.JPG)
CBS fall TV premiere party
Couple makes backyard retreat
News hounds (7/29/10)
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 26 > Entry
Kevin Riley: We should keep an eye on Cuyahoga County changes
Cuyahoga County has an ambitious plan to change its government. We in the Dayton region ought to be watching and learning from it.
The most populous county in the state was rocked by scandal in its county government in the summer of 2008 when about 200 FBI agents raided the county offices in Cleveland and the homes of some county officials. That scandal is still unfolding with news of arrests, indictments and plea bargains. It has exposed a pattern of patronage and blatant corruption.
The scandal gave citizens the incentive to overwhelmingly pass a measure to radically change Cuyahoga County’s government structure — the same county structure virtually all Ohio counties have had since before the Civil War.
County government in Ohio has been structured in this way:
• A three-member county commission, elected by all voters in the county.
• More than a half-dozen elected county officeholders, including sheriff, coroner, auditor, recorder, clerk of courts, engineer, prosecutor and treasurer. These offices are also elected countywide.
Even a well-informed citizen would look at all of those offices and struggle to explain what the officials do. But, more important, county government in Ohio creates a confusing system of accountability. No one person or entity is responsible for the county’s overall spending, budgeting and planning. In Montgomery County, the total budget is about $900 million.
Things went wildly wrong in Cuyahoga County, where patronage jobs and other financial shenanigans showed just how dysfunctional the arrangement can become.
Montgomery and other local counties (except maybe Butler) don’t have the same traditions of misbehavior that Cuyahoga County has (though the county is embarrassed by the pending Southern Christian Leadership Conference scandal and its poor monitoring of public money it awarded that group).
In fact, folks from around Ohio generally view Montgomery County as well run and progressive — one of the best in what really is an antiquated system.
(In Montgomery County, we did in the recent past have a county recorder who just refused to come to work, but that’s a story for another time.)
In November, Cuyahoga County overwhelmingly passed Issue 6, which created this structure of government for the county:
• An 11-member council, with each officeholder elected by a district.
• A county executive elected by all voters in the county.
The plan abolishes the other county offices — except prosecutor — and puts financial and other functions into the hands of the county executive.
The goal of those who promoted the measure is to make county government work better and more efficiently. The ambition is also to help the county do a better job with economic development.
According to Ned Hill, Dean of the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University, the success of this change depends on how well county services are preserved, while lowering costs and creating “transparency.”
So why should we care about all of this?
• Our state clearly has a problem with its governments at the local level. Last week the Brookings Institution issued a report that argues that the state’s local government structure is bloated and costly.
• Area counties are under financial strain. In Montgomery County, a recent task force urged leaders to look at changing how the county is structured, given that the county isn’t growing and the current arrangement is becoming unaffordable.
• Also, there has been occasional talk of the possibility of merging the City of Dayton with Montgomery County — a consolidation modeled after such a change in Louisville, Ky.
Before we consider something like that, we ought to ask: “What problem are we trying to solve?”
Cuyahoga County’s plan is no panacea. We’ll have to decide what kind of change we want and are willing to make happen.
While changing county government might be a start, in Cuyahoga County, there will still be major issues between the City of Cleveland and the dozens of other cities in the county. Counties also have constrained roles under Ohio’s constitution.
And in our region, we have a struggle and rivalries between counties, as Greene County demonstrated by its recent decision to sharply cut its support of the region’s Dayton Development Coalition.
Reforming a county government won’t change that kind of problem.
But we should keep an eye on Cuyahoga County. At some point, our region is likely to have to make changes. And we shouldn’t wait for a crisis.
Permalink | Comments (19) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Joe Lacey
February 27, 2010 8:04 AM | Link to this
If law enforcement was the responsibility of the county executive, then you wouldn’t have the Sheriff granting a contract to his sister.
By bobby
February 27, 2010 12:54 PM | Link to this
Joe, If law enforcement was the responsibility of a county administrator in Montgomery County, I shudder to think how much “consideration” Raleigh Trammel and his crew would have received. Any malfeasance by the Sheriff is minuscule, relative to the Austin Rd. sweetheart deals, and the wasted tax dollars perpetrated by the Montgomery County Commission and Administrator.
By Joe Lacey
February 28, 2010 9:40 AM | Link to this
Bobby, what role did the Sheriff’s office have in the investigation of Raleigh Trammel?
By Joe Lacey
February 28, 2010 9:51 AM | Link to this
Bobby, if you think the six figures that the Sheriff’s sister got is miniscule malfeasance then you have a pretty low ethical threshold for your public officials. What’s you defense for Joy Clark?
By bobby
February 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Link to this
Joe, The Sheriff hired a relative to perform a service for his office,which she performed. The service was not paid for by taxpayer money. The same can not be said of the examples that were referenced. Do you really want the Sheriff to get involved in an investigation of Raleigh, human services money, and political ethics? I’m sure he would welcome the Commissioner’s or your invitation.
