I attended Mayor Mark Mallory's "State of the City" address this evening. (Text here, courtesy the Enquirer.) I'm not sure how the speech will read, but I can tell you that the mayor's delivery made clear that his top priority this year is the streetcar proposal.
Mayor Mallory isn't typically a fire-and-brimstone kind of speaker, but he got downright fiery when he talked about the streetcar. In fact, that was probably the only thing he got fiery about. He noted the development and investment streetcars brought in Tampa, Charlotte, and Seattle, and insisted that the "naysayers" not be permitted to "derail" the project.
There was also an interesting moment towards the end of his address. Mallory spent much of his speech recognizing and thanking various community leaders. In discussing the uptick of convention business last year, Mallory thanked Chris Smitherman for his leadership with respect to last summer's national NAACP convention. While the mayor was, I think, trying to be gracious to the man who has very recently become one of his most outspoken critics, it was clear that the audience wasn't sure how to respond. While the other individuals Mallory mentioned got rounds of applause that were fairly robust, the response to the mention of Smitherman was fairly tepid.
All in all, a good night for Mallory, I think. (And by the way, he affirmed that the "first" phase of the streetcar plan is to include the uptown connector.)
A postscript: I just saw on the late news that Monzel, who delivered the "Republican response" (or just a response?), took the opportunity to reject the streetcar proposal. It's not a new position for him, but makes me wonder: has the HamCo GOP officially staked out an anti-streetcar position? As our regular readers know, I remain ambivalent about a streetcar plan, but would be surprised if the GOP were going to foist an anti-streetcar platform on its five candidates this fall, as I'm not sure it will help them. (And Republican Councilmember Ghiz, if I recall correctly, voted for the streetcar.) And if the party doesn't have a position, then something's amiss: if Monzel was giving a truly "Republican response," then why would he set out his personal position, rather than the party's positions?
Interestingly, Jane Pendegrast suggests that Monzel was to speak for the GOP (quoting Chair Alex Triantafilou as saying that the "opposite party" hadn't given such a response in a while), and Triantafilou refers to the remarks both as "Chris Monzel's response" and "our response." So for whom was Councilman Monzel speaking this evening: just himself, or the entire HamCo GOP?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
CincyPAC on 55KRC
This past Sunday night City Talk Radio's 2nd half of the show included members of CincyPac and gave a basic overview of the organization. On the link you can find a podcast of the full show, including an interview with the team behind "Cooking with Caitlin," which according to the show will appear weekly on Fountain Square over the summer.
On CincyPac I am still not really sure of its purpose. Their website does list out a description. I don't know that it helps me understand the ultimate goal. If they are a PAC and are about raising money to elect candidates, then I get it. The mission then would be to get cash in into the campaigns of candidates who favor "YP issues". Getting money is hard business, but it is a focused goal that can be completed in many ways, but those methods are quantifiable.
If the organization is trying to be an issue advocacy group that has a social component, then I don't get it. I don't have a problem with that type of group, but that will open it up to a bureaucracy that will slow them down and likley hamper efforts to get people to give money to the PAC to then give to candidates. Where the problem may come in is when money comes into the PAC, what portion will be given to candidates and what portion will go to Issue Advocacy and the social component? I don't have a problem with trying to be more than one thing, I just want the goals to have a clear hierarchy. Who is going to get most of the contributions is a key element to know prior to giving a contribution.
The debate on what "YP issues" means is another big contention that is so very debatable. That hurts the group partially because it is a vague goal and one people are going to have a hard time wanting to support. PACs do better when they have one goal, where the reason for giving money is singular, like Emily's List. There is not a single YP issue to focus on, but there needs to be clearer message on the issues being considered, if getting money is the goal. A focused message will be the only way to get significant contributions.
On CincyPac I am still not really sure of its purpose. Their website does list out a description. I don't know that it helps me understand the ultimate goal. If they are a PAC and are about raising money to elect candidates, then I get it. The mission then would be to get cash in into the campaigns of candidates who favor "YP issues". Getting money is hard business, but it is a focused goal that can be completed in many ways, but those methods are quantifiable.
If the organization is trying to be an issue advocacy group that has a social component, then I don't get it. I don't have a problem with that type of group, but that will open it up to a bureaucracy that will slow them down and likley hamper efforts to get people to give money to the PAC to then give to candidates. Where the problem may come in is when money comes into the PAC, what portion will be given to candidates and what portion will go to Issue Advocacy and the social component? I don't have a problem with trying to be more than one thing, I just want the goals to have a clear hierarchy. Who is going to get most of the contributions is a key element to know prior to giving a contribution.
The debate on what "YP issues" means is another big contention that is so very debatable. That hurts the group partially because it is a vague goal and one people are going to have a hard time wanting to support. PACs do better when they have one goal, where the reason for giving money is singular, like Emily's List. There is not a single YP issue to focus on, but there needs to be clearer message on the issues being considered, if getting money is the goal. A focused message will be the only way to get significant contributions.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Supreme Court Decisions Not Always About "Politics"
A brief diversion from Cincinnati blogging for a moment of blawging.
Today, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Hayes, in which the Court was called upon to determine what Congress meant by "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." The facts are simple: in 1994, Randy Edward Hayes was convicted in a West Virginia court of battery. (In Ohio, we'd call it assault.) The victim was Hayes's wife. In 1996, Congress amended the Gun Control Act to make it unlawful for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to own a firearm. And in 2004, Hayes was found to be in possession of a firearm and charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g), a crime that carries a possible 10-year sentence.
Hayes's lawyers moved to dismiss the indictment. After all, he wasn't convicted of domestic violence--he was convicted of battery. But the district court construed the federal statute's definition of "crime of domestic violence" broadly, ruling that regardless of whether the crime of which Hayes was found guilty required proof of a domestic relationship, Hayes could be prosecuted under federal law if the federal government could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the victim and Hayes shared a domestic relationship back in 1994.
Eventually, the case made its way to the US Supreme Court. I know what you're thinking. It's a criminal case. The "liberals" will bend over backwards to help him beat the rap. The "conservatives" will want to lock him up and throw away the key. A moderate or two will decide Hayes's fate. Because federal law is all about politics, right? Well, it's good you thought that, but you're wrong.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the conviction. The Court's decision was written by (wait for it) Justice Ginsburg. The two dissenters? Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia. The majority concluded that Congress, when it wrote "crime of domestic violence," meant to include any crime that could be domestic violence, regardless of whether it was charged or prosecuted that way. The Chief Justice (with whom I agree) argued that such a construction strains logic. He also argued that since the statute is ambiguous, any doubt has to be resolved in favor of the defendant (a concept known as the rule of lenity).
So for those of you (on either the left or the right) who insist that Supreme Court decision-making is just politics in another arena, remember cases like this. While the justices no doubt have ideological views that shape their rulings, they are, in fact, striving to uphold the rule of law, not just to further a particular political cause.
And finally: don't wring your hands too much over Randy Hayes's fate. He wasn't sent to prison; instead, the judge sentenced him to five years' probation.
Today, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Hayes, in which the Court was called upon to determine what Congress meant by "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." The facts are simple: in 1994, Randy Edward Hayes was convicted in a West Virginia court of battery. (In Ohio, we'd call it assault.) The victim was Hayes's wife. In 1996, Congress amended the Gun Control Act to make it unlawful for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to own a firearm. And in 2004, Hayes was found to be in possession of a firearm and charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g), a crime that carries a possible 10-year sentence.
Hayes's lawyers moved to dismiss the indictment. After all, he wasn't convicted of domestic violence--he was convicted of battery. But the district court construed the federal statute's definition of "crime of domestic violence" broadly, ruling that regardless of whether the crime of which Hayes was found guilty required proof of a domestic relationship, Hayes could be prosecuted under federal law if the federal government could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the victim and Hayes shared a domestic relationship back in 1994.
Eventually, the case made its way to the US Supreme Court. I know what you're thinking. It's a criminal case. The "liberals" will bend over backwards to help him beat the rap. The "conservatives" will want to lock him up and throw away the key. A moderate or two will decide Hayes's fate. Because federal law is all about politics, right? Well, it's good you thought that, but you're wrong.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the conviction. The Court's decision was written by (wait for it) Justice Ginsburg. The two dissenters? Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia. The majority concluded that Congress, when it wrote "crime of domestic violence," meant to include any crime that could be domestic violence, regardless of whether it was charged or prosecuted that way. The Chief Justice (with whom I agree) argued that such a construction strains logic. He also argued that since the statute is ambiguous, any doubt has to be resolved in favor of the defendant (a concept known as the rule of lenity).
So for those of you (on either the left or the right) who insist that Supreme Court decision-making is just politics in another arena, remember cases like this. While the justices no doubt have ideological views that shape their rulings, they are, in fact, striving to uphold the rule of law, not just to further a particular political cause.
And finally: don't wring your hands too much over Randy Hayes's fate. He wasn't sent to prison; instead, the judge sentenced him to five years' probation.
Monday, February 23, 2009
McCafferty Trial Raises Interesting Media Issues
The Enquirer describes an ongoing dispute between the local media and the Campbell County (Ky) Circuit Court over whether and to what extent the media should be permitted to broadcast the trial of Cheryl McCafferty, who is accused of murdering her husband.
Based on the Enquirer's reporting, it appears that the following happened: Judge Julie Reinhardt Ward initially agreed to permit Dateline NBC to tape the entire trial, and then to broadcast it (in all likelihood, condensed to run in an hour) at some later time. Dateline set up its cameras and subsequently agreed to act as something of a pool photographer, with their video being fed live to a television set up in a media room in the courthouse.
Apparently, the local media then announced its intention to pick up the pool feed and either broadcast it or "stream" it (broadcast it on the internet) live. It seems others intended to blog the trial, perhaps even from the courtroom. Judge Ward determined that live coverage was not in the interest of justice (the Enquirer doesn't tell us why), and pulled the plug on everything, ordering Dateline out of the courtroom and banning all electronic devices.
The situation raises interesting questions about what the right to a public trial really means. (Remember, the public trial right is not just--or even primarily--about the press's right to cover a trial, but is instead about the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be publicly tried). I have little doubt that Judge Ward can do exactly what she's done: ban all recording devices from her courtroom. Assuming that Kentucky law doesn't provide otherwise, the federal courts have declined to recognize a right (either for a criminal defendant under the Sixth Amendment or the media under the First) to have a publicly broadcast trial. That's why federal courts remain off-limits to televised trials. Whether such blanket prohibitions are a good idea is a question I leave unanswered at this time.
I'm also fairly certain that Judge Ward could impose limits on the methods of "broadcasting" a trial. I would expect a judge to seriously consider banning live-blogging a trial from a courtroom. This isn't because "bloggers" or journalists who blog are somehow less important, but instead because of the disruptive effect people typing on their cellphones or laptops could have during trial. The jury could be distracted by this, and could also start to believe that when it sees a member of the media typing away, something important may have just happened. It's not clear, however, why the judge would ban live-blogging the video feed from the media room, where the court would not be disturbed.
I'm not sure, however, that Judge Ward can do what I think she might like to: permit Dateline NBC to record the proceedings but prohibit live broadcasts. This is far from my area of expertise, but it seems that once the court opens the proceedings to cameras, it has to permit the media to do as it wishes with the video. If that means live TV coverage or live streaming on the web, then so be it. Moreover, it's not clear what the fear is: that the jury would be tainted when it goes home at night? Jurors are supposed to avoid contact with those who would try to discuss the trial with them, and the law presumes that jurors follow their instructions. And if that's really a fear, then the jury should be sequestered: nothing the judge can do will prevent the local media from reporting on what happens (and in some cases, likely mis-reporting what happens) each day.
Of course, that's just my tentative take and I haven't taken the time to research the issue. But it's an interesting conundrum the court and the media have created, nonetheless. And one has to feel bad for the jurors, who were in court for all of ten minutes today. Hope they brought their Sudoku.
Based on the Enquirer's reporting, it appears that the following happened: Judge Julie Reinhardt Ward initially agreed to permit Dateline NBC to tape the entire trial, and then to broadcast it (in all likelihood, condensed to run in an hour) at some later time. Dateline set up its cameras and subsequently agreed to act as something of a pool photographer, with their video being fed live to a television set up in a media room in the courthouse.
Apparently, the local media then announced its intention to pick up the pool feed and either broadcast it or "stream" it (broadcast it on the internet) live. It seems others intended to blog the trial, perhaps even from the courtroom. Judge Ward determined that live coverage was not in the interest of justice (the Enquirer doesn't tell us why), and pulled the plug on everything, ordering Dateline out of the courtroom and banning all electronic devices.
The situation raises interesting questions about what the right to a public trial really means. (Remember, the public trial right is not just--or even primarily--about the press's right to cover a trial, but is instead about the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be publicly tried). I have little doubt that Judge Ward can do exactly what she's done: ban all recording devices from her courtroom. Assuming that Kentucky law doesn't provide otherwise, the federal courts have declined to recognize a right (either for a criminal defendant under the Sixth Amendment or the media under the First) to have a publicly broadcast trial. That's why federal courts remain off-limits to televised trials. Whether such blanket prohibitions are a good idea is a question I leave unanswered at this time.
I'm also fairly certain that Judge Ward could impose limits on the methods of "broadcasting" a trial. I would expect a judge to seriously consider banning live-blogging a trial from a courtroom. This isn't because "bloggers" or journalists who blog are somehow less important, but instead because of the disruptive effect people typing on their cellphones or laptops could have during trial. The jury could be distracted by this, and could also start to believe that when it sees a member of the media typing away, something important may have just happened. It's not clear, however, why the judge would ban live-blogging the video feed from the media room, where the court would not be disturbed.
I'm not sure, however, that Judge Ward can do what I think she might like to: permit Dateline NBC to record the proceedings but prohibit live broadcasts. This is far from my area of expertise, but it seems that once the court opens the proceedings to cameras, it has to permit the media to do as it wishes with the video. If that means live TV coverage or live streaming on the web, then so be it. Moreover, it's not clear what the fear is: that the jury would be tainted when it goes home at night? Jurors are supposed to avoid contact with those who would try to discuss the trial with them, and the law presumes that jurors follow their instructions. And if that's really a fear, then the jury should be sequestered: nothing the judge can do will prevent the local media from reporting on what happens (and in some cases, likely mis-reporting what happens) each day.
Of course, that's just my tentative take and I haven't taken the time to research the issue. But it's an interesting conundrum the court and the media have created, nonetheless. And one has to feel bad for the jurors, who were in court for all of ten minutes today. Hope they brought their Sudoku.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Streetcar Debate
Just over a week ago, advocates for the Streetcar held a debate at UC about the Streetcar plan. Here's the video:
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Regional Media or Cost Cutting?
Why was this article from Louisville Courier-Journal listed in the "Latest News" section on the front page of the Enquirer's website?
This is a valid news story, but if the Enquirer felt it newsworthy for Cincinnati area readers, why not have a story from their own site, instead of one from a Sister publication?
I find this a way to push a more gripping news story without having to pay a reporter to do anything. I'm torn by the this practice. I want local news, including near by cities. This is regional, something I would like to get more of in the form of statehouse news from Columbus. Getting crime news from Louisville is only a little bit more relevant to Cincinnati than watching a car chase from Miami, FL on WLWT-TV 6PM News.
This is a valid news story, but if the Enquirer felt it newsworthy for Cincinnati area readers, why not have a story from their own site, instead of one from a Sister publication?
