PROGRAM HISTORY of League of Women Voters – Greater Cleveland (And Predecessors)

PROGRAM HISTORY of League of Women Voters – Greater Cleveland (and Predecessors)

Compiled by Lynda Mayer, Carol Gibson, Penny Jeffrey, Roslyn Talerico, Mary Warren

League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County 50 Public Square #938 Cleveland, OH 44115

2016 PREFACE The process for adoption of public policy positions by the League of Women Voters organization has seldom varied over the League’s 96-year history, although the topics selected for League action and education have changed through time as grass-roots members reflect and respond to the critical issues of their place on the globe.

At local, state and national levels of the League, members perennially review positions already in place and determine whether to update, discontinue or renew the expressed viewpoints. This process distinguishes the League from many other organizations where it is the board of directors’ job to establish program priorities. In the League, members weigh in on and create a “menu” of topics of interest, expecting the board members to determine which ones will come to the forefront as an advocacy agenda in a given year. Under the League’s system, some issues remain on the program list for decades, indications of the organization’s overarching public interests and enduring principles.

This compilation describes program efforts reports on work since 1967. It was that year that the several local Leagues in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, joined forces as an Inter-League Organization (ILO) sanctioned by the League of Women Voters of the United States to work together on common elements of their residence in Ohio’s most populous county.

In the early 2000s, League leaders determined that the ILO “umbrella” was not an adequate structure for blending local and county-wide interests and involvement, a response to rapidly increasing community interests in regional approaches to government and management. A merger of seven local Leagues in 2003 forged the new ways of work, followed by restructuring in 2007 and the creation in 2015 of a county-wide League with chapters in many cities.

--Janice Patterson, Editor

LWV ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY

In 1920, the Cuyahoga County Woman’s Suffrage Party voted to disband and turn over its membership roll to the new Cleveland League of Women Voters. Its organizational meeting in April 1920 followed on the February 1920 formation of the League of Women Voters of the United States. In 1922, the Lakewood League was founded as a separate League. During the 1930s, suburban Leagues were branches of the Cleveland LWV, sharing a common program. Numerous branch Leagues started up and disbanded through the World War II era, then became independent groups with their own officers and program interests and sending representatives to a county League council.

Under the leadership of Marilyn Zack, the county focus for the League was reorganized in 1967 to provide a board of directors elected from the general membership of all the Leagues. This Inter-League Organization (ILO) held an annual convention to select topics for concerted attention and action. Members throughout the county became involved in studies and in monitoring organizations supported by county tax dollars.1

In 2003, seven Leagues in Cuyahoga County voted to merge, reorganizing as a successor to the Inter-League Organization with a single elected Board of Directors and naming itself first as LWV of Cuyahoga Regional Area and later as LWV - Cuyahoga Area. Three Leagues in the county retained their long-time status as independent Leagues until 2014 when a majority of all League members in the county approved a plan to become a single League -- the League of Women Voters of Greater Cleveland – with chapters in many communities.

Known organization dates for suburban Leagues:

1945 – East Cleveland (disbanded 1972, reconstituted 2016)

1946-48 – Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Bay Village, Shaker Heights

1953-1959 – Rocky River, Westlake, Fairview Park, North Olmsted, Euclid, Hillcrest Area

Other locations where Leagues have existed, merged with neighbors, and/or disbanded:

Berea, Bratenahl, Brookpark, Chagrin Valley, Middleburg Heights, Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Strongsville.

1 Van Auken, Lois. “An Anecdotal History of the Cuyahoga County Suffrage Association and the Cuyahoga County League of Women Voters.” 14 February 1980. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface 2

LWV Organizational History in Cuyahoga County 3

GOVERNMENT Administration of Justice in Cuyahoga County 5 Authorities Boards, Commissions and Special Districts 7 Charter Review* 9 Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority 9 County Government 12 Ethics in Government 18 Planning* 20 Regionalism 20 Taxation* 21

SOCIAL POLICY Cuyahoga Community College 22 Diversity* 24 Health Services 24 Housing* 26 Primary and Secondary Education* 26 Public Libraries* 27 Public Recreation* 27 Transportation, Transportation and Land Use 27,29

NATURAL RESOURCES Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve* 30 Cuyahoga Valley National Park 31 Natural Resources: Environment-Lake Erie 34

APPENDICES I. Three Fact Sheets: ABCD Study 36 II. History of LWV Efforts to Achieve Home Rule in Cuyahoga County 39 III. Consensus Questions for Ethics in Government Position 44 IV. Code of Ethics Proposal by LWV’s Code of Ethics Workgroup 47 V. Consensus Questions and PowerPoint Script from Regionalism Study 61 VI. Transportation & Land Use Grant Application 68 VII. Background on Dike 14 Nature Preserve Study 74

* These positions were originally adopted by one or more local Leagues prior to the merger that formed the LWV of Greater Cleveland. The LWVGC membership voted on May 30, 2015, to approve these as positions of the LWVGC in common. (In addition, several chapters of LWVGC have retained positions that pertain to local matters.)

GOVERNMENT

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (1971) – ILO Study

Support of comprehensive planning, improved bail system, rehabilitation of offenders, alternative handling of some “no-victim” crimes, improved police- community relations, uniform code of training and conduct and adequate financing.

1. Comprehensive, system-wide planning, preferably including use of data-processing, but with care taken that computerization not result in impersonalization or decreased personal accountability. 2. Improved bail system, minimizing the role on the bondsman, and utilizing a court operated cash deposit plan and release on recognizance as possible consistent with protection of society. 3. Emphasis on rehabilitation using halfway houses, work release programs, adequate probation services adequately staffed by trained officers, increased community acceptance and job opportunities. 4. Alternative handling of some ‘no-victim’ crimes (e.g., handling of drug addiction and drunkenness as social or medical problems) and removal of some offenses from the law (e.g. homosexuality). Support for changes in laws dealing with gambling and prostitution. 5. Improved police-community relations including citizen support for law enforcement and crime prevention and a uniform code of training and conduct for police departments throughout the county. 6. Adequate financing, with funds used to best advantage and with greater emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation than on institutionalization.

HISTORY:

The League’s interest in how justice was being administered was aroused in 1970 by passage of a bond issue for the Justice Center, which the League supported on the basis of its support of a financing program that provided for increased county responsibilities, adequate maintenance, and long-range planning for capital improvements. The League published The Administration of Justice in Cuyahoga County.

In 1973 the “Evaluation of Justice for Juveniles in Cuyahoga County” was added to the original study topic. During the rest of the decade the League joined with other organizations and coalitions to monitor and reform the county’s juvenile justice system. During the 1980s, reacting to new state legislation, Juvenile Court personnel were interviewed. Local expungement and the separation of adult and juvenile offender practices were investigated as well as the availability and use of local resources for youth.

The League has continued to monitor Juvenile Court practices in cooperation with other organizations such as the Federation for Community Planning and the Court’s Citizens Advisory Board. The League monitored the planning for a new detention facility and investigated best practices and model facilities. When the County Commissioners proposed a high-rise facility behind the Juvenile Court, the League opposed the decision and urged the selection of a larger site for a state-of-the-art facility.

ACTION & EDUCATION: 5

--Supported levies related to operating and building costs for justice facilities. --Participated in Juvenile Justice Task Force of the Federation for Community Planning and successive citizen advisory groups --Held a membership meeting at women’s detention center --Sponsored candidate forums for judgeship candidates --Joined a coalition working on felon’s right-to-vote issues --Formed a Family Court Study Committee (2007) involving interviews and a public forum.

AUTHORITIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & SPECIAL DISTRICTS (2007) -- Joint 3-League study

Support measures to promote the accountability, accessibility, visibility, citizen participation in and coordination of all boards (i.e., authorities, boards, commissions, and special districts) connected to Cuyahoga County governance.

A. Compliance by all boards with all open-meeting and open-records provisions of Ohio Law. B. Active involvement and oversight by the appointing officials with the boards they appoint or fund, including (but not limited to) the following administrative strategies: An open appointment process through widely circulated vacancy lists, active recruitment of candidates, safeguards against conflicts of interest, and attention to diverse representation; A dedicated data center which holds and coordinates the candidate pool and computerizes access to up-to-date board documents, public records and contact information; Increased public awareness through phone listings, easily accessible websites, and media attention and public spotlight; Ongoing monitoring of board activities through contact with appointees and regular scrutiny of the use of appropriated funds. C. Accessible, accountable and transparent actions by all board members and their boards, including (but not limited to) the following practices: All public business done openly, with easy access through websites, email contact, phone listings and publicized public meetings; Regular reports to or conferences with appointing officials, including submission of annual reports, budgets, bylaws and other documents; Routine accounting for the expenditure of public funds to the officials who appropriated those funds; Cooperation with all inquiries by appointing officials, the press, service users or interested citizens. Safeguards against possible conflicts of interest. D. The establishment of discretionary boards by County Commissioners when there is a demonstrated need, when citizen participation is desired, when a supra-municipal focus is sought, or when Ohio law permits no preferable alternative.

HISTORY:

Prior to the merger of leagues in Cuyahoga County in April 2003, the ILO’s County Government Committee observed all commissioners’ meetings and conducted interviews to learn how county government functions. Reports were shared among all local leagues in Cuyahoga County. In 2003-04 LWV-CA researched the workings of Cuyahoga County government and organized forums to discuss those issues, giving the committee greater awareness of the broad scope and impact these groups have on the community.

The committee included Lynda Mayer, Chairperson, Adele Cohn, Carol Gibson, Lois Gross, Lesley Hahn, and Roslyn Talerico, Janice Patterson, Gladys Howson, Dorothy Fike, , and Sandra English. After April 2003, the following joined the committee: Ellen Carter, Lesley Hahn, Kathleen LePrevost, Joy Sweeney and Joyce Wallace, while Dorothy Fike and Sandra English left the committee. Additional League members who assisted with presentations or with observing Cuyahoga County Commissioner meetings were Kathy Woodbridge, Anne Williams, 7

Barbara Sones and Jean Robejsek.

During 2004 and 2005, a one-session course on “County Government 101” with PowerPoint illustrations was given to 23 civic venues around the county. At each meeting, discussion showed that the audience was most surprised at the invisibility and unaccountability of the maze of authorities, boards, commissions and special districts. For these reasons, the committee decided it would be wise for the LWV-CA to study these various organizations.

