Is This An Example of TMI?

I now have a man crush on Eric Deters. I don't always agree with him when he's on WLW, but if he ever wants to work a case with me (or let me work one with him) on this side of the river, I'd sign on in a second.

On City and County Consolidation

With the difficult budget choices facing both the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, leaders (and candidates for offices) in both governments have begun discussion the consolidation of services. One of the most talked-about targets for consolidation is the Prosecution Division of the City* Law Department, which currently prosecutes all misdemeanor offenses committed within city limits. While I've heard some talk about this, I've not seen any real discussion of what such a consolidation would mean in practice. I thought I'd address it here.

First, a primer on the way misdemeanors are prosecuted in Hamilton County: All misdemeanor offenses are handled in the Hamilton County Municipal Court, which generally occupies the first and second floor of the county courthouse. There are fourteen municipal court judges. The City staffs each courtroom with one prosecutor. The County (responsible for prosecuting most misdemeanors committed outside city limits) assigns one prosecutor to cover two courtrooms, but also has a couple of "floaters" and a supervisor. (These can help out if, for instance, a prosecutor has a room with a particularly long docket or a prosecutor has a trial or is out sick.) The County prosecutors spend their mornings rotating between their two rooms. (While they're in one room, the City prosecutor keeps the court in the other room busy. The arrangement makes sense, as the city's docket is generally--but not always--longer than the county's in any given courtroom.)

When people talk about "consolidating" the two offices, they generally are proposing the near-elimination of the City Prosecutor's Office. Let's be clear at the outset about "consolidation," then: it's political-speak for layoffs. It may be a good idea, but it means that people will lose their jobs. Note that I wrote "near-elimination," though. That's because Hamilton County wouldn't prosecute everything currently handled by the City. Anything charged under Cincinnati municipal code (rather than Ohio Revised Code) would still be handled by a City prosecutor. That means the marijuana and income tax laws. It also means the City's "housing docket," which is the result of the criminalization of Cincinnati's administrative building code. The same is true for other cities in the county. If a crime is committed in Norwood, for instance, is charged under Norwood's municipal code, and transferred from Norwood Mayor's Court to HamCo Municipal Court, then an attorney from the Norwood Law Department comes to the county courthouse to handle the prosecution. Cincinnati would have to make similar arrangements.

What would consolidation mean for the County? I suspect the County would have to add five to seven prosecutors to its municipal division. The judges, I imagine, would be unhappy if their courtrooms were at a standstill for long periods of time while their assigned prosecutor was in another room; the amount of cases alone would probably dictate at least one prosecutor per room. I'll admit that I don't know how fines and costs are distributed, and whether the City collects money from cases it prosecutes under Ohio Revised Code. If so, the City would lose that money and the County would gain it. Whether the loss exceeds the salaries paid to city prosecutors or the gain would exceed the extra salaries the County would have to pay is a good question.

So those are the nuts and bolts. But there are broader policy considerations to think about, as well. The American justice system vests prosecutors with enormous discretion about whom to charge; what to charge; and what type of plea bargain to offer. With respect to the vast majority of cases heard in municipal court, there is little or no difference in the "deal" a defendant would get from a city prosecutor versus what he'd get from the county. But there are cases--and certain charges--where there seems to be a policy difference. Talk about consolidation raises an interesting philosophical question: With whom would we prefer prosecutorial discretion to be vested? Should it be in an office at the head of which is an elected official, who is thus directly accountable to the citizenry? Or should it be an office further removed from the political process? Such decisions are well beyond my pay grade, but they ought to be raised by those presently in charge (or those who presently argue for consolidation). Cincinnatians should ask themselves whether there's value in having local (municipal-level) control of prosecutions. Or maybe they'd prefer to have these prosecutions handled by an elected prosecutor who can be voted out of office if his or his assistants' decisions don't sit well with the populace. Answering those questions is again, beyond me. But they're important questions to discuss before we make major alterations of our government in order to respond to a short-term budget crisis.

