unlike in other cities, public transportation isn't widely embraced. Had I told friends in Chicago of plans to drive from the dorm (in the South Side) to Wrigley, they'd have been incredulous. During law school in Cincinnati, had I told friends of plans to take a bus from Clifton to the ballpark, I'd have been greeted with blank stares.
Downtown is small enough that I can walk anywhere. I live at the western edge of downtown, and have no trouble walking to the courthouse or the Justice Center, both on the eastern edge. One fun night a little while ago, a companion and I had dinner at Palomino's (sorry to you chain-haters), walked to Music Hall for a concert, and then walked over to Kaldi's. And I ended up getting back to my apartment (near Tina's) on foot. Of course, the weather was nice that night.
If I leave downtown, I drive. I'll admit it: I don't even think about the bus. A few weeks ago, I spent all day at the UC College of Law for a seminar. That would have been a simple trip. (According to SORTA's tripfinder, I should have caught the 18 at Government Square and taken it to Clifton and McMillan. The trip would taken 12 minutes, required a half-mile of walking, and cost $1.50.) But as much as I hate finding parking in Clifton, I didn't even think about the bus.
As the streetcar debate rages on (presently fueled largely by the folks over atIHateLightRail.com the Beacon), I wonder, would I get my ass on public transportation if it were a streetcar instead of a bus? Probably not so much. I might use the downtown "circulator" to get around downtown (instead of walking), but I doubt I'd use the downtown-Clifton connector instead of getting in my car. The thought of standing on a corner in ten-degree or ninety-degree weather to catch a streetcar just doesn't appeal to me. (Add in the other factor--that once I was at my destination, I'd be limited to traveling to other locations along the proposed streetcar's fairly limited route, or face a bus-or-cab choice.)
So what about y'all? Every time I've been even remotely negative about the proposed streetcar, you yell at me in the comments. If you're one of those who do, do you take the bus now? If you don't, will you use a streetcar? And why use the streetcar when you won't use the bus?
We've got to think this stuff through before we make the major policy decision that light rail represents.
Why?
It's certainly not an aversion to public transportation. I grew up in Buffalo (until I was 14) and Pittsburgh (for high school), and in both cities rode the bus frequently. I spent a few years in Chicago, where I rode both the bus and the "el." I lived in New York for a summer, and reveled in busses, trains, and subways there (in fact, I had an unbreakable "never drive in Manhattan" policy, and was too impoverished to take cabs). And on visits to D.C. and Moscow, I've happily used public transportation.
Some of the problem, no doubt, is lack of familiarity with bus routes in Cincinnati. If I wanted to catch a bus to Hyde Park from downtown, for instance, I have no earthly idea how to do it. Some of it is discomfort with Cincinnati's geography generally: if it weren't for my Tom-Tom, I might still be wandering around the West Side after my most recent excursion there.
But lack of familiarity can't explain it all, can it? Certainly, the first time I was in NYC, I had no idea how to get to Yankee Stadium from midtown Manhattan. But somehow, I found the "D" train and got there in time for a game.
In Cincinnati, unlike in other cities, public transportation isn't widely embraced. Had I told friends in Chicago of plans to drive from the dorm (in the South Side) to Wrigley, they'd have been incredulous. During law school in Cincinnati, had I told friends of plans to take a bus from Clifton to the ballpark, I'd have been greeted with blank stares.
Downtown is small enough that I can walk anywhere. I live at the western edge of downtown, and have no trouble walking to the courthouse or the Justice Center, both on the eastern edge. One fun night a little while ago, a companion and I had dinner at Palomino's (sorry to you chain-haters), walked to Music Hall for a concert, and then walked over to Kaldi's. And I ended up getting back to my apartment (near Tina's) on foot. Of course, the weather was nice that night.
If I leave downtown, I drive. I'll admit it: I don't even think about the bus. A few weeks ago, I spent all day at the UC College of Law for a seminar. That would have been a simple trip. (According to SORTA's tripfinder, I should have caught the 18 at Government Square and taken it to Clifton and McMillan. The trip would taken 12 minutes, required a half-mile of walking, and cost $1.50.) But as much as I hate finding parking in Clifton, I didn't even think about the bus.
As the streetcar debate rages on (presently fueled largely by the folks over at
So what about y'all? Every time I've been even remotely negative about the proposed streetcar, you yell at me in the comments. If you're one of those who do, do you take the bus now? If you don't, will you use a streetcar? And why use the streetcar when you won't use the bus?
We've got to think this stuff through before we make the major policy decision that light rail represents.
Sheriff Leis Needs Some P.R. Help
The war of words between Commissioner David Pepper and Sheriff Simon Leis is escalating. Jessica Brown blogs the exchange here; and here is Leis's most recent missive, with Pepper's responses. As far as I can tell, the Sheriff is losing the battle of public perception. People seem to think that he is being intentionally inflexible, taking a "my way or the highway" approach and engaging in a high-stakes game of chicken that threatens public safety in this county.
That one-dimensional image of Sheriff Leis may make it easier for some to hate the guy who's gotten stuck laying off an unprecedented number of police officers. But I don't think it's accurate. Leis has been in public service for a long, long time. Everyone who knows him (I do not) indicates that he cares deeply about this community, and is passionate about his job. When he's recently made public statements about the difficulty of sitting across from a deputy and terminating his employment, I've felt that he genuinely hates laying people off.
