Live-Blogging Results

I'm in the office late tonight, so I'll be live-blogging election results as they're available from the BOE. I will continue to update this post as the night goes on; feel free to use this as a comment thread, as well.

8:10 PM: HamCo BOE has released some results. 0 precincts reporting, but constitutes 6% of registered voters. Must be absentees.

• Issue 9: losing, 51.72-48.25. Too close to call.
• Issue 8: Passing, 65-35.
• Mayor: Wenstrup and Mallory in a dead heat.
• Council: VERY early results: Harris losing, all other incumbents winning, plus Winburn and Quinlivan.

10:25: Still holding at about 10% of precincts city-wide, 5% county-wide.

• Mayor: Mallory, 56-43. Expect this lead to grow through the night.
• Council: Harris is first out, but only by .01%. Cole is in ninth. Winburn and Quinlivan in 7th and 8th, respectively. Twenty-five percent of all council ballots cast thus far have under-votes.
• County-wide levies are all winning by a healthy margin, except Issue 4, which is losing 51-49. It'll be close, but I expect it'll pass.
• The Cincinnati school levee also passing, 55-45.

10:30: Finally, updated results. 16% of precincts county-wide, 23 % city-wide.

• Mayor: The race tightens again. Wenstrup with a narrow lead now.
• Council: Holding as before. Qualls doing extremely well.
• School board: Looks like Bates, Cooper-Reed, Ingram, and White. Haap lagging well behind in 11th, beating only Curtis Wells.
• All county-wide levies are now passing.
• Issue 9 is failing, 54 to 46.

Honestly, folks, I don't know what to make of the mayor's race. I don't know what precincts have reported in, but the fact that Issue 9 is now being soundly defeated and the mayor's race is this tight is leaving me perplexed.

10:40: More results. 55% of city precincts; 35% county-wide.

• Mayor: Mallory back to a ten-point lead. I'm really curious now as to which precincts the last batch of votes came from.
• Council: These votes are from heavily Democratic wards. Cole's up to 5th, Quinlivan to 5th. Ghiz would be last on: Watson first out; Harris in 10th.
• All county-wide levies passing. School board levy passing.
• Issue 9 failing, 56-44.

11:10: 78% of city precincts.

• Mayor: Still Mallory, but a little tighter: 53-46.
• Council: Order: Qualls Thomas Bortz Berding Ghiz Monzel Winburn Quinlivan. Harris in 10th, down by .5%, which is looking like a lot right now.
• Issue 9 being handily defeated, 56 - 49.
• All county and the Cincinnati school levies are passing.

At this point, you've got the news outlets covering the races. I've got an early morning and am headed to bed. Look for some analysis from Griff and me tomorrow.

Some Random Election Thoughts

As Election Day winds down, I had a few thoughts to share.

First, I hope Greg Harris retains his seat. Conventional wisdom holds that as an appointee, he is the most vulnerable of the incumbent Council members (though I suspect it may be a long night for Jeff Berding), but Harris was the only candidate to offer a specific path forward to closing the looming budget gap. His approach to police and firefighter concessions--pay cuts (but no layoffs) next year that would be restored in 2011 and 2012--is a long-term approach that should be acceptable to the unions. I don't agree with Harris on everything (and particularly not on his stance on "environmental justice"), but he is thoughtful and overall, an asset on City Council.

Second, I hope County voters see the merit in Issue 4 and approve it. The levy--the former Drake levy--funds the Drug Court and other important programs that provide avenues to rehabilitation and re-entry. Drug addiction is a problem that nearly anyone, given the right circumstances, could be susceptible to. I can't tell you how many people I've represented for unlawfully possessing prescription drugs whose addiction started with a legal prescription following an injury of some sort. And even street drugs can afflict nearly anyone. (Have Cincinnatians really forgotten Josh Hamilton already?)

Finally, I'm hoping we can have a reprieve of the current hyper-political climate, at least for a few months, before it's time for the 2010 campaigns to begin in earnest.

Congratulations, New Lawyers

This past Friday, the Ohio Supreme Court announced that 957 applicants achieved passing scores on the July 2009 bar exam. They will be sworn in during public ceremonies in Columbus on November 9. The state's passage rate was 81.3 percent overall, and 87.8 percent for first-time test-takers.

Locally, University of Cincinnati graduates had an 89 percent pass rate overall (first among the nine Ohio law schools), and 91% (third) for first-time test-takers. Dayton's overall bar pass rate was 78 percent, with 82 percent of first-timers passing. NKU (Chase) grads passed at rates of 73 percent overall and 84 percent for first-timers.

Congratulations to all the newly-minted attorneys. Please immediately remit your registration fee to the Supreme Court.

Lowest Shot of the Campaign

If you want proof that Mary Kuhl is a complete jerk read no further than this tweet post from earlier today. She really is unhinged and needs to go away. I hope every Member of Westwood Concern, PWR PAC, and the Westwood Civic Associate takes note of her comments. She is a cancer on the Westside and if she is ever listened to again, she will drag down good people.

Strong Finish

Something else to watch for, which I'll comment more on tomorrow, is how the GOP council candidates finish. Assuming Leslie Ghiz returns to council, which is likely, then speculation turns to when will see leave council. She's on many people's lists for GOP candidates for the Hamilton County Commissioner's race next year.