Finally, I should note that I'm told by life-long Cincinnatians that consolidation of the prosecutors' offices has come up several times over the last couple decades, and the idea has always fizzled out in the past.

* Yes, there is more than one city in Hamilton County. But for brevity's sake, I'll use "City" to refer to Cincinnati, unless otherwise specified.

Failed Leadership of the Past

When people ask where the backwards attitude of many Cincinnati Area residents comes from, you can point them to the failed leadership of the past from people like Tom "Status Quo" Luken. Add in Si Leis, Dusty Rhodes, the leaders of the FOP, Westwood Concern, and the members of COAST and one can see why Cincinnati's direction was for so long held back. We have moved forward in the last 5 or 6 years and are on the right track to a better Cincinnati. When you are voting this November, don't vote for the status quo of 1985 that Tom Luken longs for. Instead, look to the future. Look towards what Cincnnati could become, not towards a delusion a few are trying create based on a mthyical past, that never exsisted.

One specicfic way you can keep us moving forward is to Vote No on Issue 9.

#1 Ranked Miami Hockey Plays New Hampshire

The #1 ranked and 2-0 Miami University Hockey Team heads to New Hampshire this weekend for a series with the 0-1 Wildcats.

Challenging Schmidt From the Right, Seriously?

So, a far right Republican is going to challenge Jean Schmidt from the Republican nomination in the 2nd Congressional district's primary. This does nothing but help Democrats, so thanks to C. Michael Kilburn for helping drain Schmidt's campaign funds.

COAST Lying, Again? You Don't Say!

The Phoney Coney sniffs out the lies from COAST, yet again. Nothing anyone will be shocked about,we are talking about COAST after all, but the facts need to be put out there to counter the misinformation from COAST.

Rusty Ball Coming Soon

One of my favorite local bands (and certainly my pick for band with the best name), the Rusty Griswolds, will once again put on the Rusty Ball. The event is scheduled for Saturday, November 21 beginning at 8:00 at the Duke Energy Convention Center. Fifty bucks gets you in the door, four drink tickets served by celebrity bartenders, and an $89 room rate at the Hyatt so you can sleep off all the fun.

The Rusty Ball has a serious side, too. The proceeds of the event (in particular, $30 of your ticket price) will be donated to charity. And even better, the money will go to the charity of your choice. A quick look at the "beneficiary list" reveals a large, diverse group of charities that will be supported by the ball. Whether you're interested in curing cancer, helping people with mental illnesses, or supporting the family members of injured or killed police officers, there's an opportunity to help a charity whose work you admire. You choose the charity your money supports at the time you purchase your ticket (or you can choose to support all of the charities).

I'm sure we'll have more on this as the Ball draws near, but I wanted to point it out so you can mark it on you calendars now, if you're so inclined.

What A Country -- I Guess The Constitution Just Doesn't Apply In Some Places.

HAMMOND, La. (AP) — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press.

But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.
"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer." If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said. "I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

The ACLU was preparing a letter for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and see if they can remove him from office, Schwartzman said.

"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzman said.

According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce. Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card. The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.

The Hut is Dead, Long Live Mayday

CityBeat has another good story this week about the the Gypsy Hut reopening as Mayday under new ownership. The Gypsy Hut crowd was not my crowd, but I'm looking forward to giving this new venue a try. Opening Night is October 24th with big show from the Lions Rampant, Oxford Cotton and Earthquakes (DJs Kendall Bruns and John Hogan).

Brinkman Picks on the Public Library

I guess Tom Brinkman doesn't know a puppy he wouldn't like to shoot in the head. His dislike of publicly funded libraries is out in the open in this column at the Beacon. Tom really knows how to hit hard, attacking Harry Potter! What is worse in the world than having a bunch of copies of a book for the public to read? I mean 'seriously,' what citizen doesn't want to close down library branches where anyone can go and learn, for free. That is just...just such an American thing to do. Who in their right mind wants to act like an American and give away opportunities to gain knowledge to any Joe off the Street?

