An Ethics Reform/Form of Government Spat in Cuyahoga County

In your county, a major corruption investigation is being conducted by the FBI. Already, nearly twenty county employees, city building inspectors, and businessmen have pleaded guilty (see an earlier blog post on the investigation). Others are holding out. What do you do?

The usual answer is to create an effective ethics program. In Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, two sets of officials are instead talking about the need for ethics reform while putting forward separate citizen initiatives to change the form of the county's government.

One initiative, called Issue #5, is very simple:  Shall a county charter commission be chosen (that is, to discuss changing the form of government)? This initiative is supported by the county treasurer and sheriff, and the Cleveland mayor and council (with four rare dissents), and was sponsored by two of the three county commissioners, who would lose their jobs under the other initiative, Issue #6. Issue #5 is also supported by the AFL-CIO.

Issue #6, which came first but qualified second, was drafted by the county prosecutor (who also acts as county attorney, that is, the lawyer for the commissioners pushing Issue #5) and the mayor of Parma Heights, and is supported by the chamber of commerce. It proposes a specific restructuring, replacing the three commissioners with an elected county executive and an 11-member council. Many elected positions would become appointed positions, with the executive appointing and the council confirming. The county prosecutor, of course, would still be elected, but would only handle criminal matters.

This proposed form of government puts a lot more power in the hands of one individual, which is supposed to provide better accountability, if you limit your concept of accountability to direct election of one individual (see pp. 68-73 of my essay on charter reform in Connecticut for a broader concept of accountability).

A succinct explanation of the initiatives can be found here. The supporters of each initiative have their own slate of candidates for the charter commission (the #6ers are covering all the bases: if they lose the initiative vote, they might still get a majority on the charter commission).

There are also battles going on involving government ethics. One big ethics battle involves patronage. According to an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the #5ers are asking the county prosecutor (a drafter of #6) to give back over $100,000 in contributions he legally received from his employees and their families since 2006. According to another Plain Dealer article, candidates supporting #5 are promising not to solicit or accept contributions from any county employee, but they are not doing what they are asking the county prosecutor to do, and he's called them on this. In other words, this battle is more political than ethical.

The other big ethics battle involves future ethics reform. According to yet another Plain Dealer article, the #5ers and #6ers "accused each other of being unable to uphold promises to create a code of ethics for county officials. Those on both sides of the debate agree a code of ethics policy is needed in county government ... And both sides claim that if they are successful a policy would be adopted. But each side claims the other lacks the power to uphold the promise." This ethics battle sounds on the level of a playground spat.

Changing the form of government is often an effective way to deal with problems such as those in Cuyahoga County. But it's unlikely that many voters understand the choices they face here, or believe that either side will do what is necessary to bring a good ethical environment to their county.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---