If Ghiz ran for higher office, she would likely resign her seat on Council and her replacement would likely fall to either George Zamary or Amy Murray. Murray might have the inside track if the GOP wants to keep the female vote more in play, but traditionally the top vote getter in the last election gets the appointment, except for the case of Ghiz, who beat Chris Monzel in her first election in 2003, but when Pat DeWine's seat opened up, Ghiz was overlooked in favor of Monzel. Ghiz's vote total that year was less than 1,000 greater than Monzel, so one might think if Zamary or Murray far outpaced the other, then the appointment would be more forthcoming to the higher finisher.

If the Earth aligns right, this would be moot if Ghiz loses. I am still wishing for that, but am not holding out hope.

Mullane's to Reopen

I'm sorry to interrupt election blogging, but this news seemed too good not to pass along. (It's actually relatively old news, but I'm just learning of it, and haven't seen any of the usual suspects mention it yet, either.)

It appears that Mullane's is going to reopen. Mullane's was a small, eclectic spot on Race Street near Garfield that closed in 2002. It'll be in a different space, but will still be called Mullane's Parkside Cafe.

You can check out the "Friends of Mullane's" website here, and become a Facebook friend of Mullane's here.

Mullane's was such a great place. I remember ending a date there with dessert. (Given that I'm still single, the relationship clearly didn't take off, but I'm not blaming Mullane's.) I think a lot of downtown and OTR residents are excited about the restaurant's return.

Who's Voting - Some Analysis

Plum Street Studios has an analysis of some of the general trends of absentee voting, which includes early voting. The Conventional Wisdom is that absentee voters tend to be more likely white, older, and more Republican. With the increase of early voting, I think those numbers are less true on the age element, so I believe Democratic absentee voters have increased in recent years, but I think they are still likely to be white voters.

The Enquirer's Greg Korte gives his analysis of the numbers and believes voting trends will hold true from the 2007 election, discounting the younger demographic that turned for the 2008 presidential election. It think it will be clear that the 2008 numbers will not hold up this year and the average age will rise significantly, but I believe it will be lower than in 2007, which I think puts the vote up in the air on a few points. I believe revolves around who the younger African-Americans will vote for, which logic would dictate helps African-American candidates, but I don't see it shaking up the big picture. Maybe 1,000 votes would be in play, something on that scale. 1,000 more votes may swing one candidate up a spot, but unless thats 10th to 9th, it will not make a big difference. It may be the difference between Winburn and Watson getting the open spot.

All of this could be totally wrong and 2008 voter registration movement may carry the voter turnout in the City up from 2007. It goes back to GOTV and in local elections there tends to not be much of that type of effort, so the CW of past elections wins out. We'll have an idea in the morning.

The Polls Are Open

The Polls opened up in Ohio this morning and will remain open until 7:30 PM tonight. Be sure to check that your polling station as not changed via the BOE website's poll search.

If you have an absentee ballot, you can still return it, but it must be received by the Board of Elections before 7:30 PM tonight. You best bet is to hand deliver it. The Hamilton County Board of Elections is located at 824 Broadway, Cincinnati, OH 45202.

Seven

That's the number of messages from robo-calls that were on my answering machine today. Wow.

Interestingly, two of these were about Jeff Berding. One was from David Crowley, reminding me that "Jeff Berding is not a Democrat." The other was from Eric Kearney (a Democrat), supporting Jeff Berding.

I'll be glad when tomorrow is over.

Queen City Survey Signs Off

Dan from Queen City Survey posted yesterday that his blog is ending. He may spin off some of his featured content in other forms, but the blog will end, at least for now. Good Luck Dan and I hope to keep reading your interesting take on Cincinnati in other forms.

TV's Here to Keep You Ignorant

I guess I should thank John Kiesewetter for reporting on TV's continued indifference to society, but I'm not sure John has a problem with that. It is an injustice to the community that local TV stations will provide close to no coverage of important local elections. It is sad that the stations will still get more complaints about interrupting "So You Think You Can Dance?" for two minutes than calls wondering why they are not covering the fate of State Issues #2 and #3. What's ironic is that he mentions "V" the remade TV show that includes a totalitarian take over of the news media. That part of the fictional TV show is much closer to reality than not.

Monzel Lies in Campaign Ad

So, I disagree with Chris Monzel on most things, but I respected him for being a person of personal principle. Well, now he's lying in his campaign TV spot about the streetcar, so that respect has gone out the window. Where does he lie:

1. The streetcar does not just go a "few blocks" as he put it. No matter how you want to define blocks, saying that from the Riverfront to Clifton is a few blocks is like saying the Ohio River is a tiny creek.
2. Building the Streetcar will benefit the entire city and region. The jobs created to build it will come from across the city. The property value increases with result in more tax revenue for the city, which benefits the entire city. Monzel knows that a strong central core of a city is critical to being prosperous
3. The projected cost is 185 million, not 200 million. I guess he could claim a rounding error there, but seriously, come on...
4. Monzel clearly implies the city would be funding the full 185 million, which Monzel knows to be false. The Streetcar plan calls for Federal and State funding that will make up the bulk of the project. That money will not come for anything else, so there is no money to divert to a pet project he wants to use to buy off votes.

If you are against the Streetcars, fine, I can agree to disagree with you, but those I've talked with who are either unsure about it or just against it, don't lie about the plan or about the goals. Here Monzel knowingly makes false statements about elements of the plan and overwhelmingly misleads on everything else. That's a lie where I come from. Spinning details in politics is a gray line, but Monzel knows better and has held a higher standard in the past. This is a new low for him. I guess he's worried about his re-election chances and wants to get every ignorant voter to the polls he can. This type of ad is not worthy of a candidate. If you've heard this type of tactic in the past, most of the time its from a 3rd party group, who tend to do the dirty work in place of the candidate. Monzel gets dirty all on his own.

