Council Must Make Tough Decisions On Police Spending

As Griff notes, the Cincinnati Police Division's administration is suggesting that it may be forced to lay off up to 200 officers over the next six months. With $40 million to cut from next year's budget, it's unrealistic to believe that CPD's budget will be untouched. But all of us (including City Council) need to keep in mind that Cincinnati is not Hamilton County.

Last year, Hamilton County went through the painful budget process that now faces Cincinnati. The commissioners were forced to cut the budget of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office. But they were powerless to address line-by-line spending within the HCSO budget. That's because the sheriff is an elected official who, by law, controls his own budget. Some (including the FOP) questioned whether there weren't additional administrative savings to be made. I still don't know the answer to that. But the decision was left to Simon Leis alone; the Commission could tell Leis how much money he was getting, but not how to spend it.

This is not true of the City of Cincinnati. The police chief is not an elected official, and is subordinate to the City Manager. The chief has no statutory authority protecting his right to set his own budget. Council has the power to set spending priorities--and it must use it. Before a single patrol officer is laid off, Council must examine the CPD's administrative budget.

The assistant chiefs are a good example of possible administrative savings. Do we really need five assistant chiefs? Chief Streicher's redeployment of Lt. Col. Janke a couple months ago would suggest we don't. In fact, we've only had five assistant chiefs since 2004. Of course, reducing the assistant chief compliment by one is just a drop in our financial bucket, but it provides an example of how a bureaucracy can become top-heavy in good economic times.

Beat officers are the lean meat of CPD. They're what are required to keep us all safe. City Council needs to take ownership of the job of finding CPD's fat and gristle. These are policy decisions that need to be made by elected officials, not by the appointed City Manager or the (non-appointed) Chief.

And if you're trying to figure out how to decide who to vote for in this fall's Council race, this is as good an issue as any. Any candidate who cannot give you a clear idea of where they'll find $40 million in cuts--with specifics from each department they intend to cut--probably isn't worthy of your vote.

Haap Agrees: It's A Vanity Campaign

This morning, Cincinnati Beacon blogger Jason Haap appeared on Newsmakers. At the end of the interview, the following exchange occurred:

Hurley: What are you in this for? Are you in this to win, are
you in this to educate, what are you in this for?
Haap: I think I'm probably in this to educate.

In other words, Haap is running for mayor, but has absolutely no intention of becoming the mayor. Running for an office one has no plans to occupy would be like the Reds or the Cardinals announcing tomorrow that they understand that mid- and small-market teams can't do well in Major League Baseball, and that they're just playing the rest of the season to try to teach others how to play ball.

Haap's a valuable voice in the blogosphere (and I know many of you will disagree with me--but guess what? You only disagree because you read the Beacon!). But while "political performance art" (which is how he describes his nom de plum) is an excellent way to get page hits to your blog, it's not such a good thing to inject into a serious political race, at a time when serious challenges are being addressed.

With Haap's admission that mayor's race really is between two candidates, that's how I plan to discuss the race: as one between Mayor Mallory and Dr. Wenstrup.

If you want performance art, go rent Borat. We don't need it in the mayoral race.

Let the Posturing Begin

Well, "someone" is doing their best to scare the public as means to position the CPD into avoiding any pain from the impending Budget Cuts.

I laugh when the word "could" is used 5 times. That makes this article generate the smell that accompanies a leak from the CPD that was on purpose, all the way from the top.

Dear Maija?

Ok, does the Dear Maija column in CityBeat work? I understand and actually like the tone, but is this what is right for CityBeat, as opposed to more hard news stories?

Nasty Council Attitude or PAY ATTENTION?

I can only consider Council Member Leslie Ghiz's "Twitter behavior" to be nothing short of childish. The tone she expressed toward fellow Council Member Laketa Cole was something one might hear in the head of a Student Council Member, not City Council. Instead we got an open display of what Leslie's teenage years may have been like. Here is a series of posts to her account made during Wednesday's Council meeting:

# Environmental Justice Ordinance is passing. New cost to city: 500k. City deficit? 40 mil.3:58 PM Jun 24th from TwitterBerry

#
Here she goes again. Does not know when to shut up.2:45 PM Jun 24th from TwitterBerry

#
Keep digging a hole Laketa. Never shuts her mouth.2:40 PM Jun 24th from TwitterBerry

#
I don't have to go to church Sunday because I just heard a sermon from Cole.2:05 PM Jun 24th from TwitterBerry

#
Cole just said budget isn't about the same old thing. Really? Did I miss something?1:59 PM Jun 24th from TwitterBerry

#
Weigh in: should we lay off more city workers in order to have an environmental dept, keep under utilized pools and rec centers open?1:53 PM Jun 24th from TwitterBerry

I don't know how I feel in general about a council member posting tweets during council. My first thought was to scream "Pay Attention Leslie!" at the top of my lungs, but she was twittering about the meeting, not something else. From Enquirer report Jane Prendergast's Twitter we did learn Laketa Cole slammed Ghiz for that during the meeting as well.