Unfortunately, the Sheriff isn't giving me much evidence with which to back up my give-the-guy-the-benefit-of-the-doubt approach. Leis says he can't give up helicopter operations. Why? What does the helicopter do? How does it improve public safety? Pepper wants Leis to use funds from asset forfeitures to fund deputies' salaries. Why isn't this possible? (I thought there were statutory constraints on the way that money was spent, but Pepper doesn't seem to think so.)
Leis did a good job, in his recent letter, of explaining why he can't just fire people with "desk jobs" instead of those on the streets: the former, as it turns out, perform functions--such as concealed-carry licensing, sex offender registration, and fingerprinting--that the State requires the Sheriff to carry out. But both Pepper and the FOP (the union that represents the sheriff's deputies) have petitioned Leis to cut the salaries of "double dipping" members of his administrative staff (those people who have already "retired," so now both earn a salary and collect a pension). Leis's only response has been to point to County Administrator Pat Thompson and note that he hasn't been asked to take a similar pay cut. Thompson's salary is certainly worthy of scrutiny (one of these days, I like to research whether--as some have suggested--Thompson has financially benefitted from the deep cuts to the County budget). But "you're as bad as I am" doesn't sound like a responsible response. Why can't administrators (who are also collecting pensions) take pay cuts? In a better economy, I might be concerned these folks would leave for greener pastures. But if Leis forces a pay cut on them, where would they go?
I hope some day soon, Leis writes an op-ed for the Enquirer explaining why his budget is as lean as he says it is. Because for the time being, those of us who believe he's a good guy who wants to do the best job possible for the citizens of this county are having a tough time defending him.
(Finally: if you're ever discussing HamCo's budget nightmare and someone mentions the Sheriff's tank, just walk away. That person doesn't know what s/he's talking about. The County acquired the tank for free. And the Sheriff hasn't spent any money training on it since sometime last year, when it became clear we were in serious economic trouble. The tank is a red herring that has nothing to do with the current crisis.)
UPDATE: I had not seen this Enquirer article before I published this post. But my questions about the helicopter and double-dippers remain largely unanswered.
That one-dimensional image of Sheriff Leis may make it easier for some to hate the guy who's gotten stuck laying off an unprecedented number of police officers. But I don't think it's accurate. Leis has been in public service for a long, long time. Everyone who knows him (I do not) indicates that he cares deeply about this community, and is passionate about his job. When he's recently made public statements about the difficulty of sitting across from a deputy and terminating his employment, I've felt that he genuinely hates laying people off.
Unfortunately, the Sheriff isn't giving me much evidence with which to back up my give-the-guy-the-benefit-of-the-doubt approach. Leis says he can't give up helicopter operations. Why? What does the helicopter do? How does it improve public safety? Pepper wants Leis to use funds from asset forfeitures to fund deputies' salaries. Why isn't this possible? (I thought there were statutory constraints on the way that money was spent, but Pepper doesn't seem to think so.)
Leis did a good job, in his recent letter, of explaining why he can't just fire people with "desk jobs" instead of those on the streets: the former, as it turns out, perform functions--such as concealed-carry licensing, sex offender registration, and fingerprinting--that the State requires the Sheriff to carry out. But both Pepper and the FOP (the union that represents the sheriff's deputies) have petitioned Leis to cut the salaries of "double dipping" members of his administrative staff (those people who have already "retired," so now both earn a salary and collect a pension). Leis's only response has been to point to County Administrator Pat Thompson and note that he hasn't been asked to take a similar pay cut. Thompson's salary is certainly worthy of scrutiny (one of these days, I like to research whether--as some have suggested--Thompson has financially benefitted from the deep cuts to the County budget). But "you're as bad as I am" doesn't sound like a responsible response. Why can't administrators (who are also collecting pensions) take pay cuts? In a better economy, I might be concerned these folks would leave for greener pastures. But if Leis forces a pay cut on them, where would they go?
I hope some day soon, Leis writes an op-ed for the Enquirer explaining why his budget is as lean as he says it is. Because for the time being, those of us who believe he's a good guy who wants to do the best job possible for the citizens of this county are having a tough time defending him.
(Finally: if you're ever discussing HamCo's budget nightmare and someone mentions the Sheriff's tank, just walk away. That person doesn't know what s/he's talking about. The County acquired the tank for free. And the Sheriff hasn't spent any money training on it since sometime last year, when it became clear we were in serious economic trouble. The tank is a red herring that has nothing to do with the current crisis.)
UPDATE: I had not seen this Enquirer article before I published this post. But my questions about the helicopter and double-dippers remain largely unanswered.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Ohio Firm Threatens Internet As We Know It
Last year, Blockshopper.com, a website that tracks real estate transactions in various parts of the country, noted that two attorneys had (separately) purchased properties in Chicagoland. In reporting the transactions, Blockshopper linked to the attorneys' profiles that were on the attorneys' law firm's website.
Well, either the attorneys or their firm didn't like that the sales were so widely reported. To an extent, it's difficult to blame them. Although real estate records have always been public, they have been easily accessible for only the less decade. (Maybe it's not a good idea that any Hamilton County homeowner's address can be ascertained on the Auditor's website. But that's a post for another day.)
Being attorneys, they couldn't just dislike something. And it doesn't hurt that they work for one of the largest law firms in the nation, Ohio-based Jones Day Reavis & Pogue (www.jonesday.com). So the firm did what any lawyer, faced with a bad economy, does: it created work for itself by becoming its own client in a lawsuit. The firm claimed that the practice of direct linking constitutes trademark infringement.