By Joe Lacey
February 28, 2010 4:13 PM | Link to this
Bobby, you are suggesting that if law enforcement were under a county executive in a reform government that Rev. Trammell would not have been investigated as he is now. You have nothing to back that up and yes, the Sheriff is perfectly free to investigate the Rev. He doesn’t need an invitation from anyone.
By Tom
February 28, 2010 5:00 PM | Link to this
Let us not forget that the Sheriff did not hire his sister, the previous Sheriff did. Let us also not forget that the increase in appraiasal fees was not questioned by then Clerk of Courts, and current commissioner, Dan Foley. Finally, the appraisal fees are paid by the party who is forclosing not the taxpayers. The money going to the Rev is OUR tax dollars as is the money subsidizing the Austin development.
By bobby
February 28, 2010 5:50 PM | Link to this
Joe, If the “reform” administrator is an elected official,then political parties will be involved. It is difficult to believe that any reform administrator that received the endorsement of the Democratic Party would act any differently than the current commissioners and their administrator. They were asleep,or in denial, or incompetant until the FBI initiated their investigation. It is their responsibity and no one else. Any investigation initiated by the Sheriff, at this point, would be considered a political witch hunt. The FBI is perfectly capable of investigating fraud.
By bobby
February 28, 2010 5:57 PM | Link to this
correction: incompetent
By jp
February 28, 2010 9:45 PM | Link to this
You go, bobby.
By Joe Lacey
March 1, 2010 6:19 PM | Link to this
An elected county executive would be the highest office in the county. He or she would be under far more scrutiny than the many elected officials we have today. The executive would also be watched over by a council elected by districts. It’s not likely that such a system would allow the executive to hire his sister like the sheriff did or not show up for work like Joy Clark did. Bobby claims that an executive would not have given consideration to the actions of Rev. Trammell but, with the greater scrutiny on the executive, there’s no basis for that claim.
By Joe Lacey
March 1, 2010 6:24 PM | Link to this
Bobby’s and Tom’s explanation that the money paid by the sheriff to his sister is not taxpayer money is a bureaucratic explanation. The money is public funds collected and spent by the sheriff on behalf of taxpayers. It doesn’t matter if these are fines, fees or taxes, the sheriff is accountable to the public for his handling of these dollars and spending them on his sister doesn’t promote confidence in our county government.
By bobby
March 1, 2010 10:05 PM | Link to this
Joe, As we both know, the issue is nepotism. I am sure, as a board member or the Dayton City Schools, you have no knowledge of a former school board member[now on the move up side of state life] that allegedly influenced the peple running the show to make his relative the athletic director. Joe,let it go. Martin Gottlieb exposed you for the political hack that you are,
By bobby
March 1, 2010 10:12 PM | Link to this
Joe, I have reconsidered and I think you should be the county administrator to lead us from the abyss.
By Joe Lacey
March 1, 2010 10:28 PM | Link to this
Martin Gottlieb never wrote anything about me, Bobby. And with regard to nepotism, you are trying to tag me with something that happened long before I was elected to the board. Why? Because you don’t want county government reformed? Why not argue the merits of the current system? Is it easier to make up things about me?
By bobby
March 1, 2010 11:03 PM | Link to this
Joe, Thanks. Tomorrows editorial will enlighten you. I definitley want reform. I know that weak democrats, like the people you support, are not the people we need to lead.Foley, Lieberman, and Dodge would resign if pride was an issue.
By Tom
March 2, 2010 8:53 AM | Link to this
Joe, I would certainly want any gov’t official to be responsible for funds spent whether they be tax dollars, fee dollars, or other dollars. I think the Sheriff came in and paid what was being paid when he was elected. Check that, he submitted for payment and the Clerk actually paid it. I wonder if any licensed appraiser would touch those appraisals for $85 much less $60 each. Remember, these folks don’t get the nice health care and PERS that you do. They pay for their own expenses out of that fee.
By Tom
March 2, 2010 9:03 AM | Link to this
Nepotism…makes most of our local politicians nervous. It is all over the county. Someone always finding a friend or family member a job. Judy Dodge’s daughter working for the Auditor, Tom Robert’s sister working for the Auditor, friends of influential people in jobs they have no idea how to do. Hellen Jones Kelly (of Joe the plumber fame), has a sweet job at the county as does her husband. It goes on and on and on.
By here's an idea...
March 4, 2010 7:16 PM | Link to this
I would like to commend the Montgomery County Commissioners on functioning well within this antiquated system; however, I’d like to propose that you stop funnelling mental health and substance abuse funding through the ADAMHS board, whose reputation is one of incompetence, greed, and inability to collaborate, until such time as they replace the all of the staff members that cause their dysfunction. They serve as the black mark on this county’s resume. If Strickland follows through on his plan to stop allocating funds to local ADAMHS boards, they will be counting on the county to perpetuate a need for their existance. Don’t give them the satisfaction.