Charlie Don't Surf

So I take that either Charlie Winburn's robo-call targeting African-American voters is valid and Winburn would support the Mayor's Majority on council, or he is pandering and lying to the African-American community in hopes they won't notice his Republican political stances. Charlie is claiming he voted for Obama, but is siding with the hard right conservative FOP senior leaders who are totally negative on the city and have been the biggest problem with police relations with the African-American community for years. Some of these yahoos would just as soon drop Napalm on certain parts of the city and start over, than actually get off their duffs and protect and serve all of the citizens in this city.

I really hope people don't fall for this, but it unfortunately works with elderly people, who are one of the biggest targets robo-callers hope to reach. I hope some tech-savvy grannies read this blog.

Cincinnati Opera Online Auction Begins

Check out the items up for bid in the Cincinnati Opera's Online Auction.

Also, don't forget the Cincy Opera will be having the Opera Ball After-Party on November 21st, so buy your tickets now ($30 pre-sale, $40 at the door).

Post-Release Control Is Not Parole

This morning's Enquirer contains a story about people being freed from prison without being placed on "parole," even though, by law, they should be supervised following their release from prison. Sharon Coolidge picked up on an important issue here, as there are some people who should be supervised upon the expiration of their prison term, and the courts should make sure their sentences are properly announced.

I've not seen the Enquirer's stylebook, but it's apparently the newspaper's policy to use the word "parole" to mean any form of supervision following a term of imprisonment. I think I've talked about this issue before, but it's an important one that we should all understand.

Most people's understanding of "parole" comes from movies like The Shawshank Redemption. An inmate is given an indeterminate sentence (for instance, "10 to 20 years" or "25 to life") and at some point after the minimum sentence has been served, he comes in front of a parole board, who can decide to let him go free under some form of supervision. And that's exactly what parole is: the release of a prisoner before his full sentence has been served. This is the definition one would find in either Black's Law Dictionary or Merriam-Webster.

Until 1996, Ohio used a system of indeterminate sentencing system, so parole was common. In the '90's, though, the public cried out for "truth in sentencing" laws and the General Assembly responded. Now, apart from murder, defendants get definite sentences. A judge says "1 year" or "10 years" or "20 years," and that's how long a defendant serves. The only way that sentence can be substantially shortened is by the judge or with the judge's approval.

But when the legislature changed the law in 1996, it realized that some defendants wouldn't be ready to transition back into society without assistance or supervision. So for some offenses, once a defendant serves the full term imposed by the judge, he'll be supervised by the Adult Parole Authority for up to five years. This supervision is called post-release control, or PRC.

The problem the Enquirer points out is that in the past, some judges failed to inform a defendant (at the time he was sentenced) of post-release control. I wasn't practicing in the late 1990's, but that doesn't seem surprising. Judges had never had to inform defendants of parole, so why tell them about PRC? Besides, the judges have nothing to do with whether a defendant is placed on PRC. In some cases it's mandatory, and in others the Adult Parole Authority has discretion to require some individuals to serve a term of PRC. (Today, most judges use a script in sentencing hearings, and the PRC admonition is part of that script.)

In a series of cases, though, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that PRC is part of a defendant's sentence. That means that the judge has to announce it along with the rest of the sentence. Permitting the APA (part of the executive branch) to supervise someone on PRC even though that wasn't included in the sentence violates the principle of separation of powers. But the Supreme Court created an easy fix: as long as a defendant is still serving his sentence, a court can recall him from prison and re-sentence him. A judge can do that years (or decades) after a defendant has been sentenced. The error cannot be fixed, however, once an inmate is released. And, in fact, if PRC wasn't part of the sentence and the APA places the inmate under its supervision anyhow, it has to release the inmate once the error is realized.

So the Enquirer is right, in substance. Some inmates who have served their sentences may not be supervised once back in society as the legislature had intended. But in discussing this issue, it's helpful to know that these are all people who served their full sentence, and are not defendants released early at the discretion of the parole board.

What Constitutes A Tax Increase?

This past week, we saw more drama in City Council, this time over whether--and when--to change property tax rates for 2010. City Council has three options: leave the millage the same, a move which would--because of increases in property values--generate about $400,000 more in 2010 than in 2009; raise the millage to the maximum allowable; or "roll back" the millage rate to generate exactly the same amount of money it did in 2009.

First, let me say at the outset: I have no position on the property tax rate. I think Council members and candidates should make their positions clear prior to Election Day. It appears some may favor leaving the millage alone, while others favor rolling it back. I've not heard anyone suggest raising it to the maximum millage permissible. Frankly, I don't care when Council takes this action, assuming members have given voters some inkling of their intentions prior to the election. (Council members are, of course, free to remain silent until after Tuesday. And voters are free to withhold their votes on that basis.)

But I'm curious about those who describe the maintenance of the current millage as a "tax increase." Is that really a fair description? If you spend more money this year than last and therefore pay more sales tax, you wouldn't complain about a sales tax increase (assuming the rate stayed at 6.5%). Similarly, if your income went up and you paid more income taxes, you wouldn't (assuming a flat tax rate) think you suffered from a "tax increase."

