|
|
Council member candidate Pat Dewine says he had never gotten any mail from Councilman Tyrone Yates until an envelope from Yates arrived carrying the ballot language for Issue 4 — before council approved using tax funds to mail it out to voters.
It seems, Dewine said, that some stricter guidelines are needed for what individual council members use tax funds to mail.
“I thought it was interesting that here we were having a debate on whether council would pay for (the charter amendment ballot language) to be sent out to registered voters, and here a council member was already doing it,” said Dewine, a Republican.
After Yates’ mailing, council approved $46,590 to mail copies of the proposed amendment to every voter in the city.
Yates, who is opposed to Issue 4 — the charter amendment calling for a directly elected mayor — said he sent out 2,000 form letters that included the Issue 4 ballot language.
One of those letters was sent to Dewine, founder of Build Cincinnati and a proponent of the direct election of mayor.
Dewine said that Yates was wasting money by sending out the ballot language from his individual office.
“So now, not only do I have the ballot language from Mr. Yates, but I am going to have another one sent to me,” Dewine said.
He said this is an example of why there should be a limit to how much each council member is allowed to spend on mailings.
Taxpayers’ money is used to pay for an individual council member’s mailings and there is no limit to the amount a council member can spend on mailings, said Sandy Sherman, clerk of council.
He said he could see no way of imposing such a limit.
But Dewine said that one way could be to include mailings in the office budget.
“They shouldn’t be able to send out as much as they want at the taxpayers’ expense,” he said.
Why did Yates go ahead with his own mailing before council had decided the issue?
“Because I wanted to,” Yates said.
Since the charter amendment was approved for the May 4 ballot, there has been a campaign battle of sorts between supporters and opponents.
Issue 4 supporters such as Coming Together for Cincinnati, have endorsements from leaders of the Republican, Democratic and Charter parties, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers.
The group has raised more than $50,000 in campaign funds.
Citizens Against Issue 4, headed by Yates and supported by groups such as the Baptist Ministers Conference, Cincinnati National Organization of Women and the Urban League, has raised about $7,000.
Dewine also argues that Yates was too vague in the letter he mailed with the ballot language.
“I just feel he did not express the issue clearly in his letter and may have not completely represented what Issue 4 is,” Dewine said.
In the letter, Yates said that the “essence” of Issue 4 is that it expands the mayor’s authority over the city manager and legislative dealings of council.
Dewine said this was not a fair and accurate statement.
“This issue is about democracy and about the voters choosing the mayor they want, but that wasn’t in the letter I got from Mr. Yates,” Dewine said.
According to a city ordinance that was approved by council in September 1998, “council office resources shall not be used to support or oppose either the placement of an initiative or referendum issue on the ballot or the passage of a ballot issue.”
But an individual council member can use resources to create informational materials about a ballot issue as long as that council member does not directly advocate for or against the issue, according to the ordinance.
Yates said he sent out the mailings because he is the chairman of council’s law committee and this “is a legal issue.”
“I can mail out anything I want to mail out at any time,” Yates said “If it is a legal issue like the citizens’ police review board, I mail out information to proponents and opponents. I am an independent elected member of council, and I don’t care what Pat Dewine thinks.”
But Dewine said that Yates should care.
“We should closely look at this issue of large-scale mailings,” he said. “These should not be borne out of taxpayers’ money.” ©
This article appears in Apr 28 – May 4, 1999.