Was it on the up and up?
A reader asked me if I had read the Cleveland City Charter and could I explain the part that refers to filling vacancies on the city council. The reader had done his homework, something that any self respecting editor should have done years ago, read the charter.
He said that the criteria for the number of members necessary to appoint a replacement as opposed to electing was vague and sure enough he was right. Most actions and authority of the Cleveland City Council are plainly set out in the charter giving the number of votes required to pass legislation or affirm decisions. Under C16, Section 7 of that charter it states in part; "Any vacancy in the city council shall be filled by appointment made by the remaining members thereof," and makes no mention of a majority vote or a 2/3rd majority vote. The word "shall" appears in the sentence along with "remaining" and as the reader pointed out, two councilmen, George Poe and Bill Robinson, voted no on the appointment. This could mean the remaining members did not appoint, as required by the charter.
This is interesting because despite assurances that procedure was being followed and everything was on the up and up, there seems to be at least a gray area that could be challenged in the future.
If someone gets upset over a decision by a narrowly split vote and the vote is struck down by the court, all previous narrowly split votes could come into question. To avoid future problems, council members should be sure they are on solid ground before proceeding.
My thanks to the reader for pointing this out.
What do you think?
School Board for scandal
School systems throughout the state are in turmoil at the hands of arrogant and unresponsive school boards who have seized complete control of K-12 education. Citizens have had enough and are demanding changes by the state legislature.
Major problems started to arise after the delicate balance between the electorate's wishes and those of the boards of education were shifted when state legislators amidst lobbying from the teachers unions and the School Boards Association changed the law. The new law required superintendents to be appointed by school boards instead of being elected by the people. The move was designed to remove politics from the education process but achieved the opposite result.
The argument made by the Bradley News Weekly in favor of the system remaining as it is now, is made with socialist bias - voters cannot know what's best for them. They say that if a director of schools is elected, someone who the voters like but without classroom experience is likely to be chosen. This is unlikely but would that be so bad if it did happen? Major corporations are not generally headed by someone who worked their way through the ranks, they are usually overseen by an able administrator with good communication skills, who strikes a balance between the needs of his workers and those of the stockholders.
The Bradley County school system is at present one sided. We have a Board of Education that views the taxpayer as an annoying nuisance and a Director of Schools that had the nerve to dismiss the taxpayer's wishes as unimportant. He screamed at county commissioners that he expected them to give him the money he asked for and when they did he would be back to ask for more.
It must be obvious to everyone aside from the School Board and the Bradley News Weekly that this state of affairs cannot continue. The Bradley County Board of Education has driven away it's supporters by arrogant and unreasonable demands and is now afraid that their director of schools will soon be out of a job. If Director of Schools Bob Taylor is half the man they claim him to be, he will have no problem getting himself elected when the time comes.
Should we elect a Director of Schools or should we let the School Board do it.
What do you think?