This is a continuation of my evaluation of the issues appearing on the November ballot.
The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party issued its endorsements for Issues 3 and 10 through 14. This is my take on Issue 14
Democratic Party position: Yes
Matt’s position: Yes with caveat
Current System
The County Executive appoints all nine members of the Charter Review Commission.
County Council confirms all nine appointments.
Proposed System
Issue 14 changes the appointment process:
Four members appointed solely by the Executive
Four members appointed solely by Council
One member appointed by the Executive and confirmed by Council
The Charter Review Commission reviews the county’s governing Charter every 10 years and recommends possible amendments.
The commission cannot change the Charter itself. Council decides which proposed amendments reach the ballot, and voters make the final decision.
Benefits
Neither the Executive’s four appointees nor Council’s four appointees could control a nine-member commission alone.
Each side would need at least one additional vote to reach a five-member majority.
The proposal distributes appointment authority instead of allowing every nomination to originate with the Executive.
Potential Weaknesses
Eight of the nine members would no longer receive cross-branch review.
Under the current system, Council can reject any person nominated by the Executive.
Under Issue 14 however:
Council cannot reject the Executive’s four direct appointments.
The Executive cannot reject Council’s four direct appointments.
The ninth member is not independently chosen. The Executive nominates that person, and Council confirms or rejects the nomination.
Council’s four appointments are also not guaranteed to include minority-party, ideological or geographic representation. A Council majority could potentially control all four selections.
Existing restrictions would still prevent more than five commissioners from belonging to the same political party.
My Reasoning
I prefer distributing appointment power between the Executive and Council rather than allowing all nine nominations to originate with the Executive.
My position is: I support Issue 14 because it gives Council direct appointment authority and prevents one branch from originating every appointment to the Charter Review Commission.
Four members would come from the Executive, four from Council, and the ninth would require participation by both branches. My vote is yes.
However!!! Removal caveat belongs under Issue 12.
I believe shared appointment authority should be accompanied by an appropriate Council mechanism for initiating board-removal proceedings. Meaning, the council should be able to initiate removal, not just the executive.
Also, council’s four appointments are also not guaranteed to include minority-party, ideological or geographic representation.
Current restrictions would still prevent more than five commissioners from belonging to the same political party.