I find this a way to push a more gripping news story without having to pay a reporter to do anything. I'm torn by the this practice. I want local news, including near by cities. This is regional, something I would like to get more of in the form of statehouse news from Columbus. Getting crime news from Louisville is only a little bit more relevant to Cincinnati than watching a car chase from Miami, FL on WLWT-TV 6PM News.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Charter Reform: The "Blago Amendment"
From this week's CityBeat, we learn that Councilmember Leslie Ghiz is proposing a charter amendment that would end the practice of filling mid-term Council vacancies by appointment. As we all know, the current process is that each Councilmember designates a "proxy" who has the responsibility of choosing his or her replacement should he or she vacate the office for any reason mid-term.
Over the last several years, it's become increasingly common for term-limited councilmembers to resign mid-term, permitting their appointed replacements to run as incumbents in the fall election. Ghiz proposes--gasp--elections instead.
I think Ghiz (pronounced with a hard "g'"--get your mind out of the gutter, folks!) has got this issue exactly right (or nearly so). This practice of early resignation to make room for hand-picked successors has become an abusive practice. (And I say this as one who is, frankly, delighted to have Greg Harris on Council, particularly as a replacement for Cranley.) The last few election results make clear the power of incumbency in Council elections, and politicians should not be able to bequeath their seat to their favorite Facebook friend (or whatever other criteria is used).
The criticism from HCDP Chair Tim Burke--that elections are expensive--is misplaced. First, that's life in a representative democracy. But his critique also misses the mark: if the "Blago amendment" passes, term-limited councilmembers will stop resigning early (unless they have a better job offer--and even then, there would be party pressure not to leave prior to November). So there wouldn't be a flurry of midterm elections; instead, there would be a flurry of elected officials fulfilling their commitment to voters.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind seeing the proposal altered slightly to include some sort of "25th Amendment" exception. If a councilmember becomes gravely ill or dies while in office, it might make sense to fill the position by appointment. The test could be simple: a majority of council would have to vote to certify that the departing councilmember is incapacitated due to illness or death. That would trigger a proxy appointment, and eliminate a lengthy time period during which Council might operate with an even number (there's no procedure in the current Charter to break a tie vote). Because even though it's fun to call this "the Blago amendment," no one is suggesting that anyone has sold or tried to sell a Council seat. But the rearrangement of the deck chairs just prior to elections is distasteful; Ghiz's proposal would end that, and an illness or death exception honors her intent.
This is a good proposal from Ghiz, and one I'll vote for if it makes it to my ballot this fall.
Over the last several years, it's become increasingly common for term-limited councilmembers to resign mid-term, permitting their appointed replacements to run as incumbents in the fall election. Ghiz proposes--gasp--elections instead.
I think Ghiz (pronounced with a hard "g'"--get your mind out of the gutter, folks!) has got this issue exactly right (or nearly so). This practice of early resignation to make room for hand-picked successors has become an abusive practice. (And I say this as one who is, frankly, delighted to have Greg Harris on Council, particularly as a replacement for Cranley.) The last few election results make clear the power of incumbency in Council elections, and politicians should not be able to bequeath their seat to their favorite Facebook friend (or whatever other criteria is used).
The criticism from HCDP Chair Tim Burke--that elections are expensive--is misplaced. First, that's life in a representative democracy. But his critique also misses the mark: if the "Blago amendment" passes, term-limited councilmembers will stop resigning early (unless they have a better job offer--and even then, there would be party pressure not to leave prior to November). So there wouldn't be a flurry of midterm elections; instead, there would be a flurry of elected officials fulfilling their commitment to voters.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind seeing the proposal altered slightly to include some sort of "25th Amendment" exception. If a councilmember becomes gravely ill or dies while in office, it might make sense to fill the position by appointment. The test could be simple: a majority of council would have to vote to certify that the departing councilmember is incapacitated due to illness or death. That would trigger a proxy appointment, and eliminate a lengthy time period during which Council might operate with an even number (there's no procedure in the current Charter to break a tie vote). Because even though it's fun to call this "the Blago amendment," no one is suggesting that anyone has sold or tried to sell a Council seat. But the rearrangement of the deck chairs just prior to elections is distasteful; Ghiz's proposal would end that, and an illness or death exception honors her intent.
This is a good proposal from Ghiz, and one I'll vote for if it makes it to my ballot this fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)