ISSUE 6’S BAIT & SWITCH

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

This article appears in Oct 28 – Nov 3, 2009.