While we understand there are some good intentions in a couple of provisions contained in Issue 3, a Cincinnati charter amendment billed as an anti-corruption measure, as a whole, there is way too much at stake to have so many important issues bundled together as an all-or-nothing package for voters.
Instead of making City Hall more functional and less corrupt, some of the proposed charter changes could create more confusion and make it even more difficult for council to get things done.
For example, one provision would require Cincinnati City Council to approve all lawsuits filed by the city. This strikes us as a nightmarish waste of time that could be better spent by council elsewhere. We have a city manager and a city solicitor for a reason. Council members should set policy, not micromanage and politicize legal actions.
Then, there are the measures that try to put a check on the mayor. One enables the mayor to be recalled after a year on the job, and the other would limit the mayor's power to set the council agenda. The latter provision is perhaps the most troubling. We elect a mayor for a reason and the city needs a place where the buck stops; that place should be on the mayors desk. These aspects of the charter change have the potential to create a puppet mayor who is unable to lead effectively.
There are, however, some provisions that are appealing. For example, we like the idea of strengthening the teeth in our open records laws and holding council members more accountable.
All of the provisions contained in Issue 3 are worthy of debate and consideration, and voters should have been able to decide each on its own merits. Instead, they are being forced to vote on this tangled mess of disparate concepts rolled into one issue. For this reason, we are recommending voters say NO to Issue 3.
Opinion Editor Kevin S. Aldridge writes this on behalf of the editorial board which includes, Executive Editor Beryl Love and Editorial Board members Christine Marallen and Gil Spencer.
Source link
