The Plain Dealer asks some of the right questions in its editorial this morning about the Cleveland City Council reduction petition. But the editorial writer gets one important thing wrong: If the proposal appears on the May 2006 primary ballot and passes, the new smaller Council will have its first election in 2007, not 2009.
Here's the proposed language, with emphasis added:
The eleven (11) Councilmen to be elected under the terms herein shall be elected at the next regular Municipal Election in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Charter of the City of Cleveland. The division of the City into wards existing at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall continue until changed as provided.And here's Chapter 3 of the City Charter:
A general election for the choice of elective officers provided for in this Charter shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd numbered years. Elections so held shall be known as regular Municipal elections. Such other elections shall be held as may be required by law, or provided for in this Charter.A "regular Municipal election" takes place every odd-numbered year. In November 2007, as in 2005, a handful of City voters will elect some Muny Court judges. But if the petitioners have their way, we'll also be picking a new eleven-member Council to replace the twenty-one representatives we just elected a month ago.
So starting in May, the twenty-one incumbents will be thrown into an eighteen-month free-for-all for the seven much bigger ward seats or the four citywide seats. Both ward services and normal legislation will collapse in the frenzy of campaigning, deal-making and fundraising. The Jackson Administration's chances of successful governance will collapse with them. And so will Cleveland Democrats' ability to focus on the 2007 Senate and Governor's races -- which, I suspect, is the actual point of this whole effort by Messrs. Kirsanow, Gibbons and George.
Who told the PD editorial page that the smaller Council wouldn't be elected until 2009? Maybe they just made the same mistake I did the first time I looked at this. Or maybe it's what the "Ohio Citizens' League" told them.
If Kirsanow and Co. are the PD's source, then there are two possibilities: They've done a sloppy job of drafting their petition, or they're being (shall we say) disingenuous about their plan. In deciding which possibility is more likely, just bear in mind that Peter Kirsanow is a very expensive lawyer.