ISSUE 6'S BAIT & SWITCH 

Summit County: different process, different result

Proponents of Issue 6 have told Cuyahoga County voters that their reform plan is like Summit County's 1979 charter reform. The Plain Dealer in July said its reform was "akin" to Issue 6.

That's just not so. Summit County enacted a moderate form of charter government, driven by a broad coalition of citizen, political, labor and business groups. Issue 6 proposes radical county reform, backed primarily by one segment of the community — business — and driven by big-business money and over-hyped scandal-mongering by the PD.

Issue 6 supporters have propounded the myth that we've talked endlessly about reform and now it's time to act. That was true in Summit County. Its charter emerged from a decade of public discussions that included two elected charter commissions, two failed ballot charters and eventually a coalition that wrote a charter through a public, participatory process.

But Cuyahoga County's charter was tossed out to the public — and to community interests brought in at a later stage, seemingly to try to make the process look more broad-based — as a done deal. Cuyahoga County citizens have barely had the chance to learn what a charter or a charter commission is, let alone have input in the process.

Summit County's charter process was spearheaded by a coalition of groups with broad constituencies. Cuyahoga's was set in motion by a few self-appointed people with narrow constituencies and unclear agendas. The current effort appears to have begun with discussions between wealthy Lake County resident (and major Republican donor) Ed Crawford and county prosecutor Bill Mason, who under the new charter would be the only remaining elected county official — a clear conflict of interest with major potential for abuse of power. Soon after, retiring Parma Heights Mayor Marty Zanotti, a former Democrat with no apparent support base, joined the process.

The charter was written in meetings by a self-selected group that appears to represent mostly corporate interests; figuring out who was there and who they represent has been difficult. By contrast, the Summit County consortium included no elected county officials, although the heads of both political parties and local officials from Akron and the county's other cities and towns were at the table. And while business interests were involved in drafting the charter, so were community and civic groups. The process was public and inclusive.

Because they were invested in the creation of the charter, the campaign to pass it was also grassroots-driven, with the support of city and township officials and state representatives, among others. Citizen groups, particularly the League of Women Voters, gathered signatures to place it on the ballot. Issue 6's signatures were gathered by a professional, out-of-state group that was paid nearly $100,000.

Despite a lack of enthusiasm in some quarters for the changes, the inclusive process assured that opposition was minimal. Summit's campaign focused on education, and groups reaching out to their members and politicians to their constituencies. The Issue 6 campaign, lacking such grassroots support, has mounted a slick, professional marketing and advertising campaign, exploiting the corruption investigations helpfully overplayed by The Plain Dealer and fueled by huge donations from big-business interests like the Greater Cleveland Partnership, Forest City, Eaton Corporation and Pittsburgh-based National City Bank.

Summit opted for moderate charter reform. It eliminated the three commissioners in favor of a single county executive, but left the other elected officials in place and gave the sitting commissioners seats on the new county council. This was considered a compromise to derail opposition and provide a smoother transition. Currently, Summit elects the same offices as Cuyahoga except coroner (it has folded the auditor and recorder functions into other offices). Its 11-member council has eight district representatives and three at-large members.

Cuyahoga's 11-member council would include only district representatives, which many feel would divide the county into warring fiefdoms. The Issue 6 charter also eliminates all current elected county officials (except Bill Mason's office). This may appeal to the "throw all the bums out" mentality, but it's a recipe for transition fraught with conflict and chaos. The process lacked input and support from officials and community groups in the county's largest city, opening up the possibility of ongoing friction between county government and Cleveland's.

It's hard to look at the lists of Issue 6's endorsees, co-chairs and donors and not feel that this is an attempt to purchase county government and bring it under the control of big-business interests. While Summit County's charter government has had its problems — corruption and patronage scandals still plague it from time to time — it has had the continuing involvement of citizens who have amended it more than a dozen times. One has to wonder what opportunity citizens would have for input into a system put in place with $50,000 corporate donations.

apantsios@clevescene.com

Comments (1) RSS

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

It's a little naive to compare Issue 6 with what happened in Summit County -- the PD has a nasty habit of saying a LOT of things that don't make sense. So tarring Issue 6 with the PD's own attempts to describe it is a little unfair.

Issue 6 is much more like what has happened in other ex-Rust-Belt cities, most notably Pittsburgh. Allegheny County went from a 3-member commissioner structure to an executive/council structure in 2000. That structure and the regionalism it brought about is one of the reasons why Pittsburgh is so far ahead of Cleveland in every metric of public and social performance that matters.

Finally, just because Issue 6 is strongly supported by local business, that doesn't mean that it's some corporate shill. Companies in this area are _desperate_ to get ANY sort of effective government in this region before it crumbles to dust. Far from creating "fiefdoms" in the county, the sort of district-based representation that Issue 6 represents is IDENTICAL to the district-based representation in place at every level both below (city) and above (state/federal) Cuyahoga County.

The "let's wait and see" attitude espoused by the current county officers accomplishes nothing. We've had how many studies looking at county and regional issues over the last 20 years?? And the results were....? Right... Trusting a failed power structure to reform itself isn't going to work.

Issue 6's structure is tested and proven in several nearby counties in surrounding states, all Rust Belt like us. The local arguments against it are more about power-mongering and fear than real concern over effective governance.

Posted by Dlx on October 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Latest in News Features

Author Archives

  • Kozmic Warrior

    The Rock Hall's American Music Masters Series looks at Janis Joplin's legacy
    • Nov 11, 2009
  • Another Not So Silent Night

    Neil Zaza brings his Christmas show back to PlayhouseSquare
    • Dec 9, 2009
  • More»

Most Commented On

Most Emailed Stories

Top Viewed Stories

  • Goodbye Guido, Hello Clevo

    Hey MTV, have we got a show for you
    • Feb 3, 2010
  • NEW BOSSES

    Issue 6 backers not waiting for elections to dictate county's new course
    • Feb 3, 2010
  • More»

From the Archives

  • JIM KRANE

    Author, "City of Gold"
    • Sep 30, 2009
  • LAKE-EFFECT SNOW JOB?

    Port Authority not convincing critics that its proposed move is wise
    • Oct 7, 2009
  • More»

Site Search

© 2010 Cleveland Scene: 1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 805, Cleveland, OH 44113, (216) 241-7550
Logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners.