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.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)