I'm an expert on neither trademark law nor internet law, but every account of this lawsuit I've read leads me to believe the claim was laughable. Part of the usefulness of the internet is its connectivity, and we all use "embedded links"--that is, creating a link that takes a reader to another page, although that other page's web address is not displayed as part of the link.
Laughable or not, David cannot always slay Goliath. Blockshopper finally waved the white flag after spending over a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees. Its settlement with Jones Day calls for Blockshopper to cease using embedded links; instead, in linking to Jones Day pages, it will always do so by diplaying the website address in a parenthetical, as I did in the second paragraph, above.
The Jones Day suit and settlement is a threat to every website and blog on the internet. Any corporation or individual with sufficient funds can now attempt to force those who write things they don't like to alter or take down their content by bastardizing trademark and unfair competition laws. It's hard to imagine how Jones Day's mark was diluted by Blockshopper's use. But that's exactly what they claimed. And after expending what was likely thousands of hours of attorney time, it bullied the small website into an arrangement that makes writing about Jones Day more inconvenient and time consuming (and less readable).
Links: The Plain Dealer; Citizen Media Law Project
Well, either the attorneys or their firm didn't like that the sales were so widely reported. To an extent, it's difficult to blame them. Although real estate records have always been public, they have been easily accessible for only the less decade. (Maybe it's not a good idea that any Hamilton County homeowner's address can be ascertained on the Auditor's website. But that's a post for another day.)
Being attorneys, they couldn't just dislike something. And it doesn't hurt that they work for one of the largest law firms in the nation, Ohio-based Jones Day Reavis & Pogue (www.jonesday.com). So the firm did what any lawyer, faced with a bad economy, does: it created work for itself by becoming its own client in a lawsuit. The firm claimed that the practice of direct linking constitutes trademark infringement.
I'm an expert on neither trademark law nor internet law, but every account of this lawsuit I've read leads me to believe the claim was laughable. Part of the usefulness of the internet is its connectivity, and we all use "embedded links"--that is, creating a link that takes a reader to another page, although that other page's web address is not displayed as part of the link.
Laughable or not, David cannot always slay Goliath. Blockshopper finally waved the white flag after spending over a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees. Its settlement with Jones Day calls for Blockshopper to cease using embedded links; instead, in linking to Jones Day pages, it will always do so by diplaying the website address in a parenthetical, as I did in the second paragraph, above.
The Jones Day suit and settlement is a threat to every website and blog on the internet. Any corporation or individual with sufficient funds can now attempt to force those who write things they don't like to alter or take down their content by bastardizing trademark and unfair competition laws. It's hard to imagine how Jones Day's mark was diluted by Blockshopper's use. But that's exactly what they claimed. And after expending what was likely thousands of hours of attorney time, it bullied the small website into an arrangement that makes writing about Jones Day more inconvenient and time consuming (and less readable).
Links: The Plain Dealer; Citizen Media Law Project
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Another Candidate in for Council Race
Just when you had enough of politics, election season is fast approaching. Tony Fischer comes across as someone the Democrats Nationally view as viable future candidate. The problem is that he is unknown. Nearly everything I know about Tony Fischer is in the blog post, so check out his website to learn about him: www.votetonyfischer.com. (He is pro-Streetcar!)
Tony is an Iraq vet, which normally in politics is going to get you votes. He'll get some attention for that, but in a Cincinnati Council race, where are those votes going to come from? Is he going to target the Westside and Eastern areas of the City: Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout and Mt. Washington? All of those areas would tend to have residents who may not agree with all of his positions as a Democrat, but they are more likley to vote for him because he served in Iraq. What neighborhood(s) are Fischer's logical base?
Tony is an Iraq vet, which normally in politics is going to get you votes. He'll get some attention for that, but in a Cincinnati Council race, where are those votes going to come from? Is he going to target the Westside and Eastern areas of the City: Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout and Mt. Washington? All of those areas would tend to have residents who may not agree with all of his positions as a Democrat, but they are more likley to vote for him because he served in Iraq. What neighborhood(s) are Fischer's logical base?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Cincinnati Sports History
The Enquirer is conducting a survey, asking readers to choose the most memorable or iconic picture in Cincinnati sports history. What's absent is perhaps as interesting as what's included.
My guess is that the "winner" will be some moment in Red history. My first thought upon reading what the survey was about was Pete Rose running over catcher Ray Fosse in an All-Star Game. Of course, I've only lived in Cincinnati for the past eight years, so my take on what's memorable or iconic is no doubt different that what a lifelong Cincinnatian will remember.
What did I expect to see that's not included in the Enquirer's offerings?
My guess is that the "winner" will be some moment in Red history. My first thought upon reading what the survey was about was Pete Rose running over catcher Ray Fosse in an All-Star Game. Of course, I've only lived in Cincinnati for the past eight years, so my take on what's memorable or iconic is no doubt different that what a lifelong Cincinnatian will remember.
What did I expect to see that's not included in the Enquirer's offerings?
- A better picture of Marge Schott
- An "action shot" (i.e. on the court) of Oscar Robertson (yes, I saw the shot of Robertson in street clothes)
- A Ken Anderson Superbowl TD
- A mugshot of any of the Bengals
Monday, February 09, 2009
Heartless Bastards On TV Tuesday
Set your VCR DVR: As Griff told us last month, the Heartless Bastards will be on the David Letterman Show Tuesday night. For the truly uninformed, the show is on CBS following the late local news.