At the LWV-CA annual meeting in 2005, direction was given to the board to have the LWV-CA County Government Committee look more closely into the ways by which these groups function. Although it was not an official annual meeting vote to adopt program, it was sufficient to authorize the committee to dig in and learn more.

In 2005 and 2006, committee members narrowed their focus from the general functions of county government (and the pursuit of our interest in an eventual Cuyahoga County charter) to the investigation of the system of authorities, boards, etc. Interviews with staff members alerted us to the strictures placed on the county commissioners and their administrative heads as they attempt to oversee the many ABCD’s. At the LWV-CA annual meeting in 2006, members adopted a new recommended program item to study ABCD’s and come to consensus within the following League year.

In 2006, committee members completed their study by interviewing one county commissioner and five Assistant Prosecutors (Cuyahoga County Civil Division) as to the status of ABCD’s vis- à-vis their appointing officials (usually the county commissioners among others) and what might or ought to be done to improve oversight and accountability. We focused also upon state laws which limit the ability of the Cuyahoga County commissioners to exercise that responsibility. Committee members also divided up a list of nearly fifty authorities, boards, commissions, and special districts, some of which even exist outside of the appointing authority of the commissioners, but which receive public funds and are perceived by the public to be county government bodies.

Committee members prepared three fact sheets for publication in three 2006 editions of the League of Women Voters-Cuyahoga Area Voter and summarized the results of their survey for presentation to LWV-CA members. The text of these three fact sheets can be found in Appendix I. The positions reached in this study were helpful background for League members who contributed to the deliberations and framing of the Cuyahoga County Charter (2009) and in the Transition Advisory Workgroup on Boards and Commissions (2010).

ACTION & EDUCATION:

--Supported the applicability of ABCDs in County Council’s Ethics ordinance. --Reviewed draft charter provisions re. ABCDs --Member Penny Jeffery served on TAG group on Commissions --Gave testimony at County Council meetings about issues involving various commissions and boards --Wrote letters to the editor regarding provisions for boards and commissions

CHARTER REVIEW -- (merged program: 2003, 2015)

Support of: A. Periodic review of city charter or other governing documents B. Citizen participation in the charter review process This position was originally adopted by one or more chapters prior to the merger of the LWVGC. The LWVGC voted on May 30, 2015 to approve these as positions of the LWVGC as a whole. Materials related to the history of the position may be available in individual chapter files.

CLEVELAND-CUYAHOGA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY (2007) -- Study by LWV Cleveland Area; Concurrence by LWV Cuyahoga Area & LWV Shaker Heights

POSITION: Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority (CCCPA) A. CCCPA should be required by its local Rules and Regulations to prepare plans for future developments and conduct public hearings to gather comments on these plans; B. CCCPA should be required to present a budget that clearly demonstrates how tax levy funds are being spent; C. CCCPA proposed capital projects funded by tax revenues should include: purpose, needs and plans; demonstration of market demand and public consensus; cost effectiveness, including a projected Return on Investment (ROI); and overall community impact, including economic and environmental factors; D. CCCPA capital projects should have a separate section in the operating budget. E. The Northeast Ohio Development Fund LLC (NEODF), created by the CCCPA under the New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) program of the federal government, should: 1. Have a board appointed by elected officials, such as mayors and the county executive 2. Publicly disclose criteria used to select projects 3. Give public notice of chosen projects before final acceptance 4. Invite public comment on proposed projects 5. Address possible conflict of interest issues of NEODF staff and board. F. In order to address the disparity of representation on the CCCPA Board, equal numbers of board members should be appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga County Executive, with a final member named by joint agreement. G. Public officials who appoint board members should 1. Require a disclosure statement of each CCCPA Board candidate and member

2. Conduct periodic reviews of board members’ compliance with legal requirements H. Any CCPA levies should be limited to a duration of not more than five years.

HISTORY:

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority (Port Authority) was created in 1968 as a special district government under the laws of Ohio. It is supported by a levy passed by voters in Cuyahoga County, last voted upon in 2002, and by fees for its services. The Ohio Revised Code also allows port authorities to issue bonds for economic development anywhere in Ohio, in adjoining states, and in foreign countries, thus providing a third source of revenue.

A nine-member board governs the Port Authority. Six members are appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland and three by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. While the Port Authority property is in Cleveland, almost four-fifths of the tax revenue comes from the surrounding county, creating some friction over the unequal distribution of appointees.

The Port Authority is organized into groups for operating purposes: the Maritime Group, the Strategic Development Group, the Development Finance Group and the Administrative Group. The Port of Cleveland is a larger entity than the Port Authority including not only the Port Authority waterfront facilities on both Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga River, but also privately owned docks on the Cuyahoga River which are not controlled by the Port Authority. The Port Authority owns 100 acres on the east side of the river including eight ship berths and 417,000 square feet of warehouse space, and the 45-acre Cleveland Bulk Terminal on the west side of the river on Whiskey Island.

Since 1993, Port Authority bonds have become an important source of development funding, including the Rock and Roll Hall of fame and Museum, the Cleveland browns Stadium, and many corporate developments. Port Authority bonds, in addition to private funds, would finance the recently proposed Wolstein project on the east banks of the Flats. In return, bond fees provide an important source of revenue for the Port Authority. In 2005, the Port authority’s development Finance Group, its bond-issuing arm, introduced a major marketing campaign for its financial services.

In December 2004, the Cleveland City Planning Commission adopted Cleveland’s new Waterfront District Plan, which proposed changes to the Port Authority’s property. The City’s plan would include moving the Port Authority’s docking facilities to a new port built at the current breakwater, and would replace Docks 20 through 32 with housing, parks and marinas. Such a re-allocation of land, all of it purchased by taxpayers, would require extraordinary cooperation and negotiation. In January 2005, the Port Authority in effect ceded waterfront development planning to the Cleveland City Planning Commission.

The Port Authority’s Strategic Development Group is devoting energy to inaugurating ferry service from Cleveland to Port Stanley, Ontario. Ferry facilities have been designed for the Cleveland lakefront, and a company from the Netherlands has agreed to supply and operate a ferry. Negotiations are currently in progress with the City of Port Stanley and provincial and federal authorities in Canada to make this a reality.

Also of interest, the New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) program is a recent federal program. In order to take advantage of the benefits of NMTC, the Port Authority established a private company. This company is not required to hold public meetings, but by allowing tax credits, it decreases public resources.

Interlake and international shipping are an important component of the Cleveland area economy. In October 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that it needed to create a new site for disposal of material dredged from the bottom of the Cuyahoga River and Cleveland Harbor. The best choice among their options, according to the ACE, would be creation of an island “…along the stone break wall just to the east or west of the mouth of the river.” This is the same area where the 2004 City of Cleveland Waterfront Plan had proposed to build docking facilities. No plans have been announced for public hearings on these options.

In the 2007 Business Plan, the Port Authority reports that it will seek a levy in 2007, and directs its Columbus lobbying firm to “...seek to gain support for the change to Port Authority code to allow for a 30-year, multi-purpose levy, provide information to other port authorities of the proposed legislative change and acquire support for the changes.” This would be a major change -- current law provides 5-year levy terms.

The full report of the CCCPA Study is in hard copy and on file in LWV of Greater Cleveland office.

ACTION & EDUCATION

--Ongoing monitoring of CCPA Board meetings and activities --Advocacy for establishment of a voting quorum for CCPA Board (2010)

COUNTY GOVERNMENT (1979) – ILO Study

Support a structure of county government that would include: A. A single county executive and a responsible representative legislative body; B. Adequate financing for county services and capital improvement; and C. Provision of urban services by that level of government that can be most effective.

NOTE: The May, 1979 ILO Convention combined these three items into one, and at that time also expanded “A” to include the following positions, all of which were retained by the merged LWV Cuyahoga Area after 2003. They are:

A1. A clearer separation of policy-making and administrative functions. It is inherent in the commission form of government that the board of commissioners performs both functions.

A2. A single executive, preferably elected, responsible for all county departments. The Board of Commissioners at present has some control over departmental budgets, but no control over the job performance of the elected department heads. An elected executive would become the spokesperson for the county and be responsible to the voters for the administration of county affairs.

A3. A legislative body of moderate size (seven to eleven) to function as a policy-making body, elected in part from districts and in part at-large. The board should represent various interests in the community, but not be so large as to be unwieldy. It should represent the broad interest of the county as well as interests of particular areas. Since the legislative body would function as a policy-making body, the League felt that the salaries paid to part-time members should be less than those now provided in Sec. 325.10 of the Revised Code.

A4. Appointment rather than election of some presently elected department heads. This would allow the heads of county departments to be chosen on the basis of job qualifications and make them directly responsible to an executive head of the county.

HISTORY:

A. STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION COUNTY GOVERNMENT County government, its structure and function, has been a concern of the League for many years. It is the arm of the state through which a multitude of services are dispensed, and stands between the purely local interests of the municipalities and the impersonal state government. The Leagues in the county, both before and after the Inter-League Organization, have studied county government, and have taken action to improve it. In 1933, the Ohio League of Women Voters worked successfully for the passage of the County Home Rule Amendment to the Constitution. In 1954, a study emphasizing the Board of County Commissioners led to publication of a booklet, Your County Commissioners - Board of All Trades. In 1959, the Metro proposal was placed before the voters after an exhaustive study of metropolitan problems by a charter commission. The League studied and supported this proposal, but the issue was defeated on a city-suburb split. The League worked for the adoption of the Alternative Form, as permitted by

12 the Ohio Revised Code, recognizing it as a step toward needed reforms. In 1963, the League cooperated with the Citizens League on a petition drive, but the ten percent of the voters that was then required was not obtained. In 1966-1968, the Leagues made a study of all county functions and published Here’s Cuyahoga County – a book that had wide distribution.

A brief study in 1969 prepared the County League to make specific recommendations on the Alternative Form of County Government proposed for Cuyahoga County. In 1969 the County Commissioners appointed an advisory committee to recommend a plan for county reorganization. The League’s work in the field was recognized when its former president was appointed to the committee. The issue was narrowly defeated that year. Feeling that the voters had not had time to thoroughly understand the benefits of the proposal, the League, together with the Citizens League, spearheaded a petition drive, which now required only 3% of the voters, to re-submit substantially the same issue to the voters in 1970. Again the issue failed.

In 1974, a new study was undertaken under the title, Study of Possible Methods of Governing the Greater Cleveland Metropolitan Area. In 1975 at County Convention the word metropolitan was changed to regional, recognizing that many services were already being planned by inter-county agencies, and that all future alternatives should be considered. The first year of the study considered regional government in other cities. A conference on regionalism was held and a report was prepared by the Urban League.

In the spring of 1976, the twelve local Leagues joined together to discuss the possibilities of regional government and overwhelmingly, once again, accepted the two-tier structure of county government. These were not consensus meetings, but the following biases were apparent: regional or county control was favored for transportation, water supply, sewers; local control was preferred for waste collections, snow removal, police and fire. Local school control was preferred by a slim margin. In 1980, with the discussions on the alternative form of government proposal, these views were reaffirmed.

In 1978, the Citizens League approached the ILO again with the idea of promoting an alternative form for Cuyahoga County. However, it was felt that the time was not right. In 1979, with the problems of Cleveland uppermost in everyone’s mind, the League again discussed such a possibility with the Citizens League. They received financial backing to initiate a drive to put a charter proposal on the ballot. The League supported the attempt to have an alternative form of government passed in November 1980. League members solicited signatures on the petitions and then worked hard to have the issue pass. The issue failed and League members felt that the defeat was because of the lack of knowledge on the part of the electorate as to what county government does.

In 1983, a new addition of Here’s Cuyahoga County was published to assist voters to become familiar with how their county government functions. This publication was updated, published and distributed in 1994, with grant support from the Cleveland and Gund Foundations and private donations.

In 1995, County Commissioners appointed a Citizens Committee for County Government Reform, headed by Dr. Kathleen Barber, to evaluate the structure and powers of county government and to make recommendations regarding the possible benefits of a county charter. A proposal for a home rule charter was presented to the Commissioners to be placed on the ballot. The proposal included an elected executive, a seven-member council with two members elected at-large and five from districts, and the conversion of seven elected officials to appointed

13 administrators. However, the Commissioners took no action on the proposal because of opposition by some and a general lack of interest in seeking change.

The League followed the work of the Committee and, afterwards, at the suggestion of Commissioner Mary Boyle conducted a survey, to discover the voters’ level of knowledge about county government issues and their opinion of proposals for changing county government. The League found that although voters admit not having a solid understanding of county government, they do not believe that it is doing a good job. Three-quarters felt a need for change, but they were unclear about what they wanted. They did, however prefer electing administrative officials rather than having them appointed, and strongly supported electing a legislative body by districts. And they also selected the League of Women Voters as the organization they would trust to provide them with information on county government. In response to these findings, the League of Women Voter of Cuyahoga County published and distributed a pamphlet, Government of Cuyahoga County: What It Is, and a History of Efforts to Change It (1998).

In 2003 and 2004, League of Women Voters members participated in a nonpartisan research coalition, informally known as the Kaufman group (its convener was Steven Kaufman, President of the Cleveland Bar Association). Partners in addition to the League of Women Voters – Cuyahoga Regional Area and the Cleveland Bar were the Cleveland State University College of Urban Studies and Cleveland Marshall College of Law, Greater Cleveland Roundtable, Bliss Institute of the University of Akron, John Glenn Institute of Ohio State University, and the Citizens League. In 2004, the coalition, with the research assistance of League members, published a White Paper as a vehicle for further countywide discourse: Jobs and Economic Development: Our Goal; Community Resolve: Our Need; Cuyahoga County Governmental Reform: A Means? The coalition also sponsored three City Club luncheon forums with speakers from other counties with different forms of county government. The forums examined issues of representation, accountability, and alternative models. The League of Women Voters – Cuyahoga Regional Area requested Mr. Kaufman to continue his work, but the coalition was dissolved.

In 2003, the Cuyahoga County Republican Party went public with a draft County Charter, which featured, among other things, an elected executive and a representative council. Because of its partisan origins, Leagues remained neutral on the plan. Subsequently the Citizens League cast its lot with the Republicans and re-drafted the charter hoping to gain more support. They gathered signatures to put it on the Spring 2004 ballot, but so many of the petitions were invalidated that it did not make its way to the ballot. The Leagues found themselves with internal organizational problems that precluded their ability to come together to advocate for the charter.

In 2004 and 2005, the LWV County Government Committee turned the knowledge it had gathered into a PowerPoint presentation on county government. Twenty-three organizations invited the committee to make this presentation. The Leagues hoped to spur community interest in county government reform. The topic that aroused the most critical attention was the patchwork of over 43 autonomous authorities, boards, commissions, and special districts to which the Commissioners had the appointing power.

From 1998 to 2006, members of the County Government Committee observed and reported on the weekly meetings of the County Commissioners. The reports were shared with all Leagues in the county. In addition, the Cleveland Bar Association convened a committee to study how County government could be improved. Four LWV Cuyahoga Area directors served on the committee, which interviewed almost a hundred stakeholders and produced a June 2004 report, 14

Jobs and Economic Development: Our Goal; Community Resolve: Our Need; Cuyahoga County Government Reform: A Means? The effort was spearheaded by Steven Kaufman, President of the Cleveland Bar Association.

In 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the offices and homes of County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora, County Auditor Frank Russo, and several lesser lights in county government. Their net continued to be cast wider and wider. The Plain Dealer did some investigative features on patronage and misfeasance in several independent county offices. Commissioner Tim Hagan went to Columbus to ask the Legislature for special legislation to allow our voters to adopt a modest reform. The Legislature, instead, appointed six persons to a 9-member Cuyahoga County Commission on Government Reform (CCCGR). Governor Ted Strickland appointed the other three. David Abbott was its chair. Their charge was to recommend a statutory change only (no charter). They met every 2 or 3 weeks from July to the end of October (right through the Obama presidential campaign); League attended all sessions and testified on several occasions. When former Congressman Louis Stokes weighed in with his preference for the three-Commissioner system and the elected Sheriff & Recorder, the rest (who wanted a council-exec plan with almost no independents) opted for compromise -- lowest common denominator. They submitted their Modest Proposal (a new Alternative Plan) to the Legislature, which adjourned in December without acting upon it. But the die was cast.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT REFORM OF 2009-2010

In the last weeks of the above 2008 CCCGR, Attorney Eugene Kramer submitted his version of a model charter for their review. He did not testify, except in writing. Others took interest in it, including the League whose County government committee members read and critiqued Kramer’s work. By April 2009, Kramer’s group was joined by Prosecutor Bill Mason's group and, for a while, some other insider politicians, civil rights and labor leaders. By June 2009, the charter was finished.

Fifty-three League volunteers and more paid petitioners combined to get 81,000 signatures (53,000 were valid, only 45,000 had been required to place the matter on the ballot.) As soon as the Commissioners got the news, they quickly reacted by putting a rival proposal onto the same ballot -- to elect a Charter Commission to study for a year and write a different charter, maybe. They also fielded a slate of insider candidates to serve on said commission. The commissioner’s ballot proposal was called Issue #5; the Kramer- LWV initiative petition was called Issue #6. League covered the county with 31 PowerPoint presentations, and our representative joined the Issue #6 campaign coalition, "New Cuyahoga Now." We posted on our website and distributed in print a number of position papers and analyses of the charter. In the final days, we distributed leaflets and yard signs and sent 51 volunteers to work the polls on Election Day. The Issue #6 charter won 67% of the vote countywide, and carried every one of the 59 municipalities. [For a further, succinct timeline for the structural reform of Cuyahoga County’s government, from 1935 to 2009, see Appendix II.]

Throughout 2010, the County underwent a transition to the new form of charter government, which would take effect in January 2011. A Transition Advisory Group of nonpartisan community leaders and incumbent administrators established “workgroups” to research and make recommendations in specific areas of county governance.

The LWV was invited to head up a Workgroup charged with researching and proposing a strong Code of Ethics for the new County Council to pass on “Day 1.” A workgroup of 10 League members and 5 non-members recruited for their skill sets and diversity (ethnic, political, 15 geographical - but not gender!) did as charged, although the new Council acted more gradually and utilized two other sources besides our Workgroup’s submission. (See “Ethics in Government,” later in this history.)

From 2011 and through the writing of this history in 2015-2016, League observers have been watching Cuyahoga’s new county organization, actively testifying on County issues of League interest and advocating aspects of proposed Charter amendments. We take pride in having struggled so patiently with its birthing!

B. ADEQUATE FINANCING (1963)

The Leagues in Cuyahoga County studied “Sources and Uses of Revenue” from 1960 to 1963 and as a result adopted three support positions under financing and a fourth in support of the county welfare program. The members analyzed state statutes pertaining to county finance and studied the budget-making procedure. County officials including officials of the courts, must annually submit their budgetary requirements at hearings held before the county tax budget is adopted in July and the appropriation measure the following March. The League believes its support positions above can best be implemented by noting these hearings and using them as opportunities to testify.

When the General Assembly made available to counties certain excise taxes in 1967, the League testified in favor of levying the additional sales tax and county motor vehicle fee. The League supported the bond issue for a Justice Center in 1968 (defeated) and in 1970 (passed) as part of the long-range capital improvements program planned for the county. In 1971, the League supported the County Hospital Improvement Levy as part of a long-range plan for the development of County Hospital facilities and services.

In 1972, the League supported a general levy for expanded services for mental health, retarded persons, drug programs, improved criminal justice procedures, and airport safety. While the levy was planned to support a number of services of League interest, the fact that it was a general levy, under the responsibility of the County Commissioners, rather than one earmarked for a specific purpose, added to the reasons for League interest. The League believes that responsible government requires the responsibility for financing programs. Since it is apparently easier to pass an earmarked levy, the levy lost.

Since then, the League has investigated each levy proposed by interviewing County Commissioners and staff and then used its findings to decide whether or not to support the levies.

C. PROVISION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION The League supports local provision of services when they can be handled efficiently and effectively. However, when the entire metropolitan area needs to be served, provision of the services through an area-wide approach is indicated.

The League recognizes that increased inter-relatedness of governments requires concern on the part of the state and federal governments for efficient and effective administration of urban services. Their appropriate role includes setting and enforcing minimum standards, providing financial and technical assistance and providing needed enabling legislation for new approaches.

League members discussed the level of government that would be appropriate to provide each of the services required by residents in this urban area and agreed that a two-level governmental approach could be useful in dealing with some services. However, some sort of criteria was 16 required for individual decisions as to which level of government was most appropriate for rendering a particular service. In 1968 the ILO Convention adopted a program item called “Urban Services: Development of criteria to determine which services should be county-wide and which should be local.” It was believed that agreement on criteria would enable the local Leagues to agree on action to be taken in areas such as transportation, health services, etc. – services extending beyond local boundaries.

The League studied several sets of suggested guidelines to determine the particular combination of local/county government that should be used to dispense a particular service, and the set of criteria selected were suggested in a 1963 report of the President’s Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations, Performance of Urban Functions – Local and Area-wide.

In August 1970, the ILO board used this position and the criteria to judge the validity of a proposed merger of the Cleveland Public Library and the County Library System. The Board determined that the League could support the merger, and testimony was given. In May 1971 another opportunity for public comment arose and the LWV of Cuyahoga County restated its position. At this time, however, the Cleveland League spoke officially against the merger. The result was adverse publicity for the Leagues and a crisis situation between the Cuyahoga Inter- League Organization and the Cleveland League. The source of the specific controversy was eliminated when the library merger was turned down by the Cleveland Board of Education. However, the crisis caused by the attempted use of the criteria on Urban Services led to a realization that the selected criteria were not effective in resolving the type of controversy that had occurred. New procedures were designed and the Urban Services position was the only available position for the ILO to support efforts for local or county intergovernmental collaborations. It informed widespread League member participation in “Voices and Choices,” the first effort by a newly formed consortium of nearly 100 private companies and donors to find ways to revitalize Northeast Ohio. Participation in that vast project invigorated member interest in Regionalism, leading to the joint Regionalism study by the three Leagues in 2007-09.

ACTION & EDUCATION --Observing County Commission, County Council --Multiple testimonies in passage of charter --Collecting signatures for charter amendment --Support of charter review and selected charter amendments --Public education through the newspapers and with presentations of “County Government 101” to civic organizations throughout the county

ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT (2012) -- Joint 3-League Study The League of Women Voters [of Cuyahoga Area] supports: A. A government ethics policy that: 1. Applies broadly to elected and appointed officials, employees, members and employees of boards and commissions, contractors, vendors and lobbyists; 2. Prohibits conflicts of interest, use of position for personal gain, corruption in the awarding of contracts, nepotism and favoritism; 3. Fosters transparency through financial disclosure by key elected and appointed officials, contractor and lobbyist registries, and online public posting of disclosures and registries; 4. Disciplines those who falsely file or fail to file required disclosures or who fail to report wrongdoing; 5. Instills individual commitment through ongoing training and education, signed compliance statements, and “plain speak” publication of the ethics policy; 6. Encourages ethical conduct among covered persons through obligatory reporting of possible violations and protections against retaliation; 7. Contains a complaint process, which honors privacy and anonymity and which protects from retaliation and unfounded charges;

B. An ethics policy that has an effective enforcement mechanism that is: 1. Independent of political pressure; 2. Both reactive and investigatory; 3. Authorized by the strongest process permissible by law: charter, ordinance, resolution or administrative rules; 4. Protective of due process rights for the accused; 5. Explicit in its range of penalties.

C. Ethics enforcement by a single entity, preferably an independent ethics board, with guaranteed funding and qualified professional legal staff.

HISTORY: (See APPENDIX III for Consensus Questions for Ethics In Government Position.) Today, governments at all levels seek to secure the public’s trust and confidence by establishing clear standards of conduct and explicit rules with defined penalties for those whose personal conduct does not conform. The long-standing Principles of the League of Women Voters are the basis for the organization’s constant advocacy for open governmental systems that are representative, accountable and responsive. As the newly adopted Cuyahoga County Ethics Ordinance and enforcement measures faced amendment and the periodic charter review process, Leagues in Cuyahoga County wanted to be 18 ready to advocate for certain features. Since the 1930s, the LWV in Ohio and locally worked to change the county government structure to create greater citizen confidence in public officials’ performance of their duties and to create more responsive government programs. The widespread corruption in county government that was uncovered in the July 2008 FBI and IRS probes involved violations of federal law and also prompted significant voter concern. Efforts already underway to consider a charter form of government were expedited. League members in Cuyahoga County provided expertise at the outset of the design of a proposed charter for Cuyahoga County and were at the forefront of all parts of the campaign to secure its passage by voters in 2009. In recognition of the Leagues’ work, Lynda Mayer was asked to chair the TAG (Transition Advisory Group) Ethics Committee; nine other Leaguers served as members along with five community persons. The TAG group’s recommendations were presented to the newly elected Cuyahoga County Council on January 1, 2011, and forwarded to the new Council committee on Rules, Charter Review, Ethics and Council Operations. Representatives of the TAG group followed Committee and Council deliberations closely, commenting orally and in writing on successive drafts of a new Code of Ethics for the County. The Cuyahoga County Ethics Ordinance, adopted by Council on 8 April 2011, contained most of the features recommended by the TAG group. (See APPENDIX IV for LWV Workgroup Code of Ethics Proposal.)

In May 2011, the League of Women Voters Cleveland Area voted to conduct a study on ethics in government to ensure that there would be an expanded ethics position in time to influence future changes. Shaker Heights and Cuyahoga Area League members assisted with this study. As predicted, the 2011 code of ethics underwent many amendments and the League was prepared to comment and advocate on proposals along the way.

The code of ethics for Cuyahoga County exceeds many provisions of Ohio ethics law. Its features include: application to elected officials, employees, lobbyists, and contractors as well as appointees to boards and commissions (as permitted by law), clear statements of prohibited behaviors, and explicit penalties (but no process by which they are to be imposed). It also provides protection of “whistleblowers” who believe they have knowledge of transgressions, has reporting requirements that allow the general public to review activities, and mandates training for officials, lobbyists, and contractors, so that ethical standards can become widely understood. An Inspector General has been appointed by the County Executive as the point person for receipt and investigation of complaints. The Human Resources Commission has been designated to provide education and enforcement of ethical behavior by employees as part of its duties.

ACTION & EDUCATION

-- Published opinion piece on a code of ethics in The Plain Dealer on 30 January 2011. --Provided information about the development of a code of ethics in local League newsletters (2010-11) --Provided input into updating of Ethics Ordinance (2016) --Gave testimony in support of amendments to Ethics Ordinance (2016)

PLANNING (merged program 2003, 2015; plus LWV Ohio program)

Support of A. Community planning programs for municipalities, with specific emphasis on land use, development and revitalization of aging areas B. Adoption of comprehensive long-range planning programs that promote the common good, with periodic updates C. Citizen participation in the planning process D. Acquisition, development, and maintenance of green space and park- like areas within municipalities

This position was originally adopted by one or more chapters prior to the merger of the LWVGC. The LWVGC voted on May 30, 2015 to approve these as positions of the LWVGC as a whole. Materials related to the history of the position may be available in individual chapter files.

REGIONALISM (2009) -- Joint 3-League Study

Support voluntary intergovernmental agreements which reduce costs, foster transparency and accountability, improve efficiencies, and maintain service standards.

Such agreements are: appropriate at local, county, metropolitan, multiple-county or regional levels; should be practical and of manageable size and scope; and should demonstrate the interconnectedness of all neighboring communities.

Support regional tax-base revenue sharing as a constructive form of intergovernmental cooperation for the mutual benefit of participating communities.

Such a program should: advance smart growth, economic development and fiscal equity within the target area; impact positively upon infrastructure, housing, education, recreation, inclusion and/or shared public facilities; set standards for finance, staffing and administration that are consistent, accountable, transparent and efficient; pool contributions from an agreed portion of new growth in local commercial and industrial tax revenue; distribute that revenue pool among participating communities to further fiscal equity across the area; honor local sovereignty and school funding resources; be flexible and grow with time. Formulas for collection and allocations should be determined by the participating communities and periodically reviewed.

HISTORY: 20

Seven members of the LWV Cuyahoga Area Regionalism Committee spent two years conducting interviews and digesting reports, then elicited consensus from the general League membership on six key questions related to regionalism. This work was an outgrowth of the League’s participation in a large-scale coalition created in 2004 by The Cleveland Foundation and other philanthropies to advance a common agenda for the revitalization of the economic climate in the 16-county Northeast Ohio area. The first project of the Fund for Our Economic Future was a two-year study called “Voices and Choices.” The Fund also backed a regional revenue study that recommended three courses of action: 1) tax-base revenue sharing, 2) regional land use planning, and 3) regional governance. Leagues of Women Voters in Cuyahoga County had long sought to reform the structure and enhance the powers of county government and its complex delivery of services. The League had just completed an in-depth look at the authorities, boards, commissions and special districts in effect in Cuyahoga County and recognized that some of these entities were already serving a regional mandate. The LWV-Cuyahoga Area position statements regarding both transportation and land use had been recently reworked and adopted. It was both timely and appropriate for LWV of Cuyahoga Area to participate in the broad regionalism discussions (even though their own study and consensus decisions had focused only on Cuyahoga County governance) and to propose that other Leagues in the 16-county target area do so as well.

(See Appendix V for background material and the consensus questions for the League’s study on regionalism.) ACTION & EDUCATION

--Regular observation at West Shore Council of Governments --Representation on the NOACA Board Citizens Advisory Committee (Mary Warren, 2015- 2016) --Membership in coalitions --Advocacy for cooperative municipal fire department projects --Forums on shared services --Development of a PowerPoint program and consensus questions for League member consideration

TAXATION (merged program: 2003, 2015; plus LWV Ohio program)

Support of A. Taxes that are fair and equitable B. Taxes that provide adequate resources for government programs C. Taxes that are understandable to the taxpayer and encourage compliance D. Taxes that are easy to administer E. Continual evaluation of governmental tax resources and allocation This position was originally adopted by one or more chapters prior to the merger of the LWVGC. The LWVGC voted on May 30, 2015 to approve these as positions of the LWVGC as a whole. Materials related to the history of the position may be available in individual chapter files.

SOCIAL POLICY

CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE (1962, 1964, 1979, 1999) – ILO Study

Support of Cuyahoga Community College as the two-year higher educational institution in the County that provides accessible and affordable educational programs and services which meet the needs of the County’s population. 1. Cuyahoga Community College offers the first two years of a baccalaureate degree program and associate degree and certificate occupational and technical programs. 2. Because community colleges are supported by state and local funds as well as student tuition and fees, the League will support the necessary local funding to permit the College to serve the community.

