League of Women Voters Chooses Partisanship
Submitted by Anastasia Pantsios on Sun, 10/11/2009 - 2:43pm.
My mother was an active League of Women Voters member most of her life, eventually working her way up to president of the Chicago Region LWV. She never had a paid job, but devoted herself to her League work as tirelessly as if it were a paid career. (She was especially active around education and peace issues).
It should have been almost automatic for me to join the League, but I was politically inactive for decades and anyway, it seemed like an older ladies’ group. Last year, when I attended several LWV-sponsored debates, that impression increased. I was especially turned off by the group’s over-scrupulousness about seeming “nonpartisan” by insisting that no one attending these debates wear any T-shirt or insignia supporting any candidate. I figured since I’m always open about my support for candidates and issues, it would be impossible for me to belong to a group that insisted these allegiances be concealed.
That’s why it was such a shock to me to learn that the local branch of LWV has swung wildly in the other direction, opting to endorse in perhaps the most partisan issue race in my memory: Cuyahoga county “reform” issues 5 and 6. It has chosen to throw is lot with the Republican issue — Issue 6.
The Plain Dealer has characterized Issue 5 as being about Democrats trying to hold on to power. I agree. But what the PD doesn’t say is that Issue 6 is about Republicans trying to GRAB power. In fact, despite a couple of opposite-party showponies on each side, BOTH issues are primarily about who has power and who will have it.
The League — and a few of the other supporters who I believe are sincere but misguided — will tell you that Issue 6 is about reform and “good government.” It’s not — unless you believe, for some reason, that Republicans are inherently more honest, more decent and less corrupt than Democrats (I don’t hold this belief). Even the Plain Dealer was forced to concede last Monday that there was nothing in Issue 6 about campaign-finance reform, leaving the door open to the ultra-powerful county executive Issue 6 creates being flooded with campaign cash — and in essence, pre-corrupted. Some pooh-poohed this objection, saying it could be fixed later. Good luck getting people to concede power they’ve just won.
It’s pretty plain: With party-line breakdowns in the Board of Elections decision on which to give the favorable ballot position, in the respective endorsements of the county party organizations and in the people who are lining up in support of each issue (mayors supporting Issue 6 are overwhelmingly Republican and/or from outer ring/wealthy suburbs; its co-chairs overwhelmingly represent business and law firms, with few, if any, representatives from education, social services, nonprofits, neighborhood groups or labor). Issue 5 is about Democratic power, Issue 6 is about Republican power. Neither guarantees cleaning up of corruption; in fact, neither really has anything to do with it — although Issue 6 supporters have cynically conflated the issues as their surest route to victory (and the way they have sucked in some Democrats).
I think the League will come to regret having picked a side in this race — quickly, if Issue 6 passes. Certainly, no Democrat has any reason to want to join the League in Cuyahoga County.
Please Provide Examples
Anastasia, Summit County has used a form of government very similar to Issue 6 for the past three decades. I have yet to hear you or any other Issue 6 detractor provide examples of how all the terrible awful things you predict will happen, have happened over the last 30 years in Akron. If you can't or won't provide examples, then I'll safely assume that you are simply fear-mongering.
The current Summit County Executive, Russ Pry, is also chairman of the Summit County Democratic Party. All five State Representative seats that are in Summit County in whole or in part are represented by Democrats. Hmm, sounds to me like the Democratic Party is alive and well in Summit County, after 30 years of living with a system of government similar to Issue 6.
Again, please provide examples of how all the horrors you predict will happen, have happened in Akron. I'm all ears.
I can't provide those examples, Nick
because the Summit COunty system isn't really all that similar, the executive isn't as powerful as this one, and political power structure of the county isn't remotely similar. There is very little about the counties that is similar and in fact, if a public process had produced a reform system more like Summit's, I MIGHT be more inclined to favour it. (My friendsin Summit say it hasn't been a magic solution and has its problems). Facts are facts here in Cuyahoga: Issue 5 is supported by the Democrats. Issue 6 is the Republican issue. A handful of people in each party support the other issue, but not a meaningful number. More disturbing is the almost total business/legal orientation of Issue 6. It seems clear to me it's about transferring the power and resources of the county as much as possible to a wealthy elite, so they don't even have to hold discussion with us about future projects.
I am voting for Issue 6
I have worked with homeless people for years, and would have never voted for this Republican led effort until I saw how bad the County handled stimulus dollars this summer. They had a once in a life time opportunity and failed, because our elected officials were too busy working on coming up with this study plan of Issue 5. Then they were so arrogant sitting up on high at the administration building that they condemned all of those who criticized their staff. The one Commissioner with a history of support for justice issues sat silently.
This was the final straw for me. 20 years of doing very little to address poverty is enough. We are currently second in the nation. I have heard the arguments from people that I have a great deal of respect (Foley, Skindell, and Frank Jackson), but I think we need a dramatic shakeup here. These elected officials have forgotten who they represent. I think that I would have had better luck with a County Council. We need to throw these guys out to start again. I agree with the League that this is all about good government, and we have studied this problem for 15 years. The sooner we get a new County government the better.