It could well be a show with high ratings, as the only other announced guest is the crew of Flight 1549. (Rumors are that ComAir intends to start landing planes in the Ohio to generate similarly positive press.)
Anyhow: make sure you watch the Heartless Bastards in their network television debut. Maybe they'll let Captain Sully sit in....
I know, I know, music is Griff's beat. I'll go back to writing about more boring things now.
It could well be a show with high ratings, as the only other announced guest is the crew of Flight 1549. (Rumors are that ComAir intends to start landing planes in the Ohio to generate similarly positive press.)
Anyhow: make sure you watch the Heartless Bastards in their network television debut. Maybe they'll let Captain Sully sit in....
I know, I know, music is Griff's beat. I'll go back to writing about more boring things now.
Why Not A Public Safety Bailout?
For a few days, I've been thinking about a Peter Bronson column and blog post from last week, in which our favorite pundit suggests that the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners should be seeking stimulus money for the construction of a new jail. And I can't help wondering: doesn't he have a point?
First, let's take care of debunking the all too familiar Bronson histrionics. From the column:
1. Judges often set own-recognizance bonds for assault and domestic violence cases in which the only witness is the prosecuting witness, particularly if an officer sees no sign of injury and issues a referral rather than signing a complaint him- or herself. "Theft" can be shoplifting a candy bar. And menacing sounds really bad, but it's actually a fourth-degree misdemeanor--the least serious offense for which imprisonment is an option. So how many "sheriff releases" would have been required to post a cash bond if they had seen a judge? Tough to know, and Bronson doesn't help us to extrapolate the number in any meaningful way.
2. Bronson's July jail tour isn't at all representative. For one thing, he toured the jail (according to that column) alongside Public Defender Lou Strigari while Strigari was making the rounds for felony arraignments. So guess what? Bronson met accused felons; aside from B&E, all of the crimes he describes in the first paragraph I quote are misdemeanors. For another, until it closed, Queensgate was a facility designed for low- and medium-risk inmates. That meant that Bronson would only meet the highest security risks (typically, those with the most serious charges lodged against them) in the Justice Center.
Now that that's out of the way, let's move to the meat of Bronson's column: that stimulus money could or should build a new jail for Hamilton County. On the surface, the proposal makes sense. A jail facility is a public works project. In the short term, it would create jobs (in the construction trades). And there's bipartisan agreement that Hamilton County's jail facilities are currently inadequate.
Bronson's proposal does not, however, solve other critical public safety problems. It does not restore the recently laid-off sheriff's deputies. The County would still need to find a way to finance the operation of a new jail (and corrections officers to staff it). While the Democrats had wanted to provide stimulus funds to put cops on the streets, the only way to avoid a Republican filibuster in the Senate was to strip those provisions out.
So Bronson's has the hint of a good idea: federal money could be sought to build the jail that a majority of voters have been thus far unwilling to finance with locally generated tax dollars. But without a plan to fund the operation of the jail, we could be spending millions for an empty building (see Queensgate for an example of a jail that lacks operations funding). Maybe Bronson's ready to unveil the rest of his plan to get us a working jail with federal funds. But he hasn't done it yet.
First, let's take care of debunking the all too familiar Bronson histrionics. From the column:
Records show that inmates with more than 100 charges against them were "let go" in the past month. DUIs, drug possession, indecency and other relatively minor crimes are first in line. But some were charged with assault, resisting arrest, breaking and entering, domestic violence, theft and menacing.Two points:
When I toured the jail last July, long before the budget cuts, I met two dozen nmates. Only two were marijuana cases, and it wasn't their first rodeo. The rest were a citizen's nightmare: assault, burglary, domestic violence, attempted murder, drug trafficking, aggravated robbery ...
1. Judges often set own-recognizance bonds for assault and domestic violence cases in which the only witness is the prosecuting witness, particularly if an officer sees no sign of injury and issues a referral rather than signing a complaint him- or herself. "Theft" can be shoplifting a candy bar. And menacing sounds really bad, but it's actually a fourth-degree misdemeanor--the least serious offense for which imprisonment is an option. So how many "sheriff releases" would have been required to post a cash bond if they had seen a judge? Tough to know, and Bronson doesn't help us to extrapolate the number in any meaningful way.
2. Bronson's July jail tour isn't at all representative. For one thing, he toured the jail (according to that column) alongside Public Defender Lou Strigari while Strigari was making the rounds for felony arraignments. So guess what? Bronson met accused felons; aside from B&E, all of the crimes he describes in the first paragraph I quote are misdemeanors. For another, until it closed, Queensgate was a facility designed for low- and medium-risk inmates. That meant that Bronson would only meet the highest security risks (typically, those with the most serious charges lodged against them) in the Justice Center.
Now that that's out of the way, let's move to the meat of Bronson's column: that stimulus money could or should build a new jail for Hamilton County. On the surface, the proposal makes sense. A jail facility is a public works project. In the short term, it would create jobs (in the construction trades). And there's bipartisan agreement that Hamilton County's jail facilities are currently inadequate.
Bronson's proposal does not, however, solve other critical public safety problems. It does not restore the recently laid-off sheriff's deputies. The County would still need to find a way to finance the operation of a new jail (and corrections officers to staff it). While the Democrats had wanted to provide stimulus funds to put cops on the streets, the only way to avoid a Republican filibuster in the Senate was to strip those provisions out.
So Bronson's has the hint of a good idea: federal money could be sought to build the jail that a majority of voters have been thus far unwilling to finance with locally generated tax dollars. But without a plan to fund the operation of the jail, we could be spending millions for an empty building (see Queensgate for an example of a jail that lacks operations funding). Maybe Bronson's ready to unveil the rest of his plan to get us a working jail with federal funds. But he hasn't done it yet.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Public Records Act Requires that Public Records Be Public
It's always frustrating to me anytime I find myself agreeing with HamCo GOP Chair Alex Triantafilou when he rants against local Democrats. But he's right on the money when he argues that the Cincinnati School Board has crafted a wrong-headed, probably illegal plan to shield applicants for superintendent from public scrutiny.
The Board is once again searching for a superintendent. As the Enquirer reports, the Board has decided that it will receive all applications in a post office box rented specifically for applications. The Board's plan is to leave the applications in the box, removing them as late as possible. It will then take "a reasonable time" to respond to Public Records Act requests for copies of the applications; presumably, "reasonable" means "after the decision has been made by the Board."
This is a bad idea that will probably subject the Board to a mandamus action it cannot win. The Ohio Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) is broadly written and contains only specific, enumerated exceptions. Our Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there exists in the law a presumption of disclosure; a public records custodian (such as the Board) has the burden of showing why a record should not be disclosed. And the Board knows that once it's in possession of an application for the superintendent job, it's a public record subject to disclosure. That's why it came up with this scheme to delay "possession" of the materials.
The Public Records Act ensures Ohio citizens that government is at least somewhat transparent. In my civil rights practice, I routinely use the PRA to gather records to determine whether a client has a claim that I can help him or her pursue; the records often provide valuable insight into the actions of government officials or the process by which they arrived at a particular decision. Journalists use the law to gain access to documents for stories for which politicians won't go on the record. Researchers use it to comply statistics.
There may be good reasons to shield superintendent applications from public view. The last time you looked for a job while you were employed, didn't you worry about your current employer learning of your job search? The potential for a superintendent candidate to be outed to his or her employer is a strong disincentive to apply. But our legislature has not recognized that interest as compelling enough to justify an exception to the PRA. And until it does, our school board needs to comply with the law.
Arguing that records in the Board's mail box aren't public because the Board doesn't really "possess them" is a lot like the Bush administration arguing that Gitmo detainees have no rights because they aren't on "American soil." The Supreme Court laughed that defense out of court, and the Ohio Supreme Court, if called upon to do so, will laugh the Board's twisted semantics right out of Columbus. Let's not dilute the laws that are meant to protect our rights as citizens.
The Board is once again searching for a superintendent. As the Enquirer reports, the Board has decided that it will receive all applications in a post office box rented specifically for applications. The Board's plan is to leave the applications in the box, removing them as late as possible. It will then take "a reasonable time" to respond to Public Records Act requests for copies of the applications; presumably, "reasonable" means "after the decision has been made by the Board."
This is a bad idea that will probably subject the Board to a mandamus action it cannot win. The Ohio Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) is broadly written and contains only specific, enumerated exceptions. Our Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there exists in the law a presumption of disclosure; a public records custodian (such as the Board) has the burden of showing why a record should not be disclosed. And the Board knows that once it's in possession of an application for the superintendent job, it's a public record subject to disclosure. That's why it came up with this scheme to delay "possession" of the materials.
The Public Records Act ensures Ohio citizens that government is at least somewhat transparent. In my civil rights practice, I routinely use the PRA to gather records to determine whether a client has a claim that I can help him or her pursue; the records often provide valuable insight into the actions of government officials or the process by which they arrived at a particular decision. Journalists use the law to gain access to documents for stories for which politicians won't go on the record. Researchers use it to comply statistics.
There may be good reasons to shield superintendent applications from public view. The last time you looked for a job while you were employed, didn't you worry about your current employer learning of your job search? The potential for a superintendent candidate to be outed to his or her employer is a strong disincentive to apply. But our legislature has not recognized that interest as compelling enough to justify an exception to the PRA. And until it does, our school board needs to comply with the law.
Arguing that records in the Board's mail box aren't public because the Board doesn't really "possess them" is a lot like the Bush administration arguing that Gitmo detainees have no rights because they aren't on "American soil." The Supreme Court laughed that defense out of court, and the Ohio Supreme Court, if called upon to do so, will laugh the Board's twisted semantics right out of Columbus. Let's not dilute the laws that are meant to protect our rights as citizens.
Best of Cincinnati Voting Ongoing
The good folks at City Beat are working on their annual Best of Cincinnati issue. You can vote through March 1st here. The Cincinnati Blog is nominated; given the number of very, very good local blogs, I'm not going to be so presumptious as to campaign for your vote. But you should vote for someone in that category, if you're a regular blog reader.
It's always fun to check out the nominees in each category (and you can write in a candidate in any category as well). Some categories are simply too unfamiliar to me to justify a vote ("Tattoos/piercing," for instance). Others seem so broad as to be difficult to cast an informed vote: how many people have been to enough concerts to truly judge which was the "best" in Cincinnati last year?
A couple of my picks: the CAC as a place to take a visitor; Smith Muffler (which appears to have been written in) as best car repair; and Music Hall as best concert venue.
Oh, yeah: I also voted for Randi Rico for weathercaster. I'm hereby initiating a grassroots campaign to have Randi voted Cincinnati's best weathercaster. As I've written before, don't mess with Randi.
It's always fun to check out the nominees in each category (and you can write in a candidate in any category as well). Some categories are simply too unfamiliar to me to justify a vote ("Tattoos/piercing," for instance). Others seem so broad as to be difficult to cast an informed vote: how many people have been to enough concerts to truly judge which was the "best" in Cincinnati last year?