HISTORY:

In December, 1961 the Leagues in Cuyahoga County adopted the agenda item “The Establishing of a Community College for Cuyahoga County” for a 1962-1963 study. League interest developed during the study by the League of Women Voters of Ohio of “Education beyond the High School” which drew attention to the lack of public higher education facilities in the County. The ILO study logically followed the March 1961 position of the LWVO that stated in part, “Ohio needs to expand its facilities for public higher education”, and League support “should be given to permit the establishment of two-year community colleges and technical institutes to supplement public universities and their branches.” State legislation in 1961 provided for the establishment of community colleges and permitted them to offer academic or university parallel courses. On October 23, 1961 the Board of County Commissioners declared Cuyahoga County to be a community college district, the first in Ohio. On January 16, 1962 the first Board of Trustees for the community college was appointed. After consultation with the LWVO, the Cuyahoga County Government Committee determined that its study need not establish the need for a community college in Cuyahoga County since the Commissioners’ action already had brought the college into being and the LWVO position supported the general need for community colleges. However, in order to be able to take action on Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C), the Leagues in the county had to do a county study that included analysis of need, number of potential students, location and/or locations, financing, scope, and type of educational programs that should be provided in such a college for Cuyahoga County. In December, 1962 the State of Ohio granted a charter to operate Tri-C as a public community college consistent with the provisions of Chapter 3354 of the Ohio Revised Code. The Cuyahoga County Leagues re-adopted Continued Study of the Establishment of Cuyahoga Community College at the Annual Meeting in June 1963. By consensus, League members in Cuyahoga County agreed that Tri-C was a satisfactory beginning toward meeting the higher educational needs of the County. They also confirmed the LWVO position that such colleges should be permitted to include technical-occupational

22 curriculum in their educational programs. (In 1963 the community college law was amended by the legislature to permit the offering of two-year technical occupational programs.) The program item “Support of the Continued Development of Cuyahoga Community College” was first adopted at the 1964 ILO Convention and subsequently re-adopted. In 1979 the wording of the item was changed to “Support of Cuyahoga Community College as a unique education institution” in order to avoid giving blanket support to expansion without study. At the 1999 ILO Convention the wording was changed to “Support of the Cuyahoga Community College, the two-year higher education institution in the County that provides accessible and affordable educational programs and services which meet the needs of the County’s population.” The new wording clarified the intent of the consensus reached in 1963. The word “unique” had created interpretation problems. The words, “County’s population” indicated the role of business and industry. For a number of years the League sent observers to the meetings of the Tri-C Board of Trustees. Until the mid-1980s a League member served on the Board of Trustees.

2006 UPDATE: Tri-C now serves 55,000 students each year at three traditional campuses, two Corporate College locations in Westlake and Warrensville Heights, 50 off-campus sites, and via television and the Internet. More than 700,000 county residents have passed through Tri-C’s doors, representing one in five county residents. Students can choose from nearly 1,200 credit courses in 130 career, certificate and university transfer programs. Credit courses are available at various locations, on cable television, and via the Internet; and over 300 non-credit workforce and professional development courses, seminars and workshops are offered through Corporate College and Workforce Development and on the three campuses. All the campuses have state-of-the-art technology and advanced educational equipment. The open-door admissions policy extends educational opportunities to everyone. An individual, who does not have a high school diploma or a GED, may attend if he/she meets the requirements of the specific program he/she is interested in. The ages of the students range from 15 to 93 with an average age of 30; 75% are working; 61% choose technical career programs; 36% are preparing for transfer to a four-year institution. Over 80 percent of Tri-C’s graduates find jobs in the county. Future federal and state financial support for higher education is uncertain. The need for accessible and affordable education and workforce training continues. There are two county tax levies helping to finance the College: -- 1.6 mill replacement levy approved in November 2001 will expire December 31, 2010. -- 1.2 mill replacement levy approved in November 2005 will expire December 31, 2014. The League should be prepared to evaluate any future funding proposals for Tri-C.

DIVERSITY (merged program 2003, 2015; plus LWV United States program)

Support of A. Measures designed to promote understanding and responsibility in diverse and multi-racial, multi-cultural communities

HEALTH SERVICES (1973, 1983, 1984, 1997) -- ILO Studies

Support of a health care delivery system that provides adequate health care to all citizens of Cuyahoga County, and effective comprehensive health planning by bodies representative of consumer interests as well as health professionals. Continued evaluation of health care services for all in Cuyahoga County with particular attention to financing, delivery, distribution and availability.

The League of Women Voters [of Cuyahoga County] believes:

A. All citizens of Cuyahoga County should have access to adequate health care. A. For health care to be adequate, a comprehensive range of services must be available for preventive, acute and long-term care. B. More emphasis needs to be placed on preventive medicine in order to safeguard the health of county residents and reduce the overall costs of their care. C. More ambulatory and home health services should be developed in order to obviate or reduce the institutionalization of patients in hospitals or long-term care facilities. D. The responsibility for assuring high-quality health care must be shared by health professionals, who know what can be provided, and consumers, who understand the public’s demands for care. Government assistance is needed to relate the services of providers with the needs of consumers and to regulate and finance parts of the health care system. E. Economical and fair health care delivery requires effective comprehensive health care planning. Bodies charged with the responsibility for making decisions on health care should be properly representative of the constituency served. The League’s support of increased powers for comprehensive health planning bodies is contingent upon proper representation of consumer interests in decision-making boards and committees. F. Patients have the right to be fully informed about their illness, its treatment and its financial costs when they receive health care at any delivery point.

HISTORY:

The study of Health Care Delivery Systems in the county was undertaken in the 1970s because the League was periodically requested to support tax levies for health and welfare services. A thorough understanding of the whole system was needed in order to relate specific funding Resource materials published by the study committee, Collected Papers on Health Care Services (1974) and Health Care at the Crossroads (1975), were used by League members for information 24 leading to the above position. A study of a proposed capital improvement levy for the County Hospital system in 1974 resulted in a report, Cuyahoga County Hospital – Financing and Development.

Meetings of the Metropolitan Health Planning Committee were regularly monitored. Particular emphasis was placed on participation by health care consumers in decision-making. In May 1980 the LWV of the United States adopted a study of Health Care Systems and followed with adoption of position statements that have broadened the League’s attention to the coordination of county-supplied services and federal programs.

In April 1982 (as directed by the delegates to the 1981 ILO convention), the Health Committee presented a member program on its findings about health services in Cuyahoga County. The Committee visited health centers and interviewed health officials in order to gather the information. A new study, “Study of mental health services in relation to facilities, treatment, and aftercare”, was adopted at the May 1983 ILO Convention.

In 1987-88, delegates to the ILO Convention voted to study and reach consensus on the proposed change in governance of the Cleveland Metropolitan Hospital Systems from a public hospital to a non-profit corporation. Although LWVCC delegates voted to support such a change as long as such change assured continuation of health services to the medically indigent, the County commissioners did not approve the change. In 1997, ILO delegates removed the specific support statement for a non-profit corporate structure while retaining the concern for health services to the medically indigent.

In 1999 League members participated in a coalition (Community Partners for Affordable and Accessible Health Care) to lobby for the retention of the pharmacy at MetroHealth, the public hospital that services a large percentage of the poor in the county. The efforts were successful.

The League continues its participation in the coalition which monitors MetroHealth and supports its mission to provide health care for the uninsured and underinsured. It is also represented on the Community Advisory Council to MetroHealth that was created by the Coalition and organized by League member Roslyn Talerico.

ACTION & EDUCATION

--Continuous support of renewal levies for County Health and Human Services. --Member representation on health-related advisory groups --Attendance at MetroHealth Board meetings (1990-2000’s). --Testimony regarding community mental health centers at a local Congressional hearing. --Conducted an update and organized two symposia (2000-2001).

HOUSING (merged program 2003, 2015; plus LWV United States program)

Support of A. Enforcement of local housing codes to protect the health and safety of citizens B. Mandatory inspections including but not limited to: routine inspection of every dwelling, inspection of all rental buildings, re- inspection at specific intervals, point-of-sale inspection, and adequate staffing and training of impartial housing/building inspectors C. Access for limited-income owners to information about assistance in the correction of code violations D. Housing that meets the varying needs of residents, including assistance programs for those of limited income E. An adequately funded and efficient housing court

ACTION & EDUCATION

- Sponsored a fair housing forum (1988) - Published and distributed Expanded Horizons: The Westshore Story (1993)

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (merged program: 2003, 2015; plus LWV Ohio program)

Support of A. Quality, integrated public education B. Sufficient funding for quality public education C. Continued monitoring of educational facilities, allocation of resources, programs, and educational methods D. Citizen input in long-range planning of finances, facilities, staffing, and educational methods

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (merged program 2003, 2015)

Support of A. The best possible public library services that reflect the needs of the community B. Continuing evaluation of financing and future development C. Cooperation between public libraries and school libraries

PUBLIC RECREATION (merged program 2003, 2015)

Support of A. Public recreation programs based on needs of the community served and providing recreation to all ages and abilities B. Continued evaluation of programming, facilities, and financing C. Financial support from both municipalities and school districts, with transparency in their relationship D. Maintaining a balance of recreational facilities and publicly-owned spaces This position was originally adopted by one or more chapters prior to the merger of the LWVGC. The LWVGC voted on May 30, 2015 to approve these as positions of the LWVGC as a whole. Materials related to the history of the position may be available in individual chapter files.

TRANSPORTATION (1979, 1999) – ILO Study

Support of mass transit as a public service, publicly controlled, with operating costs subsidized, to meet the transit needs of all residents of Cuyahoga County, including the special transit needs of senior citizens and handicapped persons.

[See related Transportation & Land Use position below.]

