Cleveland needs a referendum on Cleveland City Council
by Chuck Hoven

(Plain Press, December 2007)  On December 18th registered voters in Ward 14 will be asked to make a decision on whether or not to recall Ward 14 Councilman Joe Santiago. While Councilman Santiago’s colleagues in City Council have stated that an attack on one of them is an attack on all, voters in Ward 14 are unlikely to see this as a referendum on the way City Council conducts itself. Ultimately the decision for many of those voters will rest on the most local of political considerations whether or not the problems and concerns of their individual household, their street and their neighborhood have been addressed in a satisfactory manner.

COMMENTARY

It is unfortunate that this recall election will not likely be a referendum on our Cleveland City Council. Voters in making their decisions most likely will not be weighing in on issues of citywide importance, such as policies their Council person holds on tackling poverty, unemployment, high school dropout rates, job training and how to create new industries to provide Cleveland with a brighter future.  These will likely not be issues in the recall election because Cleveland City Council spends very little time debating the serious public policy issues of our time.

Instead City Council members spend much of their time trouble shooting citizen complaints or putting together legislative packages to help developers. They run their wards like little fiefdoms, doling out dollars to various organizations. Council representatives give funding to their favorite organizations, or seek donations from businesses for their favorites and withhold funds for those not deemed favorable. Cleveland Council members often also serve as the chief planner and development go to person in their ward – monitoring and helping to pull together the players in large development projects.

As development coordinators, the councilmen see it in their interest to make sure there are subsidies available for their pet projects. Often such subsidies are given at the expense of important services such as education and police and fire protection. But Cleveland City Council is too busy dealing with the day to day complaints and the frenzied pace of trying to build the latest upscale development in their ward to work toward real long term solutions to Cleveland’s chronic problems.

In defending his colleague Joe Santiago in a speech given in the City Council chambers, veteran Cleveland Ward 11 Councilman Michael D. Polensek said it unfair for Cleveland City Council members to be held accountable for the delivery of city services, which they don’t control. He said for example City Council doesn’t control the crime rate and the enforcement of Building and Housing Codes.

Clevelanders and Ward 14 residents should not buy the excuse that the City Council has no control over what the administration does. A true legislative body would monitor corruption, mismanagement and incompetence in the administration, and hold the administration accountable through the power of the purse. Instead our City Council sat idly by, allowing bribery and all sorts of malfeasance to occur for over a decade across the hall in the mayor’s office.

A true legislative body would examine the problems of the city as a whole making sure that tax dollars are going where they will make the greatest difference in the lives of citizens struggling to house, feed and clothe their families, and educate their children. A true legislative body would hold public policy debates and seek solutions to Cleveland’s chronic problems such as poverty, unemployment, foreclosures and how to marshal more public dollars toward the education of Cleveland’s children. Instead Cleveland City Council provides subsidies to housing and businesses without any analysis of the costs of removing those dollars from the general fund and from the Cleveland Metropolitan School District. As a result, Cleveland has one of the highest dropout rates in the country and our crime rate soars as high school dropout have a higher likelihood to turn to a life of crime.

In Cleveland, the City Council is more subject to blame by constituents for lack of services because the Cleveland Council representatives have chosen roles other than that of a legislator. Cleveland City Council over time has developed a tradition of not simply acting as a legislative body. It also acts as an ombudsman fielding complaints about city services and trouble shooting problems for residents.

 Every Clevelander knows that if you call your Councilman to complain about a city service, they are more likely to be able to get action than if you were to call the city department on your own. Cleveland City Council people have set themselves up as go-betweens that residents call. Residents feel they get better service when calling their councilperson’s office, the Councilperson in turn gets the benefit of having solved a problem and satisfied a potential voter. The Councilperson and their staff spend much of their time fielding calls and working to assure that the administration follows through on citizen complaints from their constituents.

Cleveland City Council members have decided that they will control the distribution of a portion of the Community Development Block Grant funds in their respective wards.  This practice gives them both a legislative and administrative role. It can also lead to confusion for employees of non-profit organizations as to whom they should be loyal to, their board of directors or the councilperson that has power over the funding their job depends upon.

All these are serious problems that could be debated if this recall election was truly a referendum on Cleveland City Council. However, it will more likely be decided by the condition of the vacant house across the street, the broke sidewalk, the noisy bar, the neighborhood nuisance or the resolved problem, demolished house or new sidewalks. This is because we, and Cleveland City Council have made it so.

If we are serious about reforming Cleveland government we will demand services from the administration, calling the proper city department ourselves and holding the mayor accountable. We would demand that City Council pass budgets, but refrain from distributing funds. We would demand that City Council serve as a check and balance by monitoring the administration, not contributing to the problem by being and another source of unmonitored fund distribution.

If we are serious about the future of Cleveland, we will demand a City Council that engages in serious policy debates. We would demand a City Council that takes seriously challenges such as that issued by local Sierra Club members to examine ways to make Cleveland Public Power a catalyst for creating green energy jobs and providing lower cost energy for our future.

Cleveland needs legislative leaders to emerge that will articulate a vision for the entire city. The day to day problems that residents so fervently urge their Council Representatives to solve are more likely to get addressed through good public policy by a City Council that sees its job to pass legislation, assure that the administration has the resources to implement that legislation, and monitors the administration to assure that it carries out its duties in a competent, professional, corruption free manner that is in accordance with the intent of the legislation.

News & Articles | Archives