Laketa Cole blasts colleagues who didn't help w/ budget cuts - It's easy to complain and "sit at your desk and Twitter." Take that, Leslie

Cole made her contribution to not paying attention by her dog getting lose at her home during the same council session. The dog was "impounded" up by the SPCA and she was fined.

Farewell, Michael

Like most people my age, I've been glued to the television for the last hour or so, mouth agape at the news that Michael Jackson has passed away. I'm solidly a member of Generation X, so I grew up watching Michael. Many others will write much better obituaries than I could, so I won't even try. Suffice it to say that Michael was every bit (or more) woven into the fabric of my childhood as were the Cosby kids and Family Ties; the Challenger disaster; and (near the end of high school) the end of the Cold War.

Michael's death brings into sharp focus another "death," though: that of MTV. Once I'd gotten my fill of CNN, I turned on MTV. MTV, I was sure, would be covering Michael's death. After all, if it weren't for Michael Jackson, MTV wouldn't even exist. For a while, the network seemed oblivious to the news. Eventually, they started playing Michael Jackson videos, with a crawl reporting the death. It finally struck me: MTV no longer has any live human beings to put in front of a camera (or a studio, for all I know). Twenty years ago, if MTV lacked a "v-jay" for an event like this, a producer would've stuck an intern in front of a camera. Today, MTV is nothing but pre-programmed pseudo-reality shows.

So today is a sad today, leaving us wistful for the music and motion of Michael Jackson, and leaving us thinking, "I want my MTV!"

City Council Poised To Break Its Own Rules?

Last night, I watched the replay of yesterday's Finance Committee meeting. (Yes, I do know how geeky that makes me.) It's clear that the Council is facing extraordinarily difficult choices. But there may be an interesting procedural show-down at Wednesday's Council meeting that the press isn't really talking about.

City Council, like any legislative body, operates according to a set of internal rules. These are rules that the Ohio Revised Code gives it leeway to create. City Council makes them, and by a two-thirds vote, City Council can alter or suspend them. A few years ago, a rule was adopted that was designed to protect the City's "reserve" fund. Apparently, it requires that any time Council spends money from the fund, it finds corresponding funds to replace it.

Rules are, of course, made to be broken. And this one can be, too, just like any other rule. The catch? According to the rules, any rule can be suspended by a two-thirds vote of Council.

The plan to balance the 2009 budget that passed in Finance Committee relies heavily on reserve funds. There's no plan, of course, to replace the newly-allocated reserve funds. But as far as I can tell, the proposal is supported by just five Council members (Cole, Crowley, Harris, Qualls, and Thomas). That means that while there are enough votes to secure passage of the measure, there aren't enough votes to suspend the rule--which should be a necessary precondition to passage.

Ultimately, this will leave the decision to Mayor Mallory. When the question is called (assuming the vote count doesn't change), he'll have two options: ignore the rule and and declare the amended budget to have passed, or enforce the rule, thus requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. I don't know what the mayor intends to do.

Before you litigation-hungry types get all worked up, don't bother. I highly doubt there's a taxpayer's suit that can be filed that would prevent Council from breaking its own rules. Just like the US Supreme Court doesn't intervene to stop Congress from breaking its own rules, it's unlikely a Common Pleas court will tell Council how to operate, as long as it acts within the external constraints placed upon it. Enforcement of internal constraints are entirely up to the Council itself. A court would probably rule that this is a non-judiciable "political question."

Reasonable people can disagree as to the wisdom of depleting the reserve fund. Frankly, I lean towards the position that the current economic crisis is precisely the reason a government has a reserve fund. If this isn't a contingency that demands extraordinary action, then what is? If it means poor kids can swim and the uninsured get health care, then dip into the reserve.

But regardless of where you come out on the substantive issue, how can a reasonable person believe it's good for Council to break its own rules? If the rules require a two-thirds vote to cash in the reserve fund, then that's the process that should be followed. I might like the result this time, but that's just the problem: I might only like it this time. Maybe next time there's a rule the enforcement of which would lead to a result I'd be happier with. But if the suspension rule is expendable this time, why would a five-member majority pay it any heed next time?

We elect our Council members to act as a professional, responsible legislative body. They sometimes fall short of that standard. But one would think that at the very least, they can follow the rules they wrote for themselves.