A couple of my picks: the CAC as a place to take a visitor; Smith Muffler (which appears to have been written in) as best car repair; and Music Hall as best concert venue.
Oh, yeah: I also voted for Randi Rico for weathercaster. I'm hereby initiating a grassroots campaign to have Randi voted Cincinnati's best weathercaster. As I've written before, don't mess with Randi.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
New YP Kitchen Cabinet
The key word on the announcement of Mayor Mallory's YP Kitchen Cabinet leardership team is "New". I only recognize one person, and that is because I am friends with her. I've long criticized the many various YP efforts in this city because the groups tended to be run by the same people. Other than my friend who is a great choice for her role, I don't know the other leadership. That is good! On the other hand, ff they don't know anything about the City and were picked because they are being groomed by the powers that be, then we will get more of the same from the YPKC.
Also, unless this group is given funds to actually take action and hold their own events, then this is all just PR for the Mayor, that doesn't do a lot to promote the city and make it more attractive to YPs.
Also, unless this group is given funds to actually take action and hold their own events, then this is all just PR for the Mayor, that doesn't do a lot to promote the city and make it more attractive to YPs.
It Snowed, Again!
As someone who grew up an hour South of Buffalo, NY, I have always been amused by the way snow is viewed in the Cincinnati. I get that people are just not used to driving in it. I would think that since we just had two days of driving last week that I would say were must more hazardous, a certain percentage of people might have learned something. My experience last does not indicate many people learned much.
I must point out one big point to people who are driving on the interstate at 20 mph with no one in front of you for miles and with the road actually cleared of a large amount of the snow that has fallen: it can't be safer under the circumstances, so you can go at least 40 mph!!!!
On my 2 hour 45 minute drive home from Mason last night, I was passing people, left and right on I-71 once I got South of the Norwood Lateral. There would be clumps of cars going 20 or 25 and I would pass them by at 40 mph like they were standing still. The people who were going 30 mph in the left lane to pass the person going 20 in the center lane, who was trying to pass the person going 10 in the right lane just don't see how they block traffic because they don't pass with effective level of speed to keep everyone moving along.
I am more and more understand why it is better for many people to just not drive when it snows. When I say it snows, I mean it snows more than 1 inch. I think Chirs Smitherman, COAST, and the Green Party of One might want to get a petition drive going to make that part of the City Charter. If they are going to be extreme, why not be extreme with something that might actual make life easier for everyone!
I must point out one big point to people who are driving on the interstate at 20 mph with no one in front of you for miles and with the road actually cleared of a large amount of the snow that has fallen: it can't be safer under the circumstances, so you can go at least 40 mph!!!!
On my 2 hour 45 minute drive home from Mason last night, I was passing people, left and right on I-71 once I got South of the Norwood Lateral. There would be clumps of cars going 20 or 25 and I would pass them by at 40 mph like they were standing still. The people who were going 30 mph in the left lane to pass the person going 20 in the center lane, who was trying to pass the person going 10 in the right lane just don't see how they block traffic because they don't pass with effective level of speed to keep everyone moving along.
I am more and more understand why it is better for many people to just not drive when it snows. When I say it snows, I mean it snows more than 1 inch. I think Chirs Smitherman, COAST, and the Green Party of One might want to get a petition drive going to make that part of the City Charter. If they are going to be extreme, why not be extreme with something that might actual make life easier for everyone!
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Cincinnati Imports - Meet Up!
The gang at Cincinnati Imports has organized a meet-up event on February 12th at the Oakley Pub & Grill. The event starts at 5:30, but should go on for quite a while, if I know the blogging community like I do.
The event is open to everyone, not just transplants to Cincinnati. The website is about making it easier for people to meet other people in Cincinnati, so if you have lived here your entire life, or are a returned ex-pat, come on out and meet a diverse group of smart and interesting people.
The event is open to everyone, not just transplants to Cincinnati. The website is about making it easier for people to meet other people in Cincinnati, so if you have lived here your entire life, or are a returned ex-pat, come on out and meet a diverse group of smart and interesting people.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Broomball Has a New Meaning
I know politicians can hit below the belt on occasion, but I didn't figure they would do it literally. If there are rules men have when playing sports, not hitting another man in the balls with a stick is clearly one of them. I think that is a rule we all can live by, conservatives and liberals alike.
NOTE: He was wearing a cup at the time, so no balls were damaged beyond repair.
NOTE: He was wearing a cup at the time, so no balls were damaged beyond repair.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Jury Duty: Just Do It
Kate the Great has a great post recounting her friend's story of a man who walked five miles through the snow to meet his jury duty obligation. Stories like this always make me angry about the middle- and upper-class professionals who would rather gnaw off their own limbs than be picked to sit on a jury.
I'm not implying that everyone--or even most people--tries to shirk their responsibility. But enough do that it's become a stereotype (you might hear someone quip, for instance, about the dubious prospect of trying a case to "twelve people too dumb to get out of jury duty"). A few years ago, I witnessed a fellow attorney candidly admit during voir dire that he had absolutely no desire to serve on a jury, and would very much like to be excused. (Two sidenotes: first, one of the attorneys exercised a peremptory challenge to be rid of him, fearful that his client would be the one on whom the lawyer might take out his frustration. Second, the guy wasn't a litigator: most trial attorneys I know would give anything to see a jury work from inside the jury room.)