HISTORY:

A LWVUS study of air pollution resulted in a position statement in 1971 that gave high priority to the reduction of automobile caused air pollution and encouraged the development of alternate transportation systems. The air quality position together with the access to employment and housing position formed the basis for the League’s transportation position. The statement emphasized citizen participation in decisions and opened the way for action by all Leagues at state, regional and local levels. In 1972, the LWVUS synthesized the two positions into a unified transportation statement and then issued guidelines for action under Human Resources and Environmental Quality positions. Buttressed by a federally supported mass transit study, local Leagues agreed that an area-wide transit system, publicly supported, was needed, and worked for the establishment of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA). 27

In Cuyahoga County, the Regional Transit Authority was established in November, 1974, but the passage of a one- percent sales tax was necessary to bring it to life. With active participation of all Leagues the sales tax was approved in October 1975, and RTA became a reality. Fares were to remain at an agreed low rate until 1981, all public transit lines in the county had been or were being acquired by RTA, the Shaker Rapid had been rehabilitated, and plans for rehabilitation of the Airport-Windermere Rapid were awaiting sufficient capital improvement money for completion. Community Responsive Transit and extra life service for the elderly and handicapped fulfilled some of the school, medical and social needs for transit. RTA is governed by a board of 10 trustees who serve 3-year terms and earn $4,800 each. The County Commissioners appoint three members (one must be a resident of Cleveland), the Mayor of Cleveland appoints four members, and the Mayors and Managers Association appoints the other three. In 2004 RTA had an annual operating budget of $224.5 million and 2,660 employees. It covered 458 square miles, 59 municipalities and served 1.4 million people. It had 650 buses, 1,500 shelters, and 8,423 bus stops. The Red Line Rapid Transit had 60 heavy-rail cars and 18 stations; the Blue/Green Line Rapid Transit had 48 light-rail cars and 34 stations. There were 77 paratransit vehicles. There were eleven community circulator routes with 55 vehicles. Senior citizens with RTA identification rode at reduced rates. Students with RTA identification could buy tickets at their schools at reduced rates. Seniors paid 25 cents to ride between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 40 cents during rush hours on local buses. Students and everyone else paid 85 cents for local bus fare and $1.00 for express buses and rapids. In 2006 fares were increased. The bus fare for seniors was raised from 50 to 60 cents and will increase again in 2008 to 75 cents. For everyone else, the local bus fare will increase from $1.25 to $1.50 and to $1.75 in 2008. The rapid transit fare of $1.50 was raised to $1.75. This was the first increase in thirteen years. The idea of establishing a Northeast Ohio Jetport arose in the late 1960s and prompted the League’s interest in another avenue of transportation. The jetport, or LERTA (Lake Erie Regional Transportation Agency), grew from the dream of a few Cleveland businessmen into a $4 million study funded by FAA grants for the feasibility of a Northeast Ohio Jetport, to be built on a 10,000-acre island in Lake Erie four miles north of downtown Cleveland. The planners believed such a transportation hub would bring prosperity and new jobs to the area and that the Jetport would be quickly accessible to downtown yet sufficiently isolated by water to keep it from being a noisy neighbor. Disadvantages noted were the enormous and expensive engineering problems, the large amount of energy needed, faulty need estimates, expensive access routes, Lake Erie weather and duplication of other adequate transportation facilities. A coalition of Northeast Ohio Leagues was formed to study the jetport concept and then decided to formally oppose the Jetport. In the summer of 1977 the FAA announced that Cleveland would get no funding for the Jetport because it was low on the national priority list. LERTA records were formally transferred to the Greater Cleveland Growth Association. A pro forma annual meeting was held to keep the Authority alive, but there has been no further action toward the Jetport. Since the subject of the Jetport arises again occasionally, the League believes it is important to keep the position in place. (Latest information is contained in Here’s Cuyahoga County (June 1982).

ACTION & EDUCATION --Observed monthly meetings of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Board of Trustees through 1980s and 1990s. --League member Donalene Poduska served on a RTA citizen’s advisory board.

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE (1999) -- ILO Study (Update to previous TRANSPORTATION study, previously presented in Natural Resources section.)

Support of comprehensive planning by local, county, regional, state and federal governments and agencies in order to achieve policies on transportation, tax structures and allocations that will encourage a sustainable balance among urban areas, farmland and open spaces.

Support of the government of Cuyahoga County, working with federal, state, regional and local governments and agencies, to develop and implement transportation policies that encourage balanced growth and quality of life.

HISTORY:

An ILO committee, headed by Carol Gibson, did a comprehensive study which led to consensus on the above positions in 1999. In 2000, the League published its study findings in a booklet, “Land Use and Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship” and created a high school social studies lesson plan and packet for distribution to area schools.

(See Appendix VI for the grant application proposal describing the study.)

ACTION & EDUCATION

--Joined Coalition with Sustainable Communities Movement --Wrote and distributed “Sprawl Gets Personal” lesson plan --Presented workshops titled “My Future, Your Future, Our Future: Land Use and Healthy Communities (2000-2001), supported by Gund Foundation grant. --Published letters to the editor on selected “sprawl” issues

NATURAL RESOURCES

CLEVELAND LAKEFRONT NATURE PRESERVE (2008) – Study by LWV Cleveland Area, concurrence by LWV of Greater Cleveland, 2015.

Support of the preservation of the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve (the former “Dike 14”) as a nature preserve with judicious public access, such as nature trails, boardwalks, coastal overlooks, benches, viewing scopes, a hawk tower, and educational/informational signage.

HISTORY:

Beginning in September 2000, the Environmental Committee of the League of Women Voters of Cleveland started following the events in Cleveland regarding the proposed change in usage for a container built in Lake Erie during the 1970s to receive dredged materials from the Cleveland Harbor and Cuyahoga River. The so-called “Dike 14” site had been considered in master planning processes as an eventual state park, which added state laws to what already was a labyrinth of federal laws directing its usage. The Committee began its advocacy work for Dike 14 at state and national League levels, prompting the LWV of Ohio to pass a resolution in May 2001 to “protect Lake Erie coastal wildlife habitats at Cleveland’s Dike 14.”

The Committee became an active participant with the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition and its spin-off Dike 14 Committee and paired their wildlife habitat interests with the LWV-Cleveland Area’s in-depth study of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. (CCCPA had obtained the responsibility for long-term maintenance of the Dike 14 site from the Army Corps of Engineers and was subject to periodic reviews of its role.)

In 2002, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources sought public input for possible formation of a state park at Dike 14, and the League committee worked with other community groups to create interest in such change but progress was slow. After a decade of controversial preparation, Dike 14 officially opened in February 2012 as the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve, an 88-acre unique wildlife habitat and public park managed by the Port of Cleveland (current titling for the CCCPA).

(See APPENDIX VII for descriptive support materials for this study and position.)

ACTION & EDUCATION

-- Membership in coalitions such as Dike 14 Committee and Cleveland Waterfront Coalition -- Reports and updates to LWV Cleveland Area membership --Advocacy for public review of permit renewals

CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL PARK (1979) – ILO Study

Support for the continued development of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CVNP) and its restoration and preservation as an open green area.

Specifically, the League supports:

A. Continued acquisition of the designated and needed land. B. Efforts to increase public understanding of National Park Service methods of operation, such as land acquisition, relocation assistance, and boundary adjustments. C. Adequate funding for land acquisition, development and operation. D. Citizen participation in major plans and decisions of the CVNP by such means as public hearings and citizen advisory groups. E. Agreements between the CVNP and area communities regarding methods of and compensation for road maintenance, fire fighting, rescue and law enforcement. F. Achievements of highest water quality standards through the combined efforts of all concerned communities, enforcement agencies and the National Park Service to assure recreational use of the Cuyahoga River and its tributaries. G. Community efforts, by such means as a council of adjacent communities, to work together on such common problems as standards for development and zoning and good land use on the periphery. H. Development of a transportation plan for the CVNP and environs. Such a plan would include public transport access from the Cleveland and Akron areas, valley trains, periphery parking and shuttle buses. I. Development of facilities and programs that keep the valley natural, peaceful, unpolluted and uncrowded. For example: …environmental education and nature study. …interpretation and preservation of the valley’s historic past. …trails for such activities as hiking, biking, horseback riding. …primitive overnight campsites without direct motor vehicle access. …non-motorized water activities such as canoeing, canal boat rides. The League opposes developments that destroy natural areas, intrude on the historic settings, or are noisy and polluting. For example: … high tension wires and towers …overnight camping for trailers and motorhomes. …motorboating, snowmobiling, and motorcycling.

HISTORY:

Cuyahoga Valley National Park:

Despite the post-World War II building boom, the Cuyahoga River valley between Akron and Cleveland remained an oasis of quiet towns, farms, woodlands, and metro parks. The high bridges of new highways did not disturb the scene below nor did the development of Hale Farm Museum and Blossom Music Center.

However, in the late sixties and early seventies Nick Mileti planned and built the Coliseum at Richfield, a sports arena. This rallied area residents who became concerned about the issues of conservation and preservation and the development that would surely follow a popular sports facility. Citizen groups and coalitions soon formed to study the issues involved. Leagues in Akron and the Cleveland area were active participants, asking “How can we avoid suburban 31 sprawl and the air and water pollution that would result? How do we preserve this rare and lovely area between two large cities? How can we save the evidence of past centuries; the canal, historic buildings, traces of early Indian settlements?” A large public park seemed to be the answer. The State of Ohio thought the park idea a good one, but could not fund the purchase of a large enough tract of land.

Congressman John Seiberling sponsored a bill to establish the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. It passed both the Senate and House. At the last minute President Gerald Ford threatened a veto because of budget considerations. Local phone trees got busy and park supporters deluged the President with pleas for support with all the reasons that a national park should be where the people are. The President listened. In 1974 the park became a reality as the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, an urban park of the National Park System. In 2000 the status of the recreation area was elevated to become the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

League member Janet Hutchison (1928-2014) received many accolades for her leadership in the League’s involvement in the establishment of the National Recreation Area/Park. From her ILO Board position as the water resources expert, Janet continued her involvement with the Park late in her life. In 2008 she received a President’s Award for more her more than 22,000 hours of volunteer work and the U.S. Department of Interior’s Citizens Award for Exceptional Service.

The National Park Service manages the park in cooperation with other property owners within its boundaries, including Cleveland Metroparks and the Metro Parks serving Summit County. Together they protect the natural landscape, preserve remnants of the area’s human history, and provide a place for recreation and education in a beautiful outdoor setting. The Coliseum closed in 1994, stood empty for several years and was demolished in 1999. The acreage was bought by a coalition of groups spearheaded by the Trust for Public Land. Today young trees, grass, and wild flowers mark the vanished buildings and parking lots.

A major portion of the original Ohio-Erie Canal, built in the 1830s to connect the Ohio River to Lake Erie, lies within the Cuyahoga Valley National Park and has been the focus of several related preservation projects of interest to the League of Women Voters.

Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor

On November 12, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the legislation designating the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, thanks to the efforts of then-Congressman Ralph Regula. The Ohio and Erie CanalWay is one of just 27 National Heritage areas. It is not a traditional park where land is owned by one organization. Instead, it is a lived-in region where the natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a nationally significant landscape. Historic buildings have been rehabilitated. An environmental studies camp has been established. An active interpretive center educates and entertains. New trails have been built including the popular bicycle and hiking trail on the Canal towpath. An old-fashioned passenger train between Akron and Cleveland delights tourists of all ages.

