Hey all! I’m still struggling out of a food coma after attending last night’s Iron Fork event, but copious amounts of black coffee help me persevere. Anyway, let’s talk about news really quick.
I told you yesterday about the controversy swirling around a $200,000 contribution the Cincinnati Parks Board made to a group supporting Issue 22, the mayor’s proposed charter amendment funding the city’s parks. That controversy reached such a fever pitch that this morning, the Parks Board voted to ask for the money back. Though critics of that contribution say it is improper and illegal, the board stands by the appropriateness of its contribution, which it says came from a private endowment, not from tax dollars. However, board members said the money had become “a distraction” and that they’ve voted to ask for it back to keep from clouding the parks levy issue. Welp. There you go.
• Cincinnati City Council yesterday voted 5-4 to give City Manager Harry Black a 3-percent raise. There was controversy over the size of that raise, however, and debate about the process by which it was awarded. Black already received a 1.5-percent cost of living increase on his one-year anniversary over the summer, a fact Mayor John Cranley said he was unaware of. Some on Council, including Vice Mayor David Mann, thought another 3 percent on top of that cost of living bump was too much.
“It sends an improper message,” Mann said, citing the city’s high poverty rates and attention to income inequality over the past year. “I just can’t bring myself to support this large an increase.”
Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld expressed similar hesitancy with the size of Black’s raise, which will increase his salary to more than $256,000 a year. Sittenfeld said the overall 4.5-percent raise could present a tough position when the city negotiates wages with other city employees.
“Our society is upside down right now,” he said. “When you say 4.5 percent is right for those at the top, but not for you, that sends the wrong message.”
Councilman Chris Seelbach opposed any raise for the manager, saying his salary is already high enough. Though council members praised Black’s performance, some said there were areas for improvement. Councilwoman Yvette Simpson listed off a number of critiques, including a suggestion Black work harder at engaging the community. Simpson, Seelbach, Sittenfeld and Mann all voted against the 4.5-percent increase, though Sittenfeld and Mann said they were open to a smaller raise. Councilman Charlie Winburn voted for the raise, and generally praised Black, but had harsh words about his handling of the dismissal of former Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell, which he said the city had “botched up so bad.”
Some council members pointed out that the ordinance passed to hire Black last year stipulated a performance review for the city manager. That review, which was supposed to be performed by a committee and include input from all council members, was never completed. Instead, Mayor John Cranley says he’s gone over Black’s performance verbally with the city manager. Councilwoman Amy Murray also said yesterday that she sat down with Black to review his performance. Though council members Yvette Simpson and Chris Seelbach balked at providing Black with the raise without the stipulated committee review, other council members, including Kevin Flynn, pinned that responsibility on Council itself, not the mayor or the city manager. Flynn said that if Council wanted to review the city manager, it should have taken initiative and done so, and that it wasn’t fair to hold the city manager’s raise because it hadn’t.
• The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation swung through the area yesterday to talk about inner-city violence. And what better place to give such a talk than the mean streets of… Kenwood? Yeah. To be fair, that’s where the FBI’s local field office is, so that’s where FBI Executive Director James B. Comey gave remarks about the bureau’s increased efforts to deal with violent crime in inner-city neighborhoods. Though there isn’t any one over-arching initiative the bureau is launching, Comey said, it is definitely putting more of its top agents on the issue. Comey blamed the heroin crisis gripping many areas of the country for some of the violence, as well as short-handed law enforcement departments in many municipalities. Interestingly, however, there is some disagreement as to whether a big spike in crime actually exists. While some cities have seen a spike in murders and shootings, some of those increases come over rock-bottom lows in previous years, and the overall picture is more complex. Here’s a pretty fascinating exploration of that dynamic.
• It goes without saying that national politics, including the election of U.S. representatives, is like a kinda shady game of chess. And it looks like outgoing House Speaker John Boehner is moving a few pieces around before he splits. Some sources say Boehner’s been active in pushing for Butler County Auditor Roger Reynolds to take his District 8 seat in Congress. So far, a half-dozen GOP candidates have expressed interest in the seat, which will go to the winner of an as yet to be scheduled special election. According to The Cincinnati Enquirer, Boehner has been making calls on Reynolds’ behalf and helping introduce the 46-year-old to big wigs in the party. Boehner is set to leave his perch Oct. 30, but has also promised not to leave until Republicans have found someone to replace him as house speaker, which, umm… could take a while.
• So here’s an awkward situation that could happen. What if Ohioans pass both Issue 3, ResponsibleOhio’s marijuana legalization effort, and Issue 2, lawmakers’ attempt to do an end-run around the legalization effort by outlawing monopolies like the one ResponsibleOhio is proposing? Statewide polling says that could happen. A poll out of Kent State University found that 54 percent of adults are planning to vote yes on Issue 2, and 56 percent are planning on voting yes for Issue 3. Obviously, this is just one poll, and it’s likely that some people are just a little confused at this point, but it brings up an interesting and thus far unanswered question: What happens if voters approve to conflicting amendments to the state’s constitution? The short version of that answer is that no one really knows, and it would likely trigger a long court battle. Proponents for both sides take issue with the poll, of course, saying their particular effort will prevail and the opposition will not, citing their own polling. With just weeks before the election, this one’s going to be interesting.
