Eating Local - Cincinnati

Check out Cincinnati Locavore a fairly new blog covering food, eating, and doing so with locally grown foods.

City Council: District or At Large?

Commenters to my post about whether our elected executive is vested with sufficient authority jumped ahead to the post I had in mind for today: that is, the issue of whether Council should be entirely at large, entirely district-based, or some combination thereof.

The traditional criticism of a district-based legislature is that spending tends to be out-of-control in such systems. This study, for instance, purports to demonstrate that governments run by ward-based elected representatives have higher debt, spending, and taxes than governments with at-large representatives. Those who favor a district-based approach, though, argue that such a system ensures that minority communities have a voice in the legislature, and also permits candidates to win elections without the larger warchest needed in an at-large system.

There's an interesting juxtaposition with respect to our current situation, I think. On the one hand, the Charter committee lauds as one of its achievements the end of the ward system back in the 1920's. Until 1957, though, Council was elected using a proportional representation system, whereby voters ranked their preferences and the results were calculated accordingly. The pure at-large system has been in place for the past fifty years.

Here's the juxtaposition: Hamilton County Municipal Court. The judges aren't elected by the entire county; instead, each judge is elected from one of seven districts. I couldn't find a history of our municipal courts anywhere, but it's my understanding that the system is in place because of a lawsuit filed to ensure that minority communities could get judges elected, and that at one time, all of the judges were elected as Common Pleas judges are, by the entire county. (If I'm wrong, please point this out, preferably politely, in the comments.)

So why is the district-based system good for municipal court but bad for city government? Would a mixed system (at-large and district representatives) ensure that spending doesn't go crazy?

Your thoughts?

Smoke-Filled Back Rooms

Tim Burke and George Vincent have decided that elections just aren't worth the hassle.

I'm furious. I don't necessarily have a problem with either Portune or Hartman; what perturbs me is that each party has decided that it could manage to field just one endorsement-worthy candidate for county commissioner in a year when voter turnout will be extraordinarily high.

Is The Mayor Strong Enough?

No, that's not a late cheap shot at Mark Mallory's 2007 Opening Day pitch. Instead, it's a question about the proper organization of our city government. As most of you know, Cincinnati has only recently switched to a "strong[er] mayor" system of government; previously, the mayor was simply the City Council candidate with the highest vote total. My question: haven't we left too much power in hands of the city manager?

Electing a mayor separate from Council is an excellent step in the right direction. We now have a independent executive. But our city manager--who is not elected--still retains a great deal of power. Consider the power our charter gives the mayor:

It shall be the duty of the city manager to act as chief conservator of the peace within the city; to supervise the administration of the affairs of the city, except as otherwise specifically provided in this charter; to see that the ordinances of the city and the laws of the state are enforced; to make all appointments and removals in the administrative and executive service except as otherwise provided in this charter; to make such recommendation to the mayor and to the council concerning the affairs of the city as may to him or her seem desirable; to keep the mayor and the council advised of the financial condition and future needs of the city; to prepare and submit to the mayor the annual budget estimate for the mayor's review and comment prior to its submission to the council; to prepare and submit to the mayor and to the council such reports as may be required by each and to perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or required of him or her by ordinance or resolution of the council.

Art. IV, Sec. 3. The manager (not the mayor) appoints the City Solicitor, finance director, director of public utilities, and superintendent of water works. Art. IV, Secs. 5, 7, 9. And he gets to fire them. Art. IV, Sec. 10.

Shouldn't all of these be the responbility of someone we actually elect? Clearly, there's a political benefit to having a strong manager. The mayor can let the manager make the tough decisions. Mallory seems to have fallen into a rhythm whereby the manager proposes a draconian, unpopular budget, and then Mallory gets to come in behind him just in time to play the role of Santa Clause. And consider the abuse Valerie Lemmie routinely took from City Council; certainly, the Council wouldn't treat an elected mayor that way.

So the manager gets to be a combination scapegoat/bad cop/punching bag. But is that good government? Don't we want the really important, difficult decisions to be made by our elected representatives? Should we have a mayor who is really just a figurehead, good for ribbon-cuttings and other ceremonies, or do we want a real executive?

What do you think?

Musical Chairs

Pat DeWine is not running for County Commissioner again, and instead is running for a Judgeship. Greg Hartman, Clerk of Courts, will run for County Commission and for State Senator Patricia Clancy will run for the Clerk of Court seat for the Republicans.

It would appear that the poll floating around in comments a week ago or so were right, showing Harris beating DeWine for Commissioner.

A P&G Blog????

I just don't see how big of an audience there would be for a blog about P&G. I just don't know what the Enquirer is thinking on this one.

New Faces On An (Already) Old Argument: Ohio's Sex Offender Registration Law

As of yesterday, Ohio's sex offender registration law changed, becoming even more draconian than it had been. You've all heard the arguments as to why inflexible registration laws are a bad idea, so I won't repeat them here. I do want to highlight, though, two noteworthy articles on the topic that have appeared in the past week.

Too often, when people think of "sex offenders," they think only of guys like this (known in the press as the "Purple People Bridge rapist," he'll be locked up until 2076, when he'll be 101). That makes it easy for our legislators to pass laws that continue to punish offenders well after they've served their sentences.

But as two recent articles show, a whole host of individuals who most people wouldn't object to living near are included with the unduly broad label "sex offender." City Beat notes that Tammy Welton (convicted of having sex with an adult inmate while she was a prison guard) is now subject to a lifetime registration requirement (see also this article in the Cleveland Free Times for more on Ms. Welton). And in an unusually thoughtful article (at least by Enquirer standards), Sharon Coolidge points out that Holli Burd will also be subject to lifetime registration. When she was 29, Ms. Burd was convicted of having sex with a 14 year-old boy. Since then, she's married and had a child of her own.

The point is: when the public realizes that the unduly harsh (and probably ineffective) registration laws don't just impact the really scary people that make headlines in the newspapers, maybe attitudes towards them will change.