Osborne Takes Down Westwood Concern

CityBeat's Kevin Osborne does a great job Westwood Concern and its key supporters, namely Melva Gweyn and Mary Kuhl, but several other leaders and loud mouths who give the neighborhood a bad name. I really can't add much to Kevin's article, so just go read it.

Ghassomian Leaving Cincinnati

For those who follow the YP and civic circles of Cincinnati this may be surprising news about Kevin Ghassomian.

Jean-Robert's Table To Open By Year's End

Foodies all around Cincinnati have been seen literally dancing for joy at news that Jean-Robert de Cavel is opening a new restaurant in downtown Cincinnati. The location is at the former Buddakhan on the 700 block of Vine St. I hope for something a little more downscale than Pigall's, more everyday or at least a couple times a month. I'm not a foodie, so I'll leave the discussion to others with more knowledge.

Groups Join Forces to Protect the Charter

A wide coalition has formed to Protect the City Charter by opposing the November, 2009 Cincinnati Charter Amendment Issue #9. The Coalition includes the Charter Committee, the Cincinnati Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Cincinnatus Association, and the League of Women Voters. These groups are what you would call the grown-ups of Cincinnati. They have the experience to know what form of government works best. Local Business and Civic leaders have formed a coalition that agrees that constant nuisance referendums are not the way to run a representative democracy. These groups all agree: No on Nine.

Cincy Twitter Pros

Soapbox Cincinnati has assembled a list of the most interesting Tweeters in Cincinnati.

Don't forget you can follow the Cincinnati Blog on Twitter here, and our sister publication TheConveyor.com is on Twitter as well.

Donald's Take on the Mayoral Debate

Griff is live-blogging the mayor's debate. I don't want to provide as much running commentary as Griff, but I thought I'd weigh in with some thoughts.

After the first third: I'm not sure who prepared Brad Wenstrup for this debate, but they shouldn't ever prepare any other candidate. Both Wenstrup and Mark Mallory are pivoting to pre-prepped answers to questions, but it's much more obvious for Wenstrup. He keeps looking down at his notes, reading responses. It's obvious his goal isn't to answer a particular question, but instead to get part of his stump speech.

Wenstrup's opening statement was ineffective at best. He raised some good points about the mayor. For instance, if all the travel is good for Cincinnati's economy, why do we have a deficit? His delivery really stepped on the line, and it would have been a much more effective attack in a two-minute response. It would have been an awesome answer in response to the question later about fixing the deficit.

Mallory isn't quite on his "A-game," but he's doing quite well in comparison. He's touting what he views to be his accomplishments without really talking about his opponent. It's the typical game plan for a relatively popular incumbent.

Neither candidate offered useful responses to a question about how to bridge next year's deficit. Wenstrup's response was essentially "I'll cut anything but police and fire." Mallory simply told us that the city manager is working on it.

Near the end of the first twenty minutes, Wenstrup raised the issue of criminal justice reform and making sure that people in jail aren't simply warehoused there. An excellent idea, but it's not clear how that fits into his agenda for the city. After all, the administration of the jail is a county issue.

After 40 minutes: I'm reading through Griff's thoughts, and I disagree a bit. For instance, when Wenstrup answered the question about how to increase the awarding of contracts to minority-owned businesses, he did have a specific: break large projects down into smaller parcels so that small contractors can successfully bid. What Wenstrup didn't say--and perhaps he doesn't know--is that this was the model for the Freedom Center construction; it successfully increased MBE participation in the project.

Mallory said something interesting about the streetcar. I thought we've been told that the streetcar isn't about transportation, it's about development. But tonight, he says it's about transportation. Specifically, he said it's about giving people in a neighborhood where somewhere over forty percent of people (I forget the precise number) don't have a car access to transportation. This is a smart pivot for streetcar proponents. It's not about "economic development" (often perceived as more money for rich people) anymore; now it's about transportation options for poor people. Will people buy this?