It seems to me Council has three options. Leave the property tax alone, increase it (perhaps dramatically), or decrease it ("roll it back"). Others seem to suggest there are just two options: roll back the millage (which they say is leaving it the same) or "increase" property taxes.

What's your take?

The Voices Behind the Blog

Last week, Stephen Carter-Novotni sat down with Griff and me for CityBeat's thirty-second podcast. The hour-long conversation covers a wide variety of topics, including our takes on the constantly shifting lines between social media, blogging, and journalism; why Griff started the blog (and why I joined him); and which blogs we read.

Many thanks to Stephen for inviting us to participate and for being an extremely gracious podcast host, as well as for doing his best not to make us look any dumber than our own dumbness naturally requires.

Thank You WOXY!

I was very glad to read CitBeat's blog post about WOXY's Local Lixx program keeping a Cincinnati centric edition going after WOXY moved its operation to Austin, TX. Thanks to all the WOXY team for keeping this showcase of great Cincinnati area music going.

Relish Leaves A Bad Taste In My Mouth

Martin Wade of the Relish Group is apparently threatening to sue Jean Robert de Cavel to prevent him from opening a restaurant in the space formerly occupied by Buddhakhan. Wade claims that the chef signed some sort of non-compete agreement when the partnership dissolved. (Hat tip: Polly Campbell's blog, which I'm having difficulty linking to right now.)

Given Jean Robert's popularity in this area, this seems like a terrible PR move. Did Wade really think it was a good idea to make public that he would do everything he could to prevent a viable business from opening in a vacant space in the center of downtown? And does he really think people will support his effort to keep Jean Robert--who adopted this city as his own even after he and his wife had every reason to return to their native land--from continuing to be a culinary presence here?

What's more, non-compete agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The courts don't like them. Who wants to strip someone of his or her livelihood? I'm sure Jean Robert will have no difficulty finding able counsel to represent his interests should Wade decide to sue. I can think of plenty of attorneys with expertise in that field who would be willing--quite literally--to work for food. (As long as it's Jean Robert's.)

Why? Just Why?

www.peterbronson.com

I have no other comment, I am just sick of fish.

Hollan TV Commerical

Nicholas Hollan has released his TV commercial which was to hit the airwaves earlier this week:

One Blog, Several Voices

Any reasonable person knows this already, but I thought I'd point it out in case there was any doubt.

When we post here, each of us speaks for him- or herself. When I express ambivalence about the streetcar, it should be obvious that Griff does not share this sentiment. Griff doesn't need to specifically rebut me in order for his disagreement to stand. Conversely, I don't agree with everything others write here, though I don't typically write rebuttals. (The exception, of course, is Jack. As he is the oldest wisest of the four of us, I always reflexively agree with him.)

Back to regular blogging.

And We Will Know They Are Christians By Their . . .?

On Wednesday, the Family Research Council (FRC) issued a statement objecting to the Obama administration’s pledge to “establish the nation’s first national resource center” to assist communities providing services to elderly LGBT communities. The statement from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that there are now “as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.” FRC counters that providing such services makes no sense because there just are not that many LGBT senior citizens because “homosexual conduct” makes them die early, stating:

In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.

Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!


Do these people have any idea how stupid they sound? Oh, and by the way, can any of my Human Rights Campaign colleagues who were positively giddy at the signing of the Hate Crimes legislation point me to a place in President Obama's signing statement where he uttered the word gay?

And while America's Attorney General apparently doesn't "really know enough about the referendum over there to comment" (yes, he really did say such a cowardly and false thing), there is a referendum in Maine next week that would undo the representative democratic process (yes, that is how America works) that expanded the right to marry in Maine to gay and lesbian citizens. So please join me in supporting No On One Final Push in Maine! To see details and contribute now please go to
http://www.actblue.com/page/noononefinalpush/recipient/735875

Desperate Wenstrup Doesn't Support Cincinnati

Mayoral Candidate Bran Wenstrup is reading the polls and going negative because he has no other way to try and dent the lead Mark Mallory has in the race. This is no big suprise for all of the talk about Wenstrup run a very above board campaign, he's reveled that he will use fear at the end of the day as his main campaign tactic.

What I find more troubling is the fact that Wenstrup doesn't have the pride or trust of the city to run his campaign finances out of an office within the city. Instead he is running it from the office of Anderson Township Republicans. According to Brad's website the Citizens for Wenstrup, Jill Springman, Treasurer is located at 262 Jakaro Drive, "Cincinnati", OH 45255. Let's do a little Google Search and see where that address is:
View Larger Map

So if anyone can do geography, even slightly, you would notice that the point on the map above is way out in Anderson Township, past the mall, off of Eight Mile Road. Furthermore, if you do another Google Search you would find that address is shared by the Anderson Township Republican Club, it is also the based for the HC Republican Woman's Club. A shocking coincidence? No, we knew that is where his support comes from.

In all fairness I will point out that Wenstrup is also using a 700 walnut St. address Downtown on his mailers, which is another county Republican Group's HQ, so he's at least got a presence inside the city, but his money base lies outside the City. So, not only does Wenstrup not support the City, he doesn't have much support within the City, if he has to go out of the City for his campaign contributions. When he started his campaign committee, where did he go to start his campaign, who did he turn to? He went outside the City. Brad has the mindset of someone who just does not support the city and obviously feels more at home outside the city. His political fortune might be more successful outside the city. It will not be successful within it.

Name Some Names

So, some Democratic incumbents/candidates or their staffs are ticked at Laure Quinlivan's campaign rhetoric. I really think CityBeat's Kevin Osborne should name who is pissed because I think this is quite silly. Quinlivan basically is saying she is more qualified than others, her opinion, which the voters can decide on, nothing new. Also, she is running against the incumbents, but doesn't name, names. Well, she's a challenger and needs to go after those on a faceless council. I don't like the tactic, but it is hardly harsh. She wants to win and other candidates, even Dem candidates, could be taking aways votes from her, so if she can criticize on the sly her fellow Dems, she'd gotta do it, especially when she thinks she better for the office than others.

If she did encourage the use of the "bullet voting" tactic, then that was really selfish, but not the kind of thing you air to the press until after the election.

This is the type of thing that other Dems can be pissed about, but it isn't new and isn't what I would NOT call uncommon. It also pales in comparison to the active council maneuvering Jeff Berding undertook against his fellow Dems, not to mention the negative comments he made about the city. That is being a bad party member.

Not going on the record and trying to get a background based story out of a CityBeat reporter is rather gutless.

The Foursome of No

The foursome on council referred to as the Minority Four (Berding, Bortz, Ghiz, and Monzel) are clearly playing games with critical issues and are quite frankly being hypocrites. The Four want to push through a vote on property taxes, but they want more time on the Queensgate barge facility, East Side zoning issues and federal funding for a homeless shelter.

I just really hate games and I hate it when the games are so obvious. When you lack the votes and resort to using obscure rules to obstruct projects and issues that a majority of council supports, it shows very clearly that you (the Four) are more concerned about politics and getting reelected than about getting something done.

Why is it horrible to wait on voting on the Property Tax? The Four don't have the votes on it, so all they are doing is playing for the media and hoping that a lot of people are actually paying attention. The few of us who follow this type of detail know this is a stunt, even if Boyscout Chris Monzel says he actually has concerns about these issues and wants to delay the vote. What's the excuse for the other three?

Charlie's Circus

The lawsuit filed against Council candidate Charlie Winburn seems very far fetched, but this points to the circus that surrounds Winburn. The man the filed the lawsuit allegedly was employed by Winburn's church for about a year. The article also points out that Winburn has Sam Malone as an associate, and Malone allegedly interacted with the individual who filed the lawsuit. Malone, the former council member, was charged with beating his son with a belt in 2005, but was later acquitted.

Irregardless of the validity of this lawsuit, Winburn will just be bad for council. He has nothing to show for his prior time on council and has an extreme set of political beliefs that have no place in modern society.

Also, Dem Chair Burke is worried about Winburn for another reason.

Forbes: Cincinnati Among Safest Cities

According to a new ranking by Forbes magazine, Cincinnati is the ninth safest city of the forty largest cities in the nation.

The ranking takes into account several factors, of which the crime rate is just one. Interestingly, if you rank cities only by violent crime rate, Cincinnati is the 8th safest. Detroit (which has been mentioned by some local politicians as perhaps foreshadowing Cincinnati's future) is 12th safest overall, but dead last--40t--when only violent crime is considered.

Here's the full list from Forbes.

I guess combat gear isn't really necessary to walk around here, after all.

TV Ad For No On 9

Should be hitting the airwaves today:

This Ain't Moxy, This is Bitchy

I know how much local Republicans are cheering on the juvinile behavior of Council Member Leslie Ghiz, but this is not tough talk from a concerned elected official, this is frustration born from personal animosity coming through. The inner teenager has come forth and she is not thoughtful, she is bitchy. You don't tell the chair of a committee to shut up on an open mike in session. You just don't do that and expect to be considered civil. A council session is not an episode of the Hanity Show, where guests are encouraged to be antagonistic to the point of calling each other four letter words. Council meetings should be civil. If Ghiz has a beef with Cole, have it out behind closed doors like adult politicians do.

If this was done as a stunt to get attention, then Ghiz has stooped to a new low. It is beneath any council member and that would put her on the level of political bottom feeder, going for the cheap and hollow vote.

I question whether deep down Ghiz actually wants to be reelected to council. Her tone this campaign season has been totally negative. If she does win, I really hope she grows up a little bit and ends the childish behavior. One can be forceful with dignity, but still get your point across. She needs to learn how to do that, or just quit politics.

Kevin Flynn - Extreme On Abortion

In local races the issue of a woman's right to an abortion, shouldn't be material. I don't in any way mean to say it isn't important, I mean to say that a woman's right to choose an abortion is the law of the land. City Council members' stances on the issue should be nearly insignificant. Locally, the only council member to make it an actual issue has been Chris Monzel. His stances on what should be covered by city provide health insurance is well known and just one of many, many reasons not to vote for him. It is also why he gets the endorsement from the Cincinnati Right to Life PAC ever year.

This year's race adds a new name to the anti-abortion PAC list, Charterite Kevin Flynn. His responses to the CRTLPAC questionnaire(pdf) are eye opening and extreme and to say the least very disappointing.

Flynn has three stances that stand out and make it impossible for me to vote for him. In his response he omitted Rape and Incest as grounds for when an Abortion should be legal. He did include the life of the mother, but his use of choosing to not fall on a grendade as a rational to want to die does I believe belittle the value of the mother and of women in general.

The second stance is in his support of banning the coverage of abortion by the City employee health Insurance plans. Under Flynn's view, it is moral that if an employee of the City is raped, she must pay to end the pregnancy herself. It is so very disappointIng that the value of
women is placed below the intent of the rapist.

