Majority of council favors executive sessions

It appears a majority of Cincinnati City Council favor the idea of meeting behind closed doors to discuss sensitive topics, like personnel evaluations, pending lawsuits and real estate transactions.

That means voters in Cincinnati will get the final say.

The city’s Rules and Government Operations Committee discussed for nearly an hour Tuesday the idea of changing the charter to allow closed-door executive sessions. The issue will likely be voted on by the entire council Thursday. It will take six affirmative votes to place the issue on city-wide ballots this November.

Committee members Jeff Berding, Chris Bortz and Laketa Cole all said the change was needed.

"Only Cleveland in Ohio doesn't have executive sessions," Bortz said. "Why can't we keep up with cities around us, like Newport? Not being allowed to go into executive session puts us at a competitative disadvantage. I don't think that's appropriate."

Members David Crowley and Chris Monzel said they would oppose the measure.

"I am surprised at the suddenness of this proposition," Crowley said. "Moving us into executive sessions might be moving us back rather than forward, especially if you believe in open government. I think it's a stretch to say it's impeded our development."

The chairmen of the Republican, Democratic and Charterite parties wrote a letter to council, urging the proposal. But committee chair Berding actually requested that the letter be written so they could push it through before Friday's deadline to place items on the ballot.

Two council members who are not part of the committee attended the meeting and weighed in, even though they could not vote on the proposal. Cecil Thomas said he supports closed-door sessions, while Leslie Ghiz said she'll be voting no.

While Jim Tarbell wasn't at the meeting, he has complained for years about council not being allowed to enter into executive sessions and is a sure-fire yes vote on the proposal.

Mayor Mark Mallory said he is against the idea -- at least, not for now: "I just don't see why we need to rush into making this change without a lot of public input."