*

*
Politics Extra
Enquirer reporters give the scoop on what your politicians are doing


Jessica Brown,
Hamilton County reporter


Jon Craig,
Enquirer statehouse bureau


Jane Prendergast,
Cincinnati City Hall reporter


Malia Rulon,
Enquirer Washington bureau


Carl Weiser,
Blog editor


Howard Wilkinson,
politics reporter

Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Cole & Crowley object to Berding's Rules of Order

Proposed rule changes intended to streamline City Council and get its members focused on the "big picture" are so far having the opposite effect.

The Rules & Government Operations Committee debated the new rules for nearly four hours Monday -- even as City Council members came in and out to meet with the mayor over the collapse of the Banks project.

Upset that the process was moving too quickly, Democrat Laketa Cole asked for a separate roll-call vote on each of City Council's 92 rules -- governing everything from where council members sit to how a motion becomes an ordinance. One debate, over who gets the best office space, went on for so long that freshman Charterite Chris Bortz suggested "a tournament of arm wrestling" as most fair way to decide the issue.

The new rules are based on a memo circulated by Rules Committee Chairman Jeff Berding, a Democrat, before being sworn in. The proposal no longer includes further restrictions on who can speak at a council meeting. It does abolish a requirement that City Council hold up to five "town hall" meetings a year in city neighborhoods -- a rule the council hadn't been following anyway.

Cole and fellow Democrat David C. Crowley, who seem to be forming a dissident voting bloc in the early days of the 40th City Council, sent out this statement explaining their position:
Today, at the first committee meeting of the new City Council, a proposal was brought forward that suggests 38 changes to the rules which govern the manner in which City Council conducts the public's business.

The document was first made publicly available at today's 1 p.m. meeting. They represent major changes in the way Council operates including how legislation is brought forward, what subjects are discussed at public meetings, how meetings are chaired, how legislation becomes law, how often Council members can speak during public meetings and much more. The Rules Committee wants Council to adopt these drastic changes on Wednesday of this week.

Members of Council first received the proposed changes at today's meeting and asked for more time for public review before implementing the dramatic changes. Despite the obvious objections, the Committee decided to rush a vote of the changes for this Wednesday's Council Meeting. Crowley and Cole want to alert the public and the media that these changes are being rushed to a vote and encourage them to contact their Council members to ask that the process be slowed down so proper public input can be gathered.

"This is more than just tweaking some rules, this is the way in which our government and elected officials operate. This is not Council's business-it is the public's. We have a duty to provide adequate public input before making sweeping changes to the rules, these aren't our rules they are the citizen's rules," said council member Crowley.

Cole added, "The new rules propose that new legislation should not be sprung upon Council, or the public without adequate time for public consumption. In fact, the way in which these rule changes have been brought forward violates this rule. The rules of Council have a major effect on the City's legislative process, and therefore the City as a whole. We should proceed with caution and allow for public input."


17 Comments:

at 3:37 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad Crowley & Cole are giving Berding a lesson in civics 101.

Jeff--leader of the Bengals stadium deal--Berding probably thinks democracy is something you can buy or sell, and you just discard those who upset the old boys network.

 
at 3:41 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great start for Mallory! Council is more of the same - rushed motions, granstranding and non-stop bickering (where is Mark's leadership and consensus building abilities? No where to be found); the Banks Project fell apart on his second full day as Mayor - and all he could say was, 'well, this is a good thing for taxpayers'; he already took a vacation (and somebody really should ask where he went); and he has YET to say what he plans to do as Mayor or what new ideas he plans to push. What a nightmare for the City.

Thank G-d for the Bengals.

 
at 4:49 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Berding is able to do this because Mallory is M.I.A. No one is in charge so everyone does what they want = chaos.

 
at 4:52 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, Cole and Crowleys antics are ridiculous and only an attempt to create havoc.
Second, it is ridiculous that council members are arguing over who gets the best seat. What grade are we in anyway?

 
at 5:26 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

what do you expect from council's two smallest minds - cole & crowley.

both are sore from not being named vice mayor (and crowley thankfully booted from the ED chair, too) and are acting out.

please give a warm hand for the smitherman & reece of the 40th city council.

 
at 5:41 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Government Charterite Chris Bortz suggests arm wrestling? What's next, deciding tie votes with "rock, paper, scissors?"

 
at 6:41 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it was Bird-dog Berding giving the old curmudgeon and his you-go-girl pal a civics lesson.