The third stance is in my opinion the most disappointing by far, Kevin Flynn filled out the questionaire at all. City Counil lacks to the power to do anything about Abortion being legal or not. The issue is something that should not have a baring on the council race. Flynn should have followed the path of his two fell Charter candidates, Bortz and Qualls, and not completed the questionaire.

It wasn't great seeing Cecil Thomas on the RTL endorsement list, but not as much of a surprise. His answers to the question were no different, but he avoided adding details to the "Yes/No" answers. I don't remember if Cecil got the endorsement in 2007 and I can't find a working link to who was endorsed at all 2 years ago.

COAST's Rapid Transit Map

This map floating around Twitter over the weekend is funny and over the top, but I think it captures the delusions of the leaders of COAST very well. It illustrates so much of what is wrong with COAST and those who align themselves with their ideas, like Brad Wenstrup. Stagnant thinking has slowed Cincinnati far too long and the people of Cincinnati need to break free of the past and understand they don't have to think like that. We are better than this and can defeat it. One step towards that defeat happens a week from tomorrow.

Issues 8 and 9: Why Vote on Voting?

I understand why the supporters of Issue 8 don't want City Council to create a regional water district. In fact, I think I'm in their camp, if only because Council would lose control of water rates. And I think there's a strong argument that the creation of a water district should require a charter amendment (and thus a referendum). Water Works is, after all, referenced in the charter (the power to appoint the agency's chief is one of the powers vested in the city manager).

And I understand why the supporters of Issue 9 think building a streetcar is a bad idea.* (I'm generally lukewarm on the streetcar and believe regardless of the passage or failure of Issue 9, the private investment dollars needed to build the streetcar--and forecast by its most ardent proponents--are unlikely to materialize.) I disagree that the decision should be embedded within the City Charter. In a republic, budget appropriations are a matter left to the discretion of the elected legislature. The anti-streetcar sentiment is understandable, even if I don't feel it myself.

But I don't understand why Issues 8 and 9 are written as they are. Why doesn't Issue 8 simply ban the creation of a regional water district or the sale of the water works to a private corporation? (Issue 8 as written, by the way, would not prevent the privatization of Cincinnati's water works, though I've heard no serious person propose such a thing, anyhow.) Why doesn't Issue 9 simply ban the expenditure of funds for a streetcar? Why do the drafters of these ballot issues leave open the possibility that they'll win this time, but lose a referendum in a subsequent election?

After all, the drafters of Issues 8 and 9 certainly know how to write a straightforward, no-loopholes charter amendment. When the NAACP and COAST teamed up to write the anti-red-light amendment a few years ago, it was just that. It didn't call for a separate vote on the cameras; instead, it simply banned their use to impose civil or criminal penalties.

As I was thinking about Issues 8 or 9, it occurred to me that their structure must be relatively unique. Apart from the method to amend a charter or constitution, I cannot think of federal, state, or local constitutional or charter provisions calling for a referendum before a legislature takes a certain action. (With respect to budget appropriations like that implicated in Issue 9, by the way, I believe a state-wide referendum would, in fact, be unconstitutional under state law, as the state constitution explicitly excludes those from the referendum process.) But after a little research, I realized that Issues 8 and 9 do, indeed, have a precedent: Article XI of the City Charter.

What's that? You say you don't know what Article XI is? It's been on the books for over a half-century. It says:

Any ordinance enacted by the Council of the City of Cincinnati which provides for the fluoridation of water processed and distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works must first be approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election before said ordinance shall become effective, and any ordinance to fluoridate the water distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works that may have been enacted before this amendment is adopted shall cease to be effective until approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election.

That's right: back in the 1950's, Cincinnatians vehemently opposed efforts to add fluoride to their drinking water. After the charter was amended to include Article XI, three separate referenda to fluoridate the water failed. It took the intervention of the Ohio EPA--with assistance from the Ohio Supreme Court--to improve Cincinnatians' dental health. (And proving the stubborness of Queen City residents, one report seems to suggest that in the wake of fluoridation, bottled water sales increased dramatically.)

So there you have it. Historical precedent for the two strange (from a structural standpoint) issues on this year's ballot: fluoride-alarmists!

Charter amendments ought to be straightforward and do what they intend. If selling water works to a regional water authority is a bad idea, let's just preclude it. If a streetcar is a bad idea and the only way to prevent one is a charter amendment, let's do that. But let's not waste time voting on whether to vote.

---

*Yes, I realize Issue 9 is about more than the streetcar. I suspect the bulk of its city-resident supporters, though, are concerned only with the streetcar, and not more minimal outlays for things like the Zoo train or the 3C rail line.

Great No On 9 Video!

Even though I am a PC user, this is still really funny and to the point.

Passage Lounge Coming To Downtown

Construction is in progress and the signs in the window give a hint at what is to be Passage Lounge. The location is at 601 Main Street, which is immediately on the corner of 6th Street. I couldn't find mention of this venue anywhere else on the web, so I don't know how much, if any, promotion has occurred.

This would add to the growing number of "lounges" in downtown, which I would define as an upscale bar/club, like FB, the Righteous Room, and Tonic. I've not heard mention what ever became of Bang's re-imaging, which I thought would have been completed by now. These types of clubs can be short lived, so depending on who is running this new venue, I wonder how it will compete.

This location would be across from the 580 building where plans for a Mr. Sushi restaurant were announced over the summer. I've not seen any progress on the restaurant, at least none visible from the street. Mr. Sushi was slated to open in the Fall.

For Bris Chortz and Mark Miller: Read the Law

A commenter, known as Bris Chortz, has been defending Mark Miller of COAST for the allegedly false Affidavit filed in Miller's Ohio Ethics Commission complaint against Mayor Mark Mallory.  Bris wanted to claim that my statement was incorrect when I stated filing a false Affidavit was against the law.  Well, I did a little research:

102.06 Powers and duties of ethics commission.
(A) The appropriate ethics commission shall receive and may initiate complaints against persons subject to this chapter concerning conduct alleged to be in violation of this chapter or section 2921.42 or 2921.43 of the Revised Code. All complaints except those by the commission shall be by affidavit made on personal knowledge, subject to the penalties of perjury. Complaints by the commission shall be by affidavit, based upon reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.

The bold was added to make Bris aware of the law.  I am not making judgment as to Miller's actions, I am however pointing out the fact that I was not wrong and Affidavits in this instance are clearly covered by perjury.  I mean, if they weren't covered by perjury laws, why even have it be a sworn statement?

Sure, Bris and his fellow COAST supporters (I would surmise Bris is a member of COAST, maybe even Miller himself) can quibble over whether Miller knowingly filed a false statement.  Or they can quibble over the meaning of 'false.'  Language to them is fungible after all, judging by how they wrote Issue 9, and then claim it means something other than what it says.  If a perjury violation needs to be considered , then that is a matter for the justice system to determine, not mine.  A prosecutor could be satisfied by questioning Miller or his attorney that if Miller's address is incorrect on the Affidavit, that it was just a typo.  I know I make those all the time, but if I were to make that type
of 'mistake' on an Affidavit, and then release it to the public, I might either check the details and correct it first, or at least note the error.  At a minimum,  I think the OEC should reject the Affidavit on the grounds that it doesn't meet the requirements of a Complaint.  Miller could just reissue a new copy with a corrected address, and may have already done that, but just hasn't published that version.  I'm not going to wait around for anyone from COAST to admit to any mistakes.

Deters Power Grab

County Prosecutor Joe Deters must really like the Bengal's Stadium Lease since that's the last time the Prosecutor Lawyers did work on Riverfront Development for the County. That was back in the 1990's when Joe was the Prosecutor, before quiting for higher state office. In case your wondering, most consider the Bengal's lease to have given away the farm and first born of every county resident and handed them over to Bengal's owner Mike Brown.

If Joe Deters gets his way, his criminal lawyers will begin doing the work that private development lawyers are doing. We are going to get lower quality legal advice with this action. Why? Well, you don't hire a foot doctor if you need brain surgery.

Deters is trying to build up power. He's not up for reelection until 2012, so I guess he thinks he has a free hand to do what ever he wants. It is a tradition in Hamilton County to have despots in the Prosecutor's office. Leis, Deters, Allen, and now Deters again all have acted like they are above the law and have no to answer too. Because local political parties on the county level are dysfunctional, this office has become one where you don't have to worry about reelection because deals will be made to prevent an competition.

Harris Announces 2010 Budget Plan

Council Member Greg Harris has done something no other candidate has done: provide a 2010 budget plan that includes adjustments that make up the 51.5 million dollar projected deficit. He does it without layoffs. He does list a Trash collection fee which would fill a gap. That will surely get screams from the right wing, but once the election passes, I think their scream will subside on fee increases.

I am most pleased with Greg for being complete. He had the courage to do this now, before the election and he actually provided numbers that will add up to the deficit. Other candidates have presented cuts they would make, but they cite cutting some minor program or perk that adds up to a few hundred thousand dollars, nothing close to the full budget deficit.

Many of the cuts Greg proposes are going to face huge challenges, but I think Greg is willing to work with everyone. What we don't need is more Grandstanding from Ghis, Monzel, Berding, and the FOP Officers playing the role of chicken little. Since we are so close to the election, I don't predict big political pushes to attack Greg, since those council members are not safe enough to focus on getting out their base.

Greg's action to publicize his realistic plan is what we want from our council. Greg is governing. He is being upfront, but will be smart and will not negotiate with the Unions in the media. We need to keep Greg on council.

Saturday at Grammer's: NEIN ON NINE!

Fun Party this Saturday at Grammer's: NEIN ON NINE! all in the effort to defeat Issue 9.

The ville have beear.

Is Cunningham Against Issue 9?

The Phony Coney is reporting that local talk radio host and regular city basher Bill Cunningham is against Issue 9. The Provost links to the podcast with Cunningham's comments. Is this for real? Does Cunningham actually oppose Issue 9? This isn't April 1st is it? I didn't just teleport to Bizzaro World, did I?

The Phony Coney: Miller's Not Home?

The Phony Coney brings to light an important item that allegedly was overlooked by Mark Miller before filing his affidavit in an attempt to smear the Mayor. The question is out there: Where does Mark Miller actually live? Does he even know? Can we trust anything he says if he can't get his address correct?

Council: Handicapping the Race

Predicting who will win City Council is both easy and very difficult. It is easy to get those who are locks to win and likely to win. After that, it is all open ended. It is a fool's errand to try and predict the actual order of finish to any level of accuracy, so don't look for that here. What I have done, instead, is create tiers and grouped candidates based on their likelihood of being in the top nine. Here is my take on the race, two weeks out. Each group is in alphabetical order.

A Lock to Win:
Roxanne Qualls

Likely to Win:
Chris Bortz
Laketa Cole
Leslie Ghiz
Cecil Thomas

In the Mix:
Jeff Berding
Kevin Flynn
Greg Harris
Chris Monzel
Laure Quinlivan
Bernadette Watson
Charlie Winburn


Strong Finish, But Out of the Money:
Tony Fischer
Nickolas Hollan

The Rest:
Anitra Brockman
Amy Murray
LaMarque Ward
Wendell Young
George Zamary


As far as order goes, as I mentioned, there is no way to know. I would say anyone not in the mix could be as high as 13 or 12. A good measure of a candidate that does not win is their placement. If you get anywhere from 10th to 13th, you had a good run and are a contender for 2011.

There are of course two weeks to go, so anything could happen, but usually doesn't.

Minor note: I will go out on a limb here and say the Mayor Mallory will be reelected. The only speculation will be what percentage Wenstrup has to reach in order for Alex Triantafilou to claim the GOP is on the rise in the City. I would suggest that anything less than 50.000001% of the vote would be a sign that the GOP is not on the rise in Cincinnati.

Issue Three Narrowly Ahead in Poll

In a Poll of 800 likely Ohio voters 48% favor Issue Three, 44 Oppose, with a margin of error at 3.5%. This vote is going to be close.

A Question For the Candidates

Had I been at the mayor's debate last week, I'd have asked the following:

Given the choice between laying off fifty police officers, closing half the city's pools, closing some or all of the city's health clinics, or decreasing the frequency of trash collection, which would you choose?

Before you all flay me in the comments: no, I have no idea whether these are actually fiscal equivalents. But if being a reporter covering politics were my full-time job, I'd figure out the equivalents and ask the question with the correct numbers.

Can we "cut our way to prosperity?" Of course not. But absent a massive tax increase, some cuts are inevitable in the 2010 budget. And no one, so far, has told us what they'll cut.

And no, I'm not going to suggest an answer to that question myself.

Random Sports Thought

It just occurred to me that this was a pretty good weekend for former Cincinnati athletes.

Former Red Jerry Hairston scored the game-winning run (after getting on base by hitting a single) in the bottom of the 13th inning, giving the Yankees a 2-0 edge in the ALCS.

And former Bengal Ryan Fitzpatrick led the Buffalo Bills to an overtime victory (albeit an ugly one) over the New York Jets.

New Local Political Blog: Plum Street Studios

E. Gooding has a new blog called Plum Street Studios and has a good post tearing apart the Enquirer's Council Endorsements.

The Enquirer Splits the Baby into Fourths, Kinda

When reading the Enquirer's list of endorsements for city council a mighty big correction needs to be made. Jeff Berding does not deserve the "D" next to his name. It is obvious they did this on purpose and refuse to acknowledge the rebuke Berding got from the local Democrats who revoked his endorsement. So, they are knowingly putting out false information. I guess Berding needs every ounce of help he can get, and fooling some voters into thinking he has the backing of the Democrats just may be another way the Enquirer can help.

Here is the full slate of Enquirer Endorsements:
Jeff Berding
Roxanne Qualls
Chris Bortz
Leslie Ghiz
Nicholas Hollan
Cecil Thomas
Kevin Flynn
Amy Murrary
Charlie Winburn

Yes, you read the last name correctly, Charlie Winburn. Did the Enquirer political writers push for this because they want the man in office because he will produce good quotes? He will add nothing if elected and will in fact be a force for retreat and destruction. Winburn is off the deep-end and will damage the city if elected.

I will say I am pleased to see two names on this lsit: Nicholas Hollan and Kevin Flynn. Both are good candidates that need help to win, but are people I want to see in future elections.

The fourths I mentioned in the the title reference how politically wide the Enquirer is going. They have three Republicans, two Dems, three Charterites, and one Independent. So, four parts, but not equal. There are three Women and two African-Americans. Five incumbents, three new challengers, one former council-member. With the exception of Winburn, this slate does average out in the middle, where most of the candidates may lean to the left or right, they are mostly moderate or mainstream on their political side of the spectrum. The Enquirer has long been called a Conservative Newspaper, and they are, on a national level, but with this slate, they are trying to appeal to everyone. That leads to something close to a big bowl of goulash, this bowl is a bit bland, without much spicy difference.

With this slate the Enquirer is trying to present a unifying team. The problem is that with candidates like Berding, Ghiz, and Winburn you are going to maintain the drama the Enquirer seems to loathe. Many, mostly on the right, blame this Summer's city budget circus on the "Majority Five," but the circus part was created, totally, by Ghiz, Berding, Monzel, and the FOP leadership out to save the raises of senior police officers. The City could have gotten the concessions at worst at the same point in time it actually happened, minus the circus, but instead Ghiz, Berding, and Monzel wanted to score political points and gain attention. It is too bad the Enquirer has rewarded two of the three for their theatrics with an endorsement.

This year's council race is going to be interesting for many reasons, but from an analytical perspective the area I am paying the most attention too is the power of the Republican/Conservative votes in the city. What good will the FOP, POWR PAC, and Enquirer endorsements do? What good does going on WLW's Bill Cunningham show actually do for a candidate in the City? Bottom line, did the trends of 2008 really come true, are we more of a liberal City/County? That will not become clear until the detailed results are reported after the election, but the speculation on that is already being tested.

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.