The Ohio & Erie Canalway Association (OECA) is the 501(c) (3) non-profit organization designated by Congress to plan and manage the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor. The OECA board consists of 18 members that represent all four counties within the corridor (Cuyahoga, Summit, Stark, and Tuscarawas) and its affiliate groups, Canalway Partners (representing the Cleveland and Cuyahoga County portions of the corridor) and Ohio & Erie Canalway Company (represent the southern section of the corridor). The remaining six board members are independent representatives with related interests and expertise. 32

Coordinated with these efforts, Cleveland Metroparks opened the Ohio and Erie Canal Reservation in 1999. It stretches from Rockside Road in Independence north to Harvard Avenue and is planned to continue to the shore of Lake Erie in Cleveland. Its CanalWay Visitor Center, outdoor education programs and trails connect to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park fishing and picnic areas.

The Cleveland Metroparks

Established on July 23, 1917, by the Ohio General Assembly, the Cleveland Metroparks is separate political subdivision of the state of Ohio. The park district is governed by a board of three commissioners appointed by the presiding judge of the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County. In 1920 the Park District held title to just 109 acres of land in Rocky River and Big Creek; by 1930 it had acquired 9,000 acres in nine large reservations: Rocky River, Huntington, Big Creek, Hinckley, Brecksville, Bedford, South Chagrin, North Chagrin, and Euclid Creek. Today the Emerald Necklace encircles Cuyahoga County and extends into Hinckley Township in Medina County. It includes nearly 20,000 acres of land in fourteen reservations, over 100 miles of parkways, and the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo.

ACTION & EDUCATION

--Held annual meetings at CanalWay Visitor Center to introduce members to park services. --Hosted CVNP Superintendent at a event honoring lifetime LWV member Janet Hutchison --Supported 1.5 mill levy for Cleveland MetroParks (1995)

NATURAL RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENT - LAKE ERIE (1966, 1999, 2003, 2015) -- ILO Study

Support for the restoration and preservation of Lake Erie and its tributaries.

The League supports: 1. A coordinated water management program that will provide: a. An adequate pollution control program with strict enforcement; b. An adequate flood control program c. An adequate storm drainage control program d. Governmental units with enough geographic area and enough power to plan and administer the control of pollution, flood and storm drainage. 2. Implementation of the position to restore and preserve Lake Erie and its tributaries through pollution control, abatement and prevention and through improved planning and management of water and related land resources.

HISTORY:

In the late 1960s, local Leagues in Cuyahoga County joined about 70 local and area Leagues in the five-state Lake Erie watershed in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York to form an umbrella organization, the Lake Erie Basin Committee (LEBC), to conduct research and coordinate advocacy about such concerns as water quality, dredging, and drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes as well as in the Ashtabula River, Black River, Buffalo River, Cuyahoga River, Detroit River, Maumee River, Niagara River, and the Rouge River.

The LEBC Program goals and positions have been adopted by a consensus process at the LEBC Annual Meeting. Any League member can participate in LEBC activities and serve as an officer. Working with the LWVUS Natural Resources Positions on Environmental Protection and Pollution Control, the LEBC recommends action to LEBC Leagues who then use their individual internal processes to respond and to advocate publicly As jurisdictional issues surfaced in the multi-state organization, delegates at the 1999 ILO Convention voted to remove the specific connection with the Lake Erie Basin Committee from the Natural Resources-Lake Erie position statement and agreed that national, state, and LWVGC position statements provided ample purpose for regional action and education.

[See www.lakeeriebasin.org for further LEBC information.]

ACTION & EDUCATION --Sponsored forum series on the environment, in partnership with EcoCity Cleveland, Earth Day Coalition and Ohio Environmental Council (2006-07) --Toured Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, Oberlin (2007) --Supported efforts of Ohio Coastal Resource Management Project (2008) --Maintained membership in Lake Erie Basin Committee (1968-2016)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

THREE FACT SHEETS: ABCD STUDY

FACT SHEET 1: LOOKING FOR AN INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT

What are ABCDs? ABCDs refer to Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Special Districts of Cuyahoga County government. “The Commissioners Guide” notes that through these organizations and the leadership of their members, the Commissioners provide a multitude of services and programs covering a wide range of social, economic and environmental issues?

What will the ABCD study do? The ABCD study will explore in what sense it’s the Commissioners who provide these services and programs, how the ABCD?s fit into the organizational chart of county government, how members are appointed, how they are paid, to whom they report, whether they keep open records, etc

How many ABCD’s are there? There are currently forty-five boards for which the county Commissioners furnish at least one member. You can view the list at the Commissioners’ Homepage. . There are even two new ones--the Convention Facilities Authority and the Arts and Culture District not yet listed there.

Who else appoints members to the ABCDs? Other appointing authorities might be city mayors, judges, civic groups or neighboring counties. Some board members serve by virtue of the offices or positions they hold.

How or why are these boards formed? All ABCDs have their basis in enabling state statutes of the Ohio Revised Code, and a few are required by federal law. Many are authorized by resolutions of the County Commissioners. Some boards make policy while others are advisory. Most boards appear to function autonomously once they are constituted.

Are all ABCDs under the jurisdiction of the County Commissioners? No, some boards have no connection whatever to the County Commissioners to name a few: CMHA, Board of Elections, Veterans Commission, Cuyahoga County Board of Health, County Budget Commission, and Cleveland Metroparks.

How are they funded and how do they function? Some boards propose tax levies, charge fees, issue bonds, apply for private or government grants, receive federal or state funds, or appear as line items on the county’s General Fund budget. Some boards cross county lines into neighboring counties. Most have paid staff, while others operate on a shoestring with volunteers. Some meet often and are highly visible while others have a low profile, scarcely meet and have several vacant seats.

FACT SHEET 2: OVERSIGHT

Why do we venture into the maze of Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Districts (ABCDs)? It is a logical extension of ongoing explorations of how county government works. Citizens who attended our “County Government 101” presentations were invariably surprised at the ABDCs’ apparent lack of transparency and accountability. League Principles and many positions at all League levels authorize members to demand government transparency and accountability. This maze is exactly the kind of territory Leagues like to enter!

What have we found out (or not) in the County Administrator’s offices? They keep one notebook with a page on each ABCD, containing its mission statement, the number of board members, the appointing authorities or special qualifications for those trustees, the dates of their announced public meetings, and the Ohio (ORC) statutes and/or county Resolution numbers which authorized them. This information can now even be accessed via a link on the Commissioners? Homepage. One can also get a somewhat outdated list of names of each ABCD directors. But that is the extent of integrated information 36 at the Commissioners? and our fingertips. For that reason, the committee has undertaken to contact almost all the ABCDs ourselves.

What kinds of information are we seeking? We want to know, additionally: how the board members are compensated, how they write their bylaws, how they are funded (particularly their public funding), how they are staffed and budgeted, whether they must report to anyone, whether any authority exercises oversight, and what kind of auditing they undergo. We also want to test the accessibility of each board to citizen inquiry.

How do Commissioners communicate with an ABCD, if they get a citizen inquiry or complaint? Boards are accessible to Commissioners through informal phone contacts with a go-to source within each agency. Somebody at the county building always knows somebody on a board to call. Citizens can get an address or phone number from the homepage links mentioned above.

Is this informal or spotty accessibility ever a problem? If Commissioners suspect an irregularity, they have sometimes hired the Ohio Auditor’s office to do a performance audit. And, by way of their appointive powers, they can always seek to change a board’s composition. However, they have no say about hiring and payroll but can request budgets and salary lists.

Do Commissioners exercise any other types of oversight to keep abreast of the many ABCDs? Rarely. CEO pay and expense overages have been aired at Commissioners’ meetings on several recent occasions. Current issues at the Board of Election show they can also appoint a fact-finding committee or “project manager” to look into malfunctions, even if they have no appointive authority. But otherwise, they do not routinely interfere with ABCD business, and most agencies consider themselves autonomous. At one time Commissioners appointed a deputy Administrator to keep atop ABCDs, but no longer. The current Deputy has many other responsibilities.

FACT SHEET 3: F’s (FACTS) + O’s (OPINIONS) = CONSENSUS FODDER

County Government Committee members have collectively interviewed one County Commissioner, five members of the Prosecutor’s Civil Division, the Director of Management and Budget, and the Deputy County Administrator for ABCD appointments (Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Districts). We have also individually interviewed contacts at about twenty-five ABCDs in the county. Here are some key F’s and expert O’s to inform our upcoming consensus decisions:

F -- IMPORTANCE: ABCD’s spend far heftier combined dollar amounts, including their own tax revenues, than does the county alone through its general fund budget.

F -- FUNCTIONS: If the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) does not authorize a specific kind of ABCD, then statutory counties (eighty-seven of eighty-eight Ohio counties) may not establish one. The only way around this limitation is setting up an advisory board within ORC parameters. However, these lack authority.

F -- AUTONOMY: ABCDs are independent, quasi-governmental bodies. Commissioner influence over them and their spending is limited to the power to appoint or occasionally to appropriate/withhold discretionary county funding. Directors do NOT serve at the pleasure of their appointers, and state law, not Commissioners, spell out protocols of their operation.

F -- OVERSIGHT: Commissioners have few tools to oversee the operations of ABCDs, because the ORC does not confer any. Current county-sponsored election monitors at the Board of Elections are only there because of an unwritten agreement with the Board of Elections. Otherwise, Commissioners can focus only a public spotlight or a bully pulpit on board activity. They have no authority to monitor funds from the independent revenue sources (levies, fees, US and Ohio funds) received by many ABCDs.

O -- APPOINTMENTS: There are ample candidates for the paid ABCD board positions (salaries set by the ORC), but a dearth of volunteers for the uncompensated positions. Not enough citizens appear to be interested. No one alleged links to politics, patronage or campaign contributions.

F -- SUNSHINE: All ABCDs must be authorized by ORC statute and so are subject to state open meetings and records laws. Others such as Section 501 (c) (3) or (6) bodies, which resemble ABCDs, are not subject to these sunshine requirements. Our interviewers were frequently invited to attend sessions and view documents.

O -- ACCESSIBILITY: Most ABCDs we interviewed were receptive and glad someone was interested in their operation. A few interviewers did, however, report obstacles. Descriptions and contact information, though not always up to date, is easy to obtain for those citizens who can use the County Homepage’s new web link to “Boards and Commissions.”