Wenstrup shows again a lack of knowledge on criminal justice issues. He repeats a campaign promise to consolidate the City and County prosecutor. That's been discussed for decades, without results. And besides, the City's office couldn't be entirely eliminated (since the County wouldn't prosecute offenses arising entirely under Cincinnati's municipal code). I may have a full post on this proposed consolidation later this week.

A pretty useless question near the end of this period: "What's the worst thing that could happen if your opponent is elected?" Both opponents missed the opportunity to display some grace and class and to note that the city certainly won't shut down if the other guy wins. Mallory had the best answer, I thought: the city loses a lot of experience. The answer (which probably wasn't prepared ahead of time) gave Mallory the opportunity to extol his own virtues without really putting his opponent down.

After 40 minutes: again, I disagree with some of Griff's takes. He didn't like the question as to whether Cincinnati should adopt an executive mayor system. It's a good question; I've long advocated for a decrease in the role of the city manager with a corresponding increase in the mayor's power. While I disagree with Mallory's conclusion, he answered the question quite well.

Asked about under-served neighborhoods, Wenstrup pivots back to his proposal for a liaison between the mayor and the community councils. He's not made it clear why a special staff position needs to be created for this. And wouldn't a better answer be a commitment to try to attend community council meetings? Mallory had a better answer to this, citing a specific neighborhood (Walnut Hills) that will change significantly (for the better) next year.

Closing statements: Mallory had a good closing statement. Frankly, though, Wenstrup's closing may have been his strongest moment tonight. He didn't talk specifics, but he didn't intend to. A very nice call for service.

Parting thoughts from me: Overall, the mayor had the upper hand in the debate. When the two candidates talked about crime numbers, they were talking past each other. Mallory talked about decreasing crime, and he did so by going back to 2000. Wenstrup talking about a trend towards increase, and he did that by comparing this year to last year. Generally, though, Mallory seemed in better command of the facts and had a better handle on the nuts and bolts of city administration.

And a word on the candidates' ties: they were likely symbolic of the evening. I think Wenstrup's tie hadn't been "camera tested," as it's one of those patterns that doesn't look good on TV. Mallory, though, wore a great shade of powder blue that really stood out on his white shirt.

It's pretty clear that Mallory will be re-elected. Wenstrup showed that he needs some seasoning before he's ready for a one-on-one race with the city's most powerful and most respected political family. But we should thank him for coming forward to run and giving an alternative viewpoint.

Mayoral Debate

So, here's my stream of thoughts on the debate, as it happens:

Opening Remarks:

Wenstrup had nothing to good to say about our city, all he had were negatives, and he brought up the debunked national study saying "one" of our neighborhoods is the most dangerous in the country.

Mallory cited his stats and not much else.

Question #1: Wenstrup stated his campaign speech, Mallory Answered it with positive ideas.

Question #2: Mallory avoided answering the question if public safety workers. Wenstrup said he would not cut safety workers, but then used gimmicks to say he would do something else but didn't have any details.

Question #3: Wenstrup is asked how to bring more jobs and he gave more gimmicks about minor ways to gain jobs. Mallory had more generalities, but clarified he

Question #4:Mallory running through long list of improvements and accomplishments on bringing crime down. Wenstrup instead points to perception of Cincinnati as being crime ridden, yet he is building up that FALSE perception.

Question #5: When asked what he would do with the estimated 20 million dollar a casino would bring to the city, he blathered on about generalities with no specifics. Mallory wants to create jobs with the 20 million dollars.

Question #6: Mallory answered the minority business question by stressing process. He didn't give specifics on how to do this. Wenstrup responded by saying this issue comes up a lot, but doesn't give any specifics.

Question #7: Wenstrup avoids the question on tourism and jumps on the Streetcar preamble from the long winded question. If you are going to avoid the question, why not stick to the topic. Mallory clarified the streetcar is not meant as a tourist attraction. He then put forth the strong points about how the streetcar will spawn development.