Laketa needs to realize that Alica ain't around no mo' to give her cues.

 
at 7:08 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Referring to Cole and Crowley as a "dissenting voting bloc" sounds like a really nice way of saying they're a couple of malcontents, more interested in preserving their own limited power than getting anything done for the city.

 
at 7:14 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post 5:41- can you say "ironic" ? Guess you don't get Bortz's humor.
Only Cole could call for a vote on 92 freakin rules- kinda reminds ya of Reece's filibuster on the Convergys deal.
Post 3:41-Please explain how Mallory is to blame for the Banks & Corporex's withdrawal? If anything look at Heimlich's actions.
BTW since you left the o out of God in keeping with Jewish belief, Happy Hanukkah!

 
at 7:48 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that Laketa Cole is a government leader in the city that I love makes me want to vomit. She is simply unqualified to do anything of any importance. She is a city-wide JOKE!

 
at 11:46 PM, December 06, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who writes this stuff for Laketa?

 
at 2:29 AM, December 07, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, enough already, what about the rule changes - has anyone studied them all?

If we want to change Cincinnati for the better then we all had better agree on the rules.

We could all do with a lesson in civics, lets start with council but expand it to action in the city.

Join us at the Cincinnati Change headquarters at 2439Auburn Avenue from the 13th to the 16th of January 2006 to decide on what action and solutions
that we can do.

Also on the 16th of January 2006 join us at the Cincinnati Music Hall for a free concert for Martin Luther King.

 
at 7:37 AM, December 07, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Berding is an idiot. Just see if he does ANYTHING with the other Democrats. He won't...because he is NOT a Democrat

 
at 8:39 AM, December 07, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't it Berding who was complaining because he got the smallest office?

I agree with Cole and Crowley. The public should have the chance to review the proposed rules. After all, it is our City Council, not Jeff Berding's.

 
at 10:51 AM, December 07, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, having looked over the rules Korte attached, it appears that the rushed process Berding/Mallory are leading violates both the old rules and new rules. Under Rule 7.142 (which requires that legislation be considered at one committee meeting AFTER the meeting where that legislation is first introduced), since he only introduced the specific rules on Monday, he is REQUIRED to have another committee meeting so that the public has an opportunity to weigh in. Ironically, passing these rules today would violate the rules.

 
at 9:04 AM, December 08, 2005 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I believe that it is still too early to predict, these rule changes are quivers in the water that the ship is being tightened. Reducing time permitted for debate, the sunset clause, defining of by-leaves will all help to legislatively streamline council during sessions. The friday introduciton of new legislation streamlines when council is out of session. When taken collectively they appear to be taking some of the sloppiness and gamesmanship out of legislative manuvers. It can be viewed as a more orderly approach to the wheres and whens of legislation. You know where and when to expect new legislation and these ordinances and resolutions are not sitting around with an indefinate lifespan. Some of these more politically charged resolutions become more and more like day old tuna sandwiches when left alive in the council chambers. It serves as a limiter on the passions of council in that if the issues isn't dealt with during a specific session, the member must be motivated enough to re-introduce. Sometimes just airing the complaint out is enough, but if we are not going to eat it, then please through that sandwich away at the end of the day.

The changes in "sole and absolute discretion" of committee chairs is cementing the operation of committees. Members of committees are not equals as one is a chair and another vice chair. The rest are not. Clearly this places the mayor's hand-picked chairs in complete control of legislative scheduling, debate and all operations of the committee.

The requirement for signatures on motions requiring reports appears to be an attempt at placing a threshold requirement on requests for reports. This means that the bureaucracy jumps less at every whim of council and could lead to less micromanagement by council members. If the passion is there, council gets the report. But it also means that there will be less "Mr. Smith goes to washington" and the individual takes on the machine. [Aside: Was it Mr. Smith or Mr. Smith-erman? Regardless they are both politically dead.]
MERGNER

 
at 6:40 AM, December 03, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi people
I do not know what to give for Christmas of the to friends, advise something ....

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck