Letters to the Editor
Recall Election called “unnecessary and unwarranted”

(Plain Press, February 2008) To the Editor: On December 18, 2007, the voters of Ward 14 clearly and convincingly showed their good judgment (with 60% of the vote against the recall) rejecting the potential recall of its Councilman Joe Santiago.

This wholly unnecessary and unwarranted election was the result of the pique of the disgruntled former office holder. This recall cost the voters of Cleveland some $47,000 or about $40 for each vote cast. If it had been successful, it would have cost the city of Cleveland more than $50,000 to hold a special election. This recall election has taken an enormous amount of time, attention, and money away from what the city needs.

This is not right. A sore loser should not force our entire city to pay for his ego. Two years ago, the voters in Ward 14 elected Councilman Santiago after a full and fair democratic election, and they rejected the man whose selfishness drove the recent recall election. Although the results in the recall election were fortunately the same as in the general election, the proceedings jeopardized the way our city government works and cost the city a significant amount of money that could have been spent serving our citizens.

The supposed basis for this recall was at best a cover for one person’s ego. They are the kin\d of normal decisions that happen every day in the city and pass without comment. The reality is that the campaign was driven by a defeated candidate who could not accept that he had been rejected by the voters.

The voters of Ward 14 held an election in 2005, and they dismissed the prior office holder for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the same lack of judgment and penchant for confrontation so obviously on display in the recall.

Everybody knows how a democracy works: there is a campaign, there is a vote, and there is a decision by the voters. That decision is supposed to stand, absent any remarkable circumstances. If the electorate is dissatisfied with the performance of the candidate as he performs his daily duties, then it can vote him out of office at the next election.

The City Charter unfortunately did not include any criteria for the recall of a councilman. This allows an abuse of the system, in which any councilman can be recalled on even the flimsiest of pretexts, for example, a difference of opinion on a single routine decision. Had there been a recall, it would have been a precedent for any councilman to be recalled on the basis of any dispute on any single decision, and it would have created chaos in government.

Every member of City Council was opposed to this recall, which was simply unjustified. The regular election process had served the citizens of Cleveland well, and the outcome of the general elections should have been respected.

This recall election was being held in the ward with the largest concentration of Hispanics and targeted Joe Santiago, the only Hispanic councilman. It is important to point out that there was not a single, responsible Hispanic leader supporting this recall effort.

Voters of Ward 14 spoke loudly and clearly. Unfortunately, the city had to pay a very steep price to hear their voice.

Jose C. Feliciano
Chairman Hispanic Roundtable

Reader calls for regional primaries

(Plain Press, February 2008) To the editor: A political primary is a preliminary election in which the registered voters of a political party nominate candidates for office.  The key word here is preliminary.  The current system allows small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, assisted by the media, to award front runner status to the victorious candidate.  From there the candidates travel a path determined by which states wants to "leap frog" the other by moving up their primary dates.  Candidates are whisked across the country without any real ability to distinguish regional issues from national issues.  Consequently, party platforms are determined by a make-it-up-as-you-go approach.

If the primary process were organized on a regional basis, candidates would be able to study the regional issues, campaign to confirm those issues and then receive votes based on the solutions they propose.  A regional approach would also prevent a premature selection of a front runner because success in one region certainly would not guarantee success in the next region. 

This would also further validate the process because each state would still have a say all the way down to the end.  Finally, the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate. 

Accordingly, the political primaries should occur between January and June of each presidential election year.  Each of the six regions would be assigned a particular month.  A lottery, held in June of the previous year,  would determine which month each region holds its primaries.

An example illustrates the format:
January - Midwest (9):
Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin

 February - South (8):
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,  Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

 March - Atlantic (8):
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina

 April - New England (8):
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont

 May – Northwest (9):
Alaska, Idaho, Kansas,  Montana,  North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming

 June – Southwest (9):
Arizona, California, Colorado,  Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah

Joe Bialek
River Ridge Drive, Cleveland

News & Articles | Archives