RESIDENTS NOW BEHOLDEN TO CLEVELAND WATER DEPARTMENT

Last Tuesday Council authorized the deal to give away one of the city's assets----its water lines---to the scandal-plagued Cleveland Water Department in exchange for the promise that the Department will, supposedly, replace the city's water lines.

When will that happen?
Who knows.
The financing part of this is unclear, and we aren't the only fish to bite. Many other cities have water lines that are older and in far worse shape.
My advice:

Don't hold your breath waiting to see any real benefit from this asset give-away.

It appears to me that the only way the Department will be able to fund this alleged water replacement "freebie" is by adding a hefty infrastructure replacement charge to your and my future water bills.

So the city keeps all its tax dollars and shifts the infrastructure replacement costs to you and me.

Whoppee

The Clevland Water Department's problems have been well documented.....meter failures, billing errors and, most recently, continuing EPA violations.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/investigations/cleveland-water-promises-fix-on-critical-equipment-failures-after-news-5-investigation

Great going, guys

Procedure vs. Practical--Compromise Reached

In my last blog I discussed Council's wrestling match over fast-tracking non-emergency vehicle purchases for the police and fire departments.

Apparently Council members worked out a compromise after that Council meeting.

On Tuesday Council members unanimously agreed to speed up the process by suspending the 3rd required reading of the spending authorization legislation.

No new emergency was involved to justify by-passing the rules but it will get things rolling 2 weeks earlier.

To avoid any similar controversy, Council heard the first reading of legislation authorizing the purchase of the second new police vehicle that Police Chief Jim Cook expected to buy later this year, as anticipated in this year's budget.

Public Comments

For the second Council meeting in a row, former Mayor Tom Hughes took advantage of the meetings' Public Speaking portion to fume about drainage issues in his yard which he claims resulted from the development of an adjoining neighbor's property.

Hughes has made repeated appearances at Council meetings over the last few years raising the issue.
His (to-date unsuccessful) position seems to be that the city's approval of the neighbor's building/zoning requests renders it responsible for fixing his drainage problem.

There is a 3 minute per speaker time limit imposed during the Public Speaking portion.

While that might seem brief, one of the benefits for all stakeholders---Council members, city administrators and the general public in attendance----is that it encourages public speakers not to ramble and to zero in on the point they want to make.

In other words, to think and prepare what they want to say before they get up to speak.

In my observation Council has always been pretty tolerant when enforcing the time limit.

Warnings are given. Speakers are given an opportunity to finish their thoughts and sum up.

Hughes, for example, was allowed to go on for 9 minutes before his speech was gaveled to a close.
In my experience that's been pretty much par for the course every time Hughes has come to Council meetings to speak.

The former mayor hates the time limit. He thinks it should be eliminated. He told Council:

"I was always delighted when residents of this community came to council meeting because it always gave me an opportunity to talk to them about things of concern to them...If I didn't listen to them then I couldn't hear them, and if I didn't hear them I couldn't represent them....We need to respect the people who come in."

While I think Hughes makes a valid point, the fact is that every Council meeting agenda sets aside time for residents to come, speak and be heard. 

Not every city provides that opportunity to its residents.

Imposing a reasonable time limit during the public speaking portion of Council meetings is, for me, a no-brainer. 

      After all, everyone's time is valuable

That includes the listerners' time as well the speakers.

POLITICAL FIELD SHAKING OUT?

COUNCIL… NEW POLITICAL BLOOD IN THE OFFING

It’s terrible how diminished the Sun Messenger has become at the hands of its most recent owner, Advance Ohio. 

What once was a true community asset---providing focused coverage of local events, politics and controversies, as well as a forum for local opinion and discourse---it is now, well, not that.

Thank heavens for freelance writer Jeff Piokowski, who continues to cover a large handful of eastside communities for Advance.

It was Jeff who reported that Councilwoman Cathy Murphy has decided not only not to run for mayor this fall, but to throw in the towel on her Ward 1 seat as well.
https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/04/highland-heights-ward-1-councilwoman-cathy-murphy-will-not-run-for-mayor-or-seek-council-re-election.html

I hear Murphy is not the only longtime Council rep thinking about stepping away once their term ends in December.  
One or two other Council members may join her in retirement.

The city’s political leadership has been static for quite some time.
Maybe disgraced former mayor Scott Coleman’s resignation has shaken things up a bit, opening the door to some new blood.
That could be a good thing….. as long as the new politicos are committed to preserving the high quality of residential life that Highland Heights residents currently enjoy.

PROCEDURE VERSUS PRACTICALITY: COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ARM WRESTLING

Last Tuesday’s Committee of the Whole and Council meetings were pretty straightforward… until an arm wrestling match among Council members broke out.

That was highly unusual.

Council members talk privately to each other before meetings and usually avoid airing disagreements in public, and Council presidents normally do their best to dissuade members from pursuing actions that cause dissention, bad feelings and are doomed to failure.

For whatever reason, those things didn’t happen. 

Council harmony was shattered, quite publicly, last Tuesday.

The issue: whether Council should commit to following Charter-imposed procedures for enacting legislation or shortcut that procedure when authorizing police and service department spending.

The City Charter requires that, except for emergencies, proposed legislation should be read (and considered) at 3 Council meetings before being acted upon. Charter Section 4.09 reads in part:

“….no ordinance or resolution of a general or permanent nature….involving the expenditure of money or …for the purchase, lease, sale or transfer of property shall be passed unless it has been read in full (or by title) on three (3) different days unless the requirement for such three (3) readings be dispensed with by the affirmative vote of five (5) of the members of Council in accordance with Section 4.10.”