Social Justice Brian
Brian, this "reform" won't provide what YOU need
In fact, I fear for the homeless and others who are struggling. I don't necessarily disagree we need a "dramatic shakeup," but I don't think we need one by fiat from the wealthiest citizens of this town. These are the same people who have driven the county into poverty by pushing our current officials to acquiesce to their needs before those of "the least of these." Don't expect THAT to change once they actually have their hands on the levers of power and don't have to work to persuade those in power.
My question to you, Brian, is, OK, we level our SYSTEM of government and completely rebuild it (The cost of that will come out of the hides of the homeless, guarantee). Where are these wonderful saviors who are going to inhabit this new system and bring us this "good government"? Because ultimately, government isn't about systems, it's about individuals. And if we just go all cynical and toss EVERYBODY out, the good with the bad, where do we find all these fabulous new people with the integrity, the honesty, the experience and the ideas we need? Where have they been hiding? And why would they emerge once the new system becomes about a centralization of pwoer to the point where only catering to the wealthy business interests will allow you a foot in the door?
I think "I'm disgusted so let's toss everybody and everything out" is the single worst reason to vote for Issue 6. I wish you well in your work, but I don't think a general disgust with the way things may have worked in the past is going to move that work ahead. Human nature is what it is; this new system, whatever it turns out to be, is unlikely to be a sparkling example of governmental integrity and new thinking. I don't know who this new generation of spiffy new leaders is who have been totally uninvolved in the past but are now ready to step up and make things happen without focusing on the old-school power brokers. I wish I did.
Reply to Anastasia
I have talked to 24 people and no one is voting against Issue 6. These are mostly lefty progressives who are also fed up.
There are plenty of good people in this community to be our Council and/County Executive especially with State term limits that have never had the chance to run against the machine. If we did not have Jim Rokakis, who would have led the outcry about foreclosures? We certainly did not hear much from the current county commissioners. If there was a County council and the issue started hitting Cleveland Hts, Lakewood, and South Euclid, we hope that those County Council members would push this as an issue that the County should take the lead on solving. The City passed legislation, sued the banks, but the County did very little while the levee walls were crumbling.
I am willing to take a shot at a new form of government after the poor job the County has done on welfare reform, job creation for low income people, living wages, child support reform, massive debt problems among citizens, the inability to find free health care esp. drug treatment, the injustice system for low income African Americans, and a lack of a County Housing policy.
We have studied this problem to death. It is time to act.
Social Justice Brian
voting against them both
Brian, imho, you make the strongest argument against your own position when you stated:
>> The City passed legislation, sued the banks, but the County did very little while the levee walls were crumbling.<<
Are you posturing that the County would have only cared if they had all the power? I do not naively believe that a new form of government will bring different results if it's simply some version of the same old players.
I respect all sides of the argument and have many colleagues in support of 6. However until the Feds have finished their own version of County cleansing, I fear any restructuring will simply confound that process and allow more who may get indicted to avoid it. Could well, in the aftermath of a change in government structure just be another version of:
Who's on first? What's on second? Oh why bother that was the prior administration under that antiquated government form - punt.
That's the point
"If we did not have Jim Rokakis, who would have led the outcry about foreclosures?"
Exactly. And if Issue 6 takes effect, after a year we'll no longer have Jim Rokakis. So enjoy the County Foreclosure Prevention Program while you can.
Or maybe you think Rokakis is on someone's short list for Executive? Or even the appointed Treasurer job?
LOL.
For Anastasia -- on LWV, Republicans and a County Charter
I'm new on this block, sent to you by PoorRichard2 of PD blog fame. What an initiation, Anastasia! I hope your devoted League of Women Voters mom, wherever she is, is watching and reproving her wayward daughter. (BTW -- there has NEVER been a time when the LWV hasn't supported and worked for issues it has studied and reached consensus upon. Never candidates, never parties, but ALWAYS issues, as your mom is/was well aware.)
Since I hang out mostly with Democrats and know some of those scurrilous League ladies up close and personal, let me assure you that you dreadfully misread the support for this Issue #6 County Charter. Backers of County Home Rule and an updating of that Byzantine, archaic structure have been progressive Democrats since the beginning of time -- not machine-politician-type Democrats, but the kind that constantly work for social responsibility and governmental solutions to shared societal problems. Sound like any Republicans you know? Get serious!
Now I do agree that Issue #6 has attracted some strange bedfellows, and not all on the bandwagon have the purest motives. I suspect Republicans like it because they've been shut out so long that a voice here and there, on County Council or on some commission or other, sounds like a good idea. Business people like it, too, because it partially frees the county from its shackles to the Legislature, forces 5-year economic development plans, etc. League of Women Voters types love it because it is organizationally integrated and guarantees transparent decision-making and multiple checks against abuse of power. And THINKING (rather than PROTECTING) Democrats like it for those same reasons. I say "protecting," because all of the blog-trashing that you and your ilk like to do is very obviously PROTECTIVE of the regime and corrupted system you support.
Ever since your Commissioners put Issue #5 on the ballot in an obvious attempt to stop the Charter bandwagon, your Circle-The-Wagons strategy has been ratchetting up. Trashing the League of Women Voters is just the latest strategy, because those women seem to have hit the nail on the head. And trashing the Charter because it is a Republican power grab is LUDICROUS! All but two of the many people I know who support Issue #6 are DEMOCRATS. Get over it -- your party DOES include a whole lot of people who promote Good Government. Why not just give up and join us?