This archive article is selected from The Cleveland Pages, the city's only weekly independent journal of politics and opinion on the Internet. Find out all about the Cleveland Pages here, or check out the current issue.
The Free Times, in an article no longer online, called Cleveland Pages "Spicily independent... in the best tradition of citizen-journalist."
The Cleveland Pages is a somewhat-weekly commentary on what's new and why it's all happening in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. If what you read here is upsetting, you might prefer this simple-minded happy-talk instead.
Bookmark the Cleveland Pages at http://re.cleveland.oh.us. Bookmark this issue at http://re.cleveland.oh.us/archives/19991008.html.
A Cleveland Pages archive search will be available soon... Meanwhile, skip to the flat-file archive list! And read an overview of who's putting this thing out and what it's about.
My next-door neighbor is getting tired of cleaning my pine needles out of his gutters. I know this not because he dropped by to complain. I know this because it came up in a conversation I was having with Councilwoman Merle Gordon about the size of Council.
I'd happened to mention the family's recent move to Archwood Avenue, whereupon Gordon asked which particular house we bought. "Oh, you bought that place? It's a big place, I've been inside. They [the previous owners] are living a lot closer to me now," she said. Then what must have felt like an awkward pause. "Oh, hey, I need to send you a letter."
"Huh?" I replied eloquently.
Mr. Neighbor, explained Gordon, has been complaining for years now about the buildup of pine needles in his gutters. We have several thirty-foot evergreens that are turning into everbrowns, a problem I'd been planning to fix or remove in the spring. The dying trees have some overhang past the property line. Mr. Neighbor understandably doesn't feel like fixing this himself and really wishes I would take care of it.
I knew a little bit about the tree problem. Merle Gordon knew all about it. And on her to-do list, even as we spoke, somewhere between "email new economic development proposal to funding agencies" and "review the fiscal 2000 tax budget", was... "write letter to Mr. Neighbor's neighbor about the pine needles."
The tree thing came up, coincidentally, as we were wrapping up a conversation about the ombudsman role that our Council members play every day. How much do we rely on them for every little interface to City Hall? Do we call the ward office more often than we holler at the guy over the fence? Is our Council member responsible for the police department and the water system? That's crazy, but it's how the system works here.
There's an ongoing buzz--"not something you hear about every day" according to Gordon--about the future possibility of reducing the size of Council again. Roldo just barely mentioned it, in terms of a "continuing rumor," at the end of this week's Free Times profile of Mike Polensek. (Roldo explained later that it's more like a "fear" than any specific proposal.) Such a move, requiring a charter amendment, might be made to reduce Council to fewer members running either on a citywide at-large ballot or in very large single-member districts.
That's not a bad thing by itself. An at-large legislature/executive, with only three seats representing 1.3 million constituents, is how we administer the county's vast budget. Relatively large districts support both houses of the state legislature; each state Senator represents about a third of a million Ohioans.
But Council has always been different.
Before the 21-ward system was adopted in 1981, most Council members had day jobs but also worked as part-time ombudsmen for their wards, which averaged around 17,400 constituents. It was a busy schedule for most, but with persistence and stamina it could be done. It had the possible added advantage of helping to keep members independent, since there are easier ways to moonlight and you only had to commit for two years at a time.
With the modern 21-seat Council, and a salary boost to match the increased ward size, members are expected to devote full-time attention to public service. They have to take at least four years out of their careers, becoming economically dependent on reelection. There are 23,000 people in each ward. Legislation is part of the job, but by tradition and current public demand so is dealing with potholes, barking dogs, broken storefront windows, and individual gang members. And my pine needles.
That type of constituent service would be endangered if a Council reduction were to occur someday. "If you want to maintain... that important constituency role," said one former Council member, "you can't make [Council] any smaller than it is." Gordon agreed, saying that thirteen or eleven wards would be "just ridiculous," putting members in a "position of not being able to respond... we would no longer be [that] type of hands-on Council member."
Bottom line, says Gordon: "People expect you to pick up the phone."
Merle Gordon also considered the so-called "good government" argument that smaller legislatures may make decisions more quickly than larger ones. Not true here. In her five years representing Ward 15, she said, not one economic development project has been held up in Council by an individual member's opposition. (Something inside me says, "But you say that like it's a good thing.")
Today we have a Council that is still pliant to the wishes of a few special interests. If you don't believe it, watch how quickly they'll fund the Convention Center, and how hard they'll work to find some creative way to take it off the city's normal budget process. Does anyone really believe that the current Council is an impediment to this kind of thing?
Bigger wards, in which determined pavement-pounding might become less important than funding at election time, may tilt the balance towards big money. And of course candidates elected by big money are beholden to big money, not to the guy with the clogged gutters.
Now suppose we did make the move to a smaller Council, with bigger wards. What would be the advantage? For the public interest, very nearly none. But the kind of people who think they're entitled to multi-million-dollar funding for their pet construction projects might prefer less public participation to more. If a Council reduction plan is ever seriously promoted, watch who's behind it. Limiting controversy over big-ticket building issues will likely be the most important motivator.
There's no specific plan, short or long term, to put a Council restructuring on the ballot. If, however, the results of next year's census show a continued decrease in Cleveland's population, or just very slow growth, don't be surprised if such a proposal appears under the "efficiency and good government" rubric.
Since the special interests are counting on an upbeat, growth-oriented image, a Council reduction proposal would never be proposed in the form of a mere cost-saving retrenchment. Perhaps they'll attempt to sell an at-large system in terms of citywide unity, as a cover for centralization. It could come about several ways, none of them good.
The choice is: do you want a smaller, highly politicized Council dominated by special interests, or do you prefer what we have now, hamstrung with personal-service issues that don't even belong in a legislature? Maybe pothole-fixing and needle-sweeping are all that stand between our Council and special-interest oblivion. In that case, here's to the potholes!
This document's template was last modified on Wednesday, 09-Nov-2005 18:51:58 EST. There is a new Cleveland Pages more or less every weekend. The entire Cleveland Pages website is © 1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003 by Mark W. Schumann, all rights reserved. Copyrights belonging to others on individual items are noted. Nobody else would take the credit or blame for these opinions anyway.
Go to the front page
Last validated 08 October 1999:
![[ Valid HTML 4.0! ]](/images/vh40.gif){kind=small}
![[ Valid CSS! ]](/images/vcss.gif){kind=small}
![[ Bobby Approved! ]](/images/approved.gif){kind=small}
![[ Made with Cascading Style Sheets]](/images/mwcts.gif)
The W3C validator verifies that documents on this site conform to the Strict HTML 4.01 specification, which is a step towards consistency, accessibility, and interoperability.
Bobby checks for opportunities to improve access for users regardless of disabilities or special needs.