Section 4.10 refers to emergency measures and states, in part:

“Each emergency measure shall contain a statement of the necessity for such emergency action, a precise statement describing the emergency, and shall require the affirmative vote of five (5) of the members of Council for its enactment.”

The arm wrestling concerned whether to fast-track two resolutions authorizing the purchase of a new police vehicle and a service department truck body/chassis, the money for which was budgeted this year.

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy and Councilman Bob Mastrangelo saw no compelling reason to abandon the 3 reading requirement. They embraced Council’s duty to comply with the legislative procedure set out in the Charter.

Councilman Ed Hargate, however, felt differently. He said:

“I am asking for a suspension of the 3 readings because these have to do with public safety. …I don’t think that there should ever be a delay involved in obtaining this type of equipment.”

Hargate didn’t identify any particular emergency or exigent circumstances involving the police car or truck chassis/body.

In making his fast-tracking request, Hargate was expressing his personal view about how such matters should be handled. It also stuck me as a crafty political move, communicating his support for the city's first responders. It's also possible that the police chief and/or service director privately reached out to Hargate (as the head of Council’s Legislative & Finance Committee) prior to the Council meeting, asking for the accommodation.

On Tuesday night, Police Chief Jim Cook told Council that he didn’t specifically request fast-track approval of the police vehicle purchase. He explained that he was anxious to close the deal, as the vendor had been holding the police vehicle for the city, but Cook also conceded that the situation was not likely to change if there was a slight delay caused by giving the legislation the normally-required 3 readings. Cook also made clear, however, that he didn’t oppose Council’s fast-tracking the purchase:

 “If you have the votes tonight (to approve it) that would be great.”

Service Director Thom Evans seemed more anxious to have Council bypass the normal legislative procedure, but questioning by council members revealed that a purchase order for the truck that the chassis was going to be installed upon had itself just been issued. According to Evans it was going to take:

“…120 to 150 days (4 to 5 months) for the truck to be delivered. I wouldn’t make a promise that this truck will be ready for this snow season.”

Evans failed to make a case for rushing to obtain a chassis for the truck, which was months away from being delivered to the city and might not be put in service until 2020.
He certainly didn’t establish the kind of emergency necessary to bypass the normal legislative process.

Pursuant to the city Charter, fast-tracking legislation requires 5 votes.

On Tuesday Hargate’s motion to suspend the required 3 readings received only 3 votes (in addition to Hargate, Ann D’Amico and Lisa Stickan voted yes). It, therefore, failed.

Which simply means that the Police Chief and Service Director will have to wait a couple more weeks for Council’s purchase authorization.

Although Mastrangelo voted against bypassing normal legislative procedure this time, he also expressed frustration with the whole process.  He told me that once Council approved the budget, he thought supervisors should be able to simply go ahead and purchase budgeted items without having to return to Council to receive purchase authorizations.

Such an approach, while simpler, would undermine the tight control over the budget (and spending) that Council currently exercises and would undermine Council’s ability to enact cut-backs if economic times got tough as the budget year progressed.

Pursuant to the Charter legislative slowness has it purpose.

That’s especially true when it comes to spending taxpayer money.

COUNCIL ADOPTS CREDIT CARD POLICY

There were no Council meetings this past week, so I have nothing “hot off the presses” to report.

Of note, however: several weeks ago Council finally adopted a formal policy regarding the use of credit cards.

You can read the whole policy yourself, as it’s posted on the city’s website: https://www.highlandhts.com/DocumentCenter/View/1061/3-2019-Establishing-a-Credit-Card-Account-Policy

I find it interesting that during disgraced former mayor Scott Coleman’s long rein the city apparently hadn’t adopted a formal policy regarding the use of credit cards …..just another reason why a forensic audit of the city’s book is a good idea right now.

I also found disconcerting this explanatory language in the Resolution….which implies that the motivating reason for enacting the new credit card policy was not common sense but because the State of Ohio mandated that Council do it. The resolution begins:

“Whereas House Bill 312 established internal control models for credit card usage by political subdivisions and requires the legislative authority of a political subdivision to adopt a policy regarding such useage….”

The policy gives City Finance Director Joe Filippo sole discretion to decide which credit cards the city should use and the appropriate credit limits for them.

Department supervisors are given authority to decide which of their city employees are issued/allowed to use city credit cards. They must also keep track of/supervise the cards’ use.

 The policy also requires issuance of purchase orders prior to payments being made using city credit cards. 

There was one apparent conflict in the policy that confused me. While the policy categorically states in the beginning that credit cards are to be used:

“…for only approved City related expenses. Personal purchases of any type are strictly prohibited. Cash advances are strictly prohibited.”

It later allows:

“Authorized employees…to use (a city) Gasoline credit card for their personal vehicle.”

The policy leaves it up to those employees to determine, for themselves, that they have the approval of a department supervisor “or City Administrator” to put city-paid gas in their cars.
The term “City Administrator” isn’t defined in the policy, so it’s unclear how broadly or narrowly that authorizing power has been bestowed.

For most of us credit cards are a necessary convenience. So, too, it may be for the city. But, as is often in life:

“Less can be more.”

We can only hope Filippo feels that way too, and that this policy doesn’t open the door to a proliferation of city-paid credit cards being issued. 

My concern is that the greater number of city credit cards being used, the more daunting the task of keeping track that this new policy is being fully and properly complied with.

Given the embezzlement allegations made against our disgraced former mayor, that’s not a concern to be lightly shrugged off.