Question #8: Mallory put forth a long list again on how crime has been addressed and improved. Wenstrup sees increasing police community relations as a way to make the streets safer with groups like Citizens on Patrol.

Question #9: Wenstrup wants to cut waste. What waste? He goes on to claim that merging city and county departments will affect the 2010 budget. It won't! Mallory shows we made cuts in 2009, he turned it to creation of jobs and attarcting new business like Grater's.

Question #10: Well the anti-streetcar bias in the Cincinnati Herald Reporter was clear there! Mallory turned the question back on her well. Wenstrup wants regional transportation, but where does he stand on issue 9? Is anyone going to ask that question? He fucking brought up the subway? Blame the GOP for that one!

Question #11: Terrible question, really terrible question. I am very disappoint with all three questioners so far. Wenstrup was taken aback by the question. Mallory went in for a minor zinger, bringing about the leadership and experience question.

Question #12: Another bad question! Geesh! Why not ask the Mayor if we should just abolish the democratic system! Grr! But does Wenstrup know what an Executive Mayor system is? Why have that now!

Question #13: Hunger bad, nutrition good.

Question #14: On the Arts: Mallory city should support the arts, cited the buildings CAM, Music Hall, Union Terminal, as ways we should support arts. Wentrup wants to promote the arts, but brings up crime because he has no opinions on anything.

Question #15: Wenstrup won't answer the question, it does trap the candidate into specifics. Mr. Wenstrup: MY NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS THE STREETCAR! Mallory started to avoid naming one neighborhood, but comes through with Walnut Hills with a plan he being put in specifically.

Closing Remarks:

Mallory gave a good summary and was very gracious to Wenstrup thanking him for being a gentleman in the race.

Wenstrup: Returned the complement to Mallory. He did stick in a minor dig to the mayor talking about political plots, something he might want to look for in the FOP as well.

Overall Comments: Wow, that was bland. I learned nothing. There were no fireworks to write about, no zingers, no jabs, not much of anything. I really was disappointed with the questioners. Jane Prendergast was too insider and asked questions for a press conference. The woman from the Herald asked questions that matter to society, but not to the mayor's office. Her biased anti-streetcar question was the most biased of the night. Maryanne Zeleznik asked the most thoughtful questions, but they were too long and had confusing preludes that work for interviews, not debates.

Local Greens Hate the Environment

There is no other way to say it, but the Southwest Ohio Green Party is against passenger rail. They can say, oh, they don't like the wording of issue 9, but they still Support IT!

If Issue 9 passes, then high speed rail will skip the City of Cincinnati. That will mean more automobile traffic, more pollution, and more damage to the environment.

I think someone needs to tell the local Greens where the "Green" in their name comes from. Creating an urban core where people don't need to own an automobile is a goal any sane environmentalist would agree is a great goal to work towards for every city in the country.

Instead, local Greens want "capital projects that will satisfy existing needs, particularly in lower-income communities." What the Hell do they want, the city to build a Damn in Over-the-Rhine? How will adding jobs through both the building of the streetcar and the development it will attract to the entire urban core of the city NOT provide opportunity to the low income neighborhoods like OTR, West End, Corryville, South Fairmont, and the rest of the city?

The SWOGP are out on the deep end on this issue and have nothing to offer in its place. They share the "burn it to the ground" attitude of many extremists who prefer to sit on the sidelines of government and throw ill-conceived roadblocks in the way of progress instead of constructively working within the political system. Communism is dead and SWOGP is doing more to help COAST/Smitherman bring about Feudalism, than accomplishing anything they claim to believe.

Brand X on Midpoint

Brand X, Xavier's Student run television show covering music, has a very good episode on the Midpoint Music Festival. Here's part 1:

Who is Tom Chandler?

I pulled up the HamCo BOE's issues and candidates list, and noticed there's a write-in candidate for mayor named Tom Chandler.

Is this the same Tom Chandler who ran as a Democrat for other offices several times in the '90's? I cannot find a campaign website. Anyone have any idea why he's chosen to run a write-in campaign for mayor?