Roldo, so you are suggesting that there be a unitary executive elected by the public, and he would then hire professionals? Right. He would hire his cronies, which is little different from the current situation. County jobs are currently heavily weighted towards being staffed by the people who staff the campaigns of elected officials. How will your proposal alter this?

That would be like saying the GCP should run the world. I am not ready for that kind of governance, are you?

We differ on the hundreds of millions spent on the two stadiums and arena and the tens of million not paid in property taxes as they are all tax exempt.

Why shouldn’t the teams pay the cost?

Don’t you pay for your home, your office?

The Republicans, I believe, voted against because there
was no body elected from districts around the county, which would have given Republicans a chance to win some of the seats.

Each of the 4 or 5 are elected by region/ward within the county. The chair is elected the all regions in an “at-large” position.

The elections are non-partisan. What wrong with that?

Roldo, I think the Republicans voted against the final report because they wanted a single county executive, not because they favor electing all these positions.

I do not and never will defend Gateway and its associated projects and arguments. Sports stadia create many fewer permanent, good paying jobs than their advocates claim. I don’t think their “costing” as much as you claim, though, but that’s because you and I have different world views. I do not count revenues that governments could have gotten in some theoretical world but didn’t get because of tax breaks as “cost” or “lost.” Without the project, those revenues would have been zero.

You still haven’t explained why treasurer, recorder, and auditor should be elective positions.

Gloria, nice idea in theory, but in practice Hah! The people who run for office are politicians, not auditors, treasurers, or administrators. They win elections by being good at winning elections. Competent professionals are not attracted by having to win elections. So, it’s a nice pipe dream to live in the fantasy world that electing these officials improves something–accountability you call it–but the reality is that we get politicians and their cronies performing critical functions that serve the public. I’m all for transparency and accountability, but those objectives are seldom achieved through the ballot box.

I think they should be kicked off the ballot line if they won’t use it. Perhaps the Libertarians, Greens, or Communists want to be our local opposition party.

What happens to the checks and balances need?

If you have the very people overseeing the appointment of the person in charge of the county coffers, how does that make it a better system?

We think that the process is not open and transparent now. How does making less people accountable to the voting public a better way to go?

Granted, I would say that our voters have not done the best job of voting for competent administrators but have gone with party politics and name recognition, but how does changing our form of government change that outcome?

From my point of view, voting in fewer elected officials only undermines the voting public and the check and balances that are needed so that government can work.

Just because it doesn’t work in Cuyahoga County doesn’t mean that it can’t.

And why were all the models investigated those that have SMALLER legislative bodies. Were Pittsburgh and Summit County considered?

And Roldo, I guess that ironically the phrase politics makes for odd bedfellows is proven in this instance in regard to J. Murray and you.