So when you get that jury notice, instead of thinking about how much work will pile up for you if you have to be away from your job for a few days or how inconvenient it will be to have to go to the courthouse instead of work or wherever else you'd normally be, think about Kate's friend's companion--the one who walked to the courthouse because he didn't have a couple bucks for bus fare.
One of these days, you may need justice from a jury. Perhaps you'll be accused of a crime, or the victim of a crime. Maybe something bad will happen to you, and you'll need to sue the wrongdoer, or maybe someone will accuse you of being a wrongdoer and sue you. And when you do, you'll want to know that there are some people like you in the jury box. And the only way that happens is if people like you--like YOU--serve on juries.
I'm not implying that everyone--or even most people--tries to shirk their responsibility. But enough do that it's become a stereotype (you might hear someone quip, for instance, about the dubious prospect of trying a case to "twelve people too dumb to get out of jury duty"). A few years ago, I witnessed a fellow attorney candidly admit during voir dire that he had absolutely no desire to serve on a jury, and would very much like to be excused. (Two sidenotes: first, one of the attorneys exercised a peremptory challenge to be rid of him, fearful that his client would be the one on whom the lawyer might take out his frustration. Second, the guy wasn't a litigator: most trial attorneys I know would give anything to see a jury work from inside the jury room.)
So when you get that jury notice, instead of thinking about how much work will pile up for you if you have to be away from your job for a few days or how inconvenient it will be to have to go to the courthouse instead of work or wherever else you'd normally be, think about Kate's friend's companion--the one who walked to the courthouse because he didn't have a couple bucks for bus fare.
One of these days, you may need justice from a jury. Perhaps you'll be accused of a crime, or the victim of a crime. Maybe something bad will happen to you, and you'll need to sue the wrongdoer, or maybe someone will accuse you of being a wrongdoer and sue you. And when you do, you'll want to know that there are some people like you in the jury box. And the only way that happens is if people like you--like YOU--serve on juries.
Issue 5 Case Finally Over; Supreme Court "DIGs" the Appeal
In 2001, voters of the City of Cincinnati passed Issue 5. That referendum amended the Charter, so that the chief of police and assistant chiefs of police (there are five) would be appointed by the city manager. Prior to the amendment, those possitions were considered "classified civil service" jobs, and were filled as the result of a competitive civil service exam. One of the effects of Issue 5 is to permit the city manager to appoint a chief or an assistant from outside the department. (To be clear, the manager can appoint only to vacant positions. Chief Streicher, for instance, was the Chief prior to enactment of Issue 5; the manager has no ability to appoint a replacement until he retires or otherwise leaves office.)
When Assistant Chief Lt. Col. Twitty left CPD, then-City Manager Valerie Lemmie appointed a longtime CPD officer to replace him. The Fraternal Order of Police sued, alleging that the charter amendment conflicted with its collective bargaining agreement with the City; according to the FOP, absent a renegotiation of the contract, the CBA should trump the City Charter.
The FOP lost in every stage of litigation. The State Employment Relations Board, which first heard the case, ruled in favor of the City. The FOP lost its appeal in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas and subsquently in the Court of Appeals. The FOP petitioned the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the case. It did so, and oral argument was held back in November; today, though, that Court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted (and provided no further explanation of its action).
Ultimately, Issue Five will prove to be a good thing for the City. The chief and his (or her) assistants are policymakers, and vacancies in those positions should not be filled in the same manner as rank-and-file police officers. And it's good that the legality of the charter amendment is finally laid to rest, once and for all.
(Not to beat a dead horse, but I continue to believe that such appointments should be made by the mayor, not the unelected manager.)
Link: Enquirer
When Assistant Chief Lt. Col. Twitty left CPD, then-City Manager Valerie Lemmie appointed a longtime CPD officer to replace him. The Fraternal Order of Police sued, alleging that the charter amendment conflicted with its collective bargaining agreement with the City; according to the FOP, absent a renegotiation of the contract, the CBA should trump the City Charter.
The FOP lost in every stage of litigation. The State Employment Relations Board, which first heard the case, ruled in favor of the City. The FOP lost its appeal in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas and subsquently in the Court of Appeals. The FOP petitioned the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the case. It did so, and oral argument was held back in November; today, though, that Court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted (and provided no further explanation of its action).
Ultimately, Issue Five will prove to be a good thing for the City. The chief and his (or her) assistants are policymakers, and vacancies in those positions should not be filled in the same manner as rank-and-file police officers. And it's good that the legality of the charter amendment is finally laid to rest, once and for all.
(Not to beat a dead horse, but I continue to believe that such appointments should be made by the mayor, not the unelected manager.)
Link: Enquirer
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Deters Full of Shit
Again, not a shock to anyone who pays attention, but there was only one case of voter fraud in Hamilton County, and in that case the person told on himself. Fighting Joe Deters made grand unfounded claims back during the 2008 election cycle. I'll be waiting for Deters full retraction. I'll be dead before I get it, but I'll still wait.
Why, Oh, Why?
Peter Bronson has a blog.
I just don't know what to say. There are so many things that come to mind, but I'm just not going to do it. Must put down the poison pen.
I just don't know what to say. There are so many things that come to mind, but I'm just not going to do it. Must put down the poison pen.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Meteorological Pontification
Based on my analysis of the breathlessness of our local weatherpeople; the number of tickers, crawls, and weather bugs superimposed on my television screen; and the font size of online Enquirer headlines, I am prepared to make a prediction regarding the alleged coming snowfall.
By tomorrow morning at 7:00, we'll have received about three-quarters of an inch of snow. Sometime tomorrow, we'll receive some freezing rain just in time for rush hour. Two trucks will have problems going up the "Cut in the Hill," forcing the immediate closure of all interstate highways in a 150-mile radius.
Disclaimer: The Cincinnati Blog makes no warranties about the accuracy of its prediction. Readers are not encouraged to rely on this post. We have no access to information that is even marginally useful in predicting the weather. But we're not sure we're any less qualified than the combined efforts of Derek Beasley, Steve Raleigh, and Tim Hendrick to really screw up your day tomorrow. (Randi Rico was intentionally left off this list. Don't mess with Randi. I'm thinking of starting a fan club for her on Facebook.)
UPDATE (1/27/09 at 7:30 am): Oops.
By tomorrow morning at 7:00, we'll have received about three-quarters of an inch of snow. Sometime tomorrow, we'll receive some freezing rain just in time for rush hour. Two trucks will have problems going up the "Cut in the Hill," forcing the immediate closure of all interstate highways in a 150-mile radius.
Disclaimer: The Cincinnati Blog makes no warranties about the accuracy of its prediction. Readers are not encouraged to rely on this post. We have no access to information that is even marginally useful in predicting the weather. But we're not sure we're any less qualified than the combined efforts of Derek Beasley, Steve Raleigh, and Tim Hendrick to really screw up your day tomorrow. (Randi Rico was intentionally left off this list. Don't mess with Randi. I'm thinking of starting a fan club for her on Facebook.)
UPDATE (1/27/09 at 7:30 am): Oops.
Ohio Attorney Avoids Prison By Snitching
In 2006, federal law enforcement officials became suspicious that Frank Pignatelli of Akron, Ohio, was involved in drug trafficking. When confronted by agents and threatened with prosecution, Pignatelli did what many before have done: he agreed to be a snitch confidential informant.
What sets Pignatelli apart, though, is that Pignatelli is a criminal defense attorney, and he agreed to provide testimony against people who thought or would come to think that he was their attorney. One of his "clients" was sentenced last week to serve 15 years in prison.
Pignatelli could snitch on "clients" because when a client and his attorney conspire to commit an unlawful act, their communications are not privileged. So if Pignatelli was helping someone to set up drug transactions or to launder the monetary proceeds of such transactions, his conversations with his clients weren't protected by privilege.
Even though his conduct in revealing client confidences is technically permissible, as a defense attorney, I get an uneasy, nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach when thinking about what Pignatelli did. He sold out his clients to the government in order to help himself. He put his own interests above that of his clients: the opposite of what an attorney is supposed to do. That our government is rewarding him for doing so makes my unease grow even more.
Becoming a lawyer means being willing to protect someone else, even when doing so makes us uncomfortable. And as defense attorneys, our job is to be a check against the unrestrained exercise of government power. I know I've just described criminal defense as a more noble calling than it is generally portrayed or perceived, but often, our actions are the only things that will shield a citizen from the loss of his liberty (or his life). Pignatelli went from a restraint on the government's power to incarcerate people to an instrument of it.
Pignatelli's drug clients no doubt placed him in a "high-end" criminal defense practice--in other words, he was making a lot of money from his clients, many of whom he would ultimately sell out. But at the first sign of trouble, he handed them over to the government. His story stands in stark contrast to that of Beth Lewis, a Montgomery County public defender who just a few years ago risked a contempt conviction and jail to protect the confidences of a deceased client.
And the ultimate irony? Pignatelli, no doubt unable to find newget-of-jail-free cards clients in Ohio, has pulled up stakes and opened a criminal defense practice in Colorado, where he defends accused drug dealers.
Link: Beacon Journal (via Talkleft).
What sets Pignatelli apart, though, is that Pignatelli is a criminal defense attorney, and he agreed to provide testimony against people who thought or would come to think that he was their attorney. One of his "clients" was sentenced last week to serve 15 years in prison.
Pignatelli could snitch on "clients" because when a client and his attorney conspire to commit an unlawful act, their communications are not privileged. So if Pignatelli was helping someone to set up drug transactions or to launder the monetary proceeds of such transactions, his conversations with his clients weren't protected by privilege.
Even though his conduct in revealing client confidences is technically permissible, as a defense attorney, I get an uneasy, nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach when thinking about what Pignatelli did. He sold out his clients to the government in order to help himself. He put his own interests above that of his clients: the opposite of what an attorney is supposed to do. That our government is rewarding him for doing so makes my unease grow even more.
Becoming a lawyer means being willing to protect someone else, even when doing so makes us uncomfortable. And as defense attorneys, our job is to be a check against the unrestrained exercise of government power. I know I've just described criminal defense as a more noble calling than it is generally portrayed or perceived, but often, our actions are the only things that will shield a citizen from the loss of his liberty (or his life). Pignatelli went from a restraint on the government's power to incarcerate people to an instrument of it.
Pignatelli's drug clients no doubt placed him in a "high-end" criminal defense practice--in other words, he was making a lot of money from his clients, many of whom he would ultimately sell out. But at the first sign of trouble, he handed them over to the government. His story stands in stark contrast to that of Beth Lewis, a Montgomery County public defender who just a few years ago risked a contempt conviction and jail to protect the confidences of a deceased client.
And the ultimate irony? Pignatelli, no doubt unable to find new
Link: Beacon Journal (via Talkleft).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)