UPDATE: 1:20 PM
Mr. Olson,
Please see attached for my comments on today's blog.
Thank you.
Rick Gatien
Mr. Olson,
I read with interest your August 11 blog concerning the formation of a charter commission for Canton. As you know, I am a long-standing strong proponent of the formation of a charter commission. I continue to believe that any charter which is proposed MUST contain ward representation for members of Council. Your blog cites “a fear that a charter commission may take away some if not all of the ability of Cantonians living in Wards 2,3,4,5 and 6 to have any representation on Council.” Further, that Councilmember Fisher says one of the charter proponents advocates a Columbus plan whereby all members of Council are elected “at-large.” Who is this person?
If a Charter Commission did propose a plan whereby Ward representation is changed by either actually or substantively eliminating ward boundaries, the proposed charter would very likely be defeated. It would make no sense to invest a year in the preparation of a document that makes good on the alleged fears of half the city’s population (fears expressed by some elected representatives).
Let me pass along some commentary from the Introduction to the “Manual for Newly Elected Charter Commission Members in Ohio” authored by Dr. James B. Tinnin and John E. Gotherman:
“… It will not surprise most charter commission members to find that not everyone is for a charter. It does surprise many to find out that so many persons are opposed to charters generally or to the particular charter being proposed. Take, as an example, the situation where the people vote to choose a charter commission by a 2-1 favorable vote. While the margin of the vote seems impressive, it is important to remember that one third of the votes were against a charter generally. The second election to approve the charter deals with a particular charter document. Specific issues with respect to the form of government, civil service, etc. will be argued and it is expected that some of those voters who supported choosing a commission will be opposed to the particular charter proposed by the commission. In order to win a majority of votes, with an assumed one third of the voters against charters generally, it will be necessary to win the vote of 76% of the two-thirds of the voters who voted for choosing a charter commission in the election to approve the charter. Of course, there are many variables and our examples will not apply in every case. But it has been the experience that many charters are approved by a very narrow margin, and, of course many proposed charters are rejected by the electors.”
I believe the issue will make it to the ballot and a proposed charter will pass if it is well-balanced and reflective of the views of both sides of the North/South geography of Canton.
Rick Gatien
Mr. Olson,
I read with interest your August 11 blog concerning the formation of a charter commission for Canton. As you know, I am a long-standing strong proponent of the formation of a charter commission. I continue to believe that any charter which is proposed MUST contain ward representation for members of Council. Your blog cites “a fear that a charter commission may take away some if not all of the ability of Cantonians living in Wards 2,3,4,5 and 6 to have any representation on Council.” Further, that Councilmember Fisher says one of the charter proponents advocates a Columbus plan whereby all members of Council are elected “at-large.” Who is this person?
If a Charter Commission did propose a plan whereby Ward representation is changed by either actually or substantively eliminating ward boundaries, the proposed charter would very likely be defeated. It would make no sense to invest a year in the preparation of a document that makes good on the alleged fears of half the city’s population (fears expressed by some elected representatives).
Let me pass along some commentary from the Introduction to the “Manual for Newly Elected Charter Commission Members in Ohio” authored by Dr. James B. Tinnin and John E. Gotherman:
“… It will not surprise most charter commission members to find that not everyone is for a charter. It does surprise many to find out that so many persons are opposed to charters generally or to the particular charter being proposed. Take, as an example, the situation where the people vote to choose a charter commission by a 2-1 favorable vote. While the margin of the vote seems impressive, it is important to remember that one third of the votes were against a charter generally. The second election to approve the charter deals with a particular charter document. Specific issues with respect to the form of government, civil service, etc. will be argued and it is expected that some of those voters who supported choosing a commission will be opposed to the particular charter proposed by the commission. In order to win a majority of votes, with an assumed one third of the voters against charters generally, it will be necessary to win the vote of 76% of the two-thirds of the voters who voted for choosing a charter commission in the election to approve the charter. Of course, there are many variables and our examples will not apply in every case. But it has been the experience that many charters are approved by a very narrow margin, and, of course many proposed charters are rejected by the electors.”
I believe the issue will make it to the ballot and a proposed charter will pass if it is well-balanced and reflective of the views of both sides of the North/South geography of Canton.
Rick Gatien
ORIGINAL BLOG
It will be Wards 1,7, 8, 9 versus 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Kind of reminiscent to the SCPR of the Civil War between the North and South of the early United States of America.
With one critical difference.
In Canton's version of a division between North and South, there will be no bloodshed.
However, there could be some hard feelings. It depends on how it all shakes out.
Councilman Edmond Mack (Democrat, Ward 8) tells The Report that the numerous folks helping collect petition signatures (762 needed) are about 70% of the way to the required number.
Mack is the leader of a movement to convince Cantonians that the city needs to become a charter government so that to the degree allowed by State of Ohio law, it controls its own structure, processes and substance of government rather than being controlled by Columbus.
Mack figures that signatures will be gathered into December. He plans on gathering signatures outside Ward 8 polling places come the November 4, 2014 general election
One of the primary signature gathers that Mack cites is former Canton city councilman Robert Capestrain. He was among a number of Cantonians who on July 14th spoke out in favor of council approving putting the measure on the ballot for this November. Council rejected his and other citizens' request by a 7 "no" to 5 "yes" margin.
One of the more interesting analyses of the vote comes from Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher.
He pointed out, last evening to The Report, that the seven "no" votes came largely from councilpersons who represent areas of the city that roughly approximate the southern reaches of Canton when compared to the locale of those voting "yes."
The huge exception to Fisher's theory is, of course, Ward 9 councilman and majority leader (vice president of council Frank Morris). But the SCPR has learned that Morris has signed one of the petitions and perhaps such is evidence that he is supporting the creation of a charter commissioner of 15 members to be elected come May, 2015.
Fisher himself has not and will not be signing a petition, he tells the SCPR.
The Report wrote on July 15th that the "no" majority was grounded in "the fear factor."
In Fisher's case, at least, and perhaps for the other council persons voting "no," the SCPR accepts that it is not out of "personal political fear," but out of fear that a charter commission may take away some if not all of the ability of Cantonians living in Wards 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to have any representation on council.
Fisher says that one of the proponents of a charter for Canton is advocating a Columbus plan whereby all council persons are elected "at-large."
Well, that is not what Edmond Mack has in mind.
Mack, it seems to the SCPR, merely wants Canton - for immediate future - to be a charter city and thereby be in a position to have the flexibility to make changes to Canton government over time and with a thorough vetting having taken place of any proposed changes before enacted.
Fisher pointed out that those currently in Canton government who may have personal political axes to grind (the SCPR's words, not Fisher's) would include:
- the mayor
- Healy the power to appoint, let's say, the city treasurer,
- the treasurer
- Perez, who likely would want to keep his office elective, and
- the auditor
- Mallonn, also, who likely would like to keep his office elective
Fisher says he will run one more time (May/November, 2015) and if elected does not presently plan to seek a new term in 2017.
He also shared, which the SCPR had heard from another highly reliable source, that Councilman James Griffin will not be running for reelection in May, 2015.
However, both Fisher and Griffin have to be concerned that a charter government might result in citizens of their respective wards losing their right to be heard in future councils.
The SCPR understands those concerns but does not think that Canton adopting a charter form of government will entail much if any structural change.
In the meantime, it appears that the campaign for voter approval/disapproval on the issue of creating a charter commission will center largely on geographical divisions within the city.
I was born and raised in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania ("the turning point of the civil war) which sits a mere eight (8) miles north of the Maryland border.
The Pennsylvania/Maryland border, of course, was fixed by the Mason-Dixon Line.
Though the line started out as being in Colonial days as a resolution of boundary disputes between Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, that line pretty much separated the American states who favored maintaining slavery (south of the Mason-Dixon Line) and those opposed (north of the Mason-Dixon Line).
While, as set forth above, the political fight in Canton come May, 2015 thankfully will not be one fought with bullets, if not conducted with civility and due regard for the "local" (i.e. at the Ward level) interests of all Cantonians having a formal/institutional voice in Canton government, then this city which is already beset with many, many problems may well take on another.
If Cantonians create and elect a charter commission, in the up-to-a-year time span within which the commissioners have to put a plan of governance together to be put to a vote of the people, the resulting commission must be careful not to alter the representation scheme currently in place.
Otherwise the result might be the creation of a "virtual" Mason-Dixion Line which would not be helpful to Canton in its effort to bring itself out of the downward spiral that the SCPR thinks it is currently in.
SCPR Note: The graphic at the beginning of this blog is - in part - an extract from the ward map provided on the city of Canton website and re: the Mason Dixon Line and extract of a national map published at www.studies.com.http://www.studiesweekly.com/online/images/pubimages/485/2243/mason%20dixon%20line.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment