The Truth: Lucas County Democrats Slam Issue Two
The following article was shared via e-mail for the readers of Glass City Jungle, written for the Sojourner’s Truth by their Editor, Fletcher Word.
Lucas County Democrats Slam Issue Two
Ronthenbuhler, chairman of the Lucas County Democratic Party, gathered several dozen party members on Wednesday for a news conference to denounce ballot Issue 2 – “Nine Is Fine” – which has been placed on the November ballot. The petition, if passed, will eliminate the six current at-large council seats and replace them with three super-district councilmen.
If Issue 2 is approved by voters this fall, the top three finishers in the at-large contest will become super district representatives.
“There are a lot of things in this issue that are confusing and the timing is very bad,” said Rothenbuhler of the proposed amendment to the City Charter.
Speaking to the language of the issue was City Council President Joe McNamara, who is himself an at-large representative and on the ballot this year for re-election.
“In my opinion, as an attorney who has written a lot of legislation, Issue 2 is very poorly written, it is sloppy,” said McNamara, who then laid out three reasons for his judgment of the petition’s language.
First, the petition is “self contradictory,” said McNamara, in that it calls for the election of nine members of council in 2009 when only the at-large seats are in play.
Second, the amendment conflicts with the rest of the City Charter, he said, by laying out terms of service at odds with terms already delineated.
Third, the requirements for the super district candidates are unclear in several instances such as the necessary number of signatures for petitions.
“Laws have to be written clearly so that everyone can agree on the legal effect of the legislation,” said McNamara. “In this case there was no public process or review. Had there been, these problems would have been fixed.”
McNamara predicted that if Issue 2 passes in November the result will be numerous law suits challenging election outcomes, particularly from those candidates who do not earn one of the top three open spots – super districts. “We do not need this sort of chaos,” said McNamara.
To bolster his own analysis, McNamara presented a letter from Gerald Dendinger, Clerk of Council, whose duties include determining whether such a petition is sufficient to be placed on the ballot. In this case Dendinger did certify the petition while noting that Ohio court decisions have limited his review on the sufficiency only to the form of the petition, such as the necessary number of signatures.
Nevertheless, Dendinger has found the content of the Issue 2 petition to be troubling, particularly with respect to the election in November of nine council members.
After McNamara spoke to the process, Councilman Michael Ashford addressed the petition on its merits.
“There are voices that may not be represented,” said Ashford. “There is a balance now that ensures that all voices are heard.”
Ashford made the point that voters currently have the option of voting for representatives who would tend to be concerned with the narrow interests of certain parts of the city as well as for those whose primary focus are the interests of the city as a whole. For the most part, said Ashford, that balance would be severely disrupted by the passage of Issue 2.
Rothenbuhler concurred with both McNamara and Ashford. “I’m looking for a way for this to make sense,” said the party chairman. “It doesn’t. Working class people may be duped – we can’t allow that to happen.”
The coalition of those who have led the effort for Issue 2 includes Democrat Lindsay Webb, the District 4 council representative. Asked if the Democratic Party intends to censure Webb for actions that do not have the support of the party as a whole, Rothenbuhler demurred.
“There will be no censures,” he said. “We’re working hard to bring this party together, we are not going to single out anyone for censure.”
That’s great. Where is the other side represented in this story? And I love the low regard with which Rothenbuhler holds “working class people”
August 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm“Laws have to be written clearly so that everyone can agree on the legal effect of the legislation,” said McNamara. “In this case there was no public process or review. Had there been, these problems would have been fixed.”
Where does Joe get his radical approach to creating legislation? Certainly not from his fellow Democrats in the US Congress.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pmThere is an error in the story, the election is in September not November.
To rebut the legislative wizard’s points:
“First, the petition is “self contradictory,” said McNamara, in that it calls for the election of nine members of council in 2009 when only the at-large seats are in play.” – I am glad to hear he is not confused about what seats are up for election this year. If he doesn’t find it confusing then why is he and his fellow self-interested politicians trying to confuse the voters? He leaves out important words (very disingenuous) and as a lawyer he should know that the charter has to be read as a whole document and various sections harmonized together. This is just a diversionary scare tactic, that the media is growing tired about, hence the lack of news coverage today. His boys Terry and Adam didn’t cut it on July 9th so he was left to clean up their mess today.
“Second, the amendment conflicts with the rest of the City Charter, he said, by laying out terms of service at odds with terms already delineated.” – The amendment expressly covers that. Chalk that up as a big MOOT POINT.
“Third, the requirements for the super district candidates are unclear in several instances such as the necessary number of signatures for petitions.” – Nothing doing on this one. Again, a diversionary tactic. Language in the amendment states a “super-district shall be defined as a district…”. There will be two years to clean up any minor situations like that but absent that election officials would apply requirements of a district to the “super-district”.
I saw a quote on WTOL today from Mr. Mcnamara stating that these issues have to be addressed before the merits of the issue is debated. Well, I don’t think they want to debate the merits because the voters are on our side, the plan saves sorely needed money and it provides better and more accountable representation to Toledo residents. They would rather waste time spinning their wheels on baseless process questions and conjuring up scenarios only possible by suspending common sense and the laws of Ohio and the city. If only our leaders could use this creativity toward solving Toledo’s problems.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:14 amThe coverage of yesterday’s press conference from the Blade is also online.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:04 amOh geez… was someone actually considering cesuring Lindsay Webb for her contribution towards this? That really doesn’t give anyone who holds a government position any incentive to come up with new ideas. Why are the “official” Democrats so against this idea?
I hope that Joe McNamara reads everything that comes across his desk as closely as he has seemed to have read this proposal.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pmBecause they are more interested in power and politics than providing better government.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pmMost of the elected leaders for the last “how many years” – it seems forever – have had the endorsement of the LCDP. All one has to do is look at the condition of Toledo to ascertain their success in endorsing “leaders”. With such success, why wouldn’t we believe that they know what they are talking about when they slammed issue 2?
Time we all thought for ourselves and ignore the “political experts” and their advice.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pmA lot of politicians are worried about losing their power, so they are against the issue.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pmTerm limits are such a funny thing aren’t they.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am