O -- ALTERNATIVES: One alternative to proliferating ABCDs might be conversion of some boards into integrated administrative departments. In general, Commissioners have more leeway in structuring their administrative departments than they do over ABCDs. But here are the obstacles: (a) NO, if state funds are involved; (b) NO, unless ORC specifically enables; (c) NO, if judicial appointments are involved and (d) NO, if other governments or agencies share appointing power. That leaves very few boards which could be converted, even with a Charter.

O -- OVERHAUL: The General Assembly would need to change features of the ORC in order to cause changes out interviewees favored. But the lawyers believe the legislature has little interest in county governance or ABCDs. A slightly more unitary County Charter government could be drawn up to convert a few boards or to mandate some oversight, they thought.

APPENDIX II

A HISTORY OF LWV EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HOME RULE IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY

1932 LWV supported county home rule. Concerned with duplication of services and overlapping governments. Supported the creation of an executive officer in the county, grouping services and activities into functions, and reducing the number of boards and offices. Constitutional amendment needed, but 4 hurdles impossible.

1933 LWVO supported an amendment to Art. X of Ohio Constitution and worked to get petition signatures. This amendment provides for alternative forms or county charters. Counties could frame charters to establish the form and powers of a county government, similar to the 1912 amendment that permitted municipalities to adopt home rule charters. Amendment adopted

All home rule charters must: a) specify the form of government; b) specify officers to be elected; c) specify manner of election; d) provide for the exercise of all powers vested in the county and its officers; and e) provide for the performance of all duties imposed on counties and officers.

To obtain a charter a majority vote is required in: a) entire county, plus b) largest city, plus c) all of area outside city, plus d) majority in a majority of all municipalities and townships. (amended 1957

1934 LWV Committee on Government and Its Operations (formerly Efficiency in Government) to study taxation, civil service/merit system, county reorganization-supported home rule, and city council.

1934 Charter Commission on November ballot. The Commission was elected.

Charter Commission elected with Harold Burton, chair. There were 2 slates presented-a city slate and a suburban slate. Elected were 13 members from the city slate and 2 from the Danaceau or suburban slate. There were 2 LWV members elected: Mrs. Max Hellman and Mrs. B.F.McQuate.

1941 Beginning of efforts to centralize relief services: movement toward combining state and county welfare departments. LWV urges a coordinated state/county welfare system.

1935 Charter commissions were elected in Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Lucas, and Mahoning counties. All proposed charters were defeated except in Cuyahoga where a majority of the voters in the county approved; however, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the Constitution because the 1935 charter vested municipal powers in the County and thus needed the four majorities.

1936 Ohio Supreme Court invalidates County Charter election. Unsuccessful effort to elect charter commission.

1941 Unsuccessful effort to elect charter commission.

1949 LWV supports the creation of county charter commission. Commission elected.

1950 There is a stalemate in County Charter Commission; County is asked to expose it. LWV observes commissioner meetings. Charter is defeated.

A-1 1952 Board of County Commissioners created the office of County Administrator. 1953 LWV published County Board of All Trades.

1954 LWV Survey of county governments in relation to laws of Ohio to determine solutions to existing problems. Recommendations: a) Reorganize county government by amending OH Constitution to modify four hurdles to county home rule or ask legislatures to set up alternative forms of county government; b) Classify roads to determine responsibility for financing and maintaining; c) Statutory provision for a county administrative officer; d) Courts: selection methods, administrative officer, and 39 retirement plan for judges; e) Study the relationship between the prosecutor and the grand jury; f) Auditor - qualifications, communities should do local zoning; there is a problem/lack of consistency with property assessment rate and determination of class of property; g) Board of Revision - municipalities should have representation; h) Budget Commission - clarify distribution of intangibles tax; and i) Any county reorganization should place the duties of the auditor and treasurer with an appointed finance director - the auditor is too powerful.

1955 Cleveland Metropolitan Services Commission (METRO) was formed to study problems in delivering services in Greater Cleveland. Executive Director - James Norton.

1955 Mayor Celebrezze sends someone to study German municipal government.

1955 Cleveland LWV supports state legislative authority for alternative forms of county government and tentative support for Plan A - elect commissioners who appoint administrator

1956 LWV Metro Services Committee of two members from Cleveland and County to analyze problems that transcend municipal boundaries.

1957 Constitutional amendment drive to permit adoption of home rule charter minus one hurdle. Committee: Seth Taft, Mrs. Stanley Emerling (LWV), J. Bartunek (Ohio Senate minority leader), T. McDonald (Cleveland Federation of Labor), Jack Russell, Mayor Celebrezze, Speeth (commissioner), Stapleton (Mayor S.H.), Celeste (Mayor, Lakewood), Albert Porter and Gerber (Democratic Party), Demaioribus (Republican Party). 4th hurdle eliminated.

(LWV internal problem with ballot issue -information from L. Filipic. The LWV County Council supported Metro. Cleveland LWV wanted to oppose it but did not - but did not work for it and some of its board members worked against it (Lurtissia Brown). Perceived as a racial issue. Barbara Rawson, president of the SH LWV, was hired by Dolph Norton to work for issue.

1958 Another Charter Commission was elected. 12 democrats and 3 republicans. Gerber, Sen. Burke, Porter, Sen. Bartunek, Alfred A. Benesche (school board), Thom Matia, St. Rep. Wm. P. Day, Thad Fusco (clerk), James M. Carney, St. rep. Anne Donnelly, Donald Carmichael (industrialist), Wm. Burton (attorney), Wm. Rogers (Port Authority), Seth Taft.

1959 The proposed charter (Metro) was defeated. Opposed by the mayors of Shaker Heights and Cleveland and Black citizens.

1959 LWV mounted a study on service delivery problems.

1960 County Charter Study: review of metropolitan problems and services. Discussion about reorganization of County LWV Council. Cleveland concerned about representation on committee. This effort grew from the dissension between Cleveland and other Leagues regarding Metro ballot issue. Cleveland LWV votes not to join the Interim Council of Cuyahoga County LWVs. Cleveland LWV supports Metro charter as solution to inter-municipal problems, e.g., sewers, transportation.

1960 Mayor Celebrezze presented the Commissioners with an "areas of agreement" charter plan, but it was not put on the ballot.

1961 The General Assembly passed legislation providing for an alternative form of county government. It provided for a policy-making body of up to 17 members elected from districts, at-large, or a combination, and an elected or appointed executive. It was later revised to strengthen the legislative control of finances of the department of the other elected officials. Cleveland LWV minutes call it a bill to modernize county government.

1961 Cleveland LWV agrees to participate in but not join County LWV council.

1962 Cleveland LWV not permitted to vote on County LWV Council. Unless Cleveland LWV is a full partner in the County Council of Leagues, the Council cannot support county governmental reorganization and the Cleveland LWV cannot oppose. 40

1961 Ohio General Assembly authorized alternative form.

1963 Cleveland LWV refuses to do member consensus on County item.

1963 The LWV and Citizens League collected signatures on an initiative petition to place on the ballot a plan for an elected executive and a board of 9 legislators, but the required number of signatures (10% of electors) was not secured.

1963 Plan to place County Mayor Plan on November ballot but insufficient signatures were obtained. LWV, Citizens League, Women's City Club, and Chamber of Commerce (Growth Association) are gathering signatures. LWV promises 10,000 signatures and sets up booths at shopping centers.

1966-67 LWVs studied all county functions and published Here’s Cuyahoga County.

1967 The General Assembly amended the Alternative form Law to reduce the number of petition signatures to 3% of the electors.

1968 The Citizens League and LWV requested the Commissioners to appoint a committee to recommend an alternate form plan for reorganization. A 27 member committee was appointed. (The former LWV president was a member).

1968 The LWV conducted a study and evaluation of county government with consensus that the following improvements were needed: a) Clearer distinction between policy-making and administrative functions; b) An executive head with control of the departments; c) The appointment of some department heads now elected; d) The elimination of overlapping functions; e) Some services should be provided regionally (e.g., mental health and air quality) with the recommendation that criteria be developed for determining the level for most effective service delivery.

1968 LWV did brief study to be prepared to make specific recommendation on Alternative Form then being proposed.

1969 At the last possible minute the Commissioners did put an elected executive plan on the ballot. Although it differed somewhat from the committee recommendations, the LWV voted to support it. It lost by a small margin (received 49% of vote). Alternative proposal was for an elected county mayor and 7 commissioners - 4 by congressional district and 3 at-large.

1970 The same plan was put on the ballot again with the only change being a decrease in the proposed salaries of the commissioners. Again the LWV worked to get petitions signed and again the issue was defeated. It was opposed both times by the Democratic Party. (Received 46.2% of vote).

1974-5 LWV study of regional government results in support of a regional approach to providing services under a reorganized county structure. At same time LWVUS conducted the Metropolitan Project, a national survey to find out why government structure has not changed to accommodate the need for regional services. LWVUS publication: Supercity/Hometown USA.

1974 Conference on Regionalism sponsored by the Urban League with Cleveland LWV as co-sponsor.

1976 Citizens League publication The Inconspicuous Government.

1977 Geist testifies for LWV/ILO for two tier form of county government; single elected executive responsible for all county departments and elective legislative body of nine; four from Congressional. districts and five at-large.

1977 Cox-Celebrezze SB 82 proposed that all counties with a population over 200,000 have an elected executive-legislative form of county government.

1978 LWV received letters from Commissioners Taft and Voinovich in June re support for ballot issue for alternative form. August Taft requested that LWV with Citizens League spearhead action to create a

41 committee to write a proposal to reorganize county government. Larry Robinson, Citizens League president, suggested a meeting.

1979 Summit County charter passes.

1980 LWV and Citizens League again spearheaded an initiative petition drive to put a home rule charter on the ballot. (Zelda Stutz listed on petition committee. They collected the largest number of signatures that had ever been filed in the county for any issue. Although the charter was supported by political leaders from both parties, the mayor of Cleveland, the newspapers, and labor, it was again defeated.

This charter would have elected executive and 9 assemblymen from districts; other elected offices would remain elected. Some county mayors opposed because they say it as a step towards a take-over of municipal services. It was opposed by the NAACP; the Urban League remained neutral.

There was a dispute between the Board of Elections and the Citizens Committee for a County Charter regarding the validity of the signatures on petitions. The Committee filed a protest with the Secretary of State, Anthony Celebrezze. The Committee alleged that the Board improperly invalidated some signatures, did not cross-check addresses with illegible signatures, and appears not to be keeping its voter registration records up to date. Robert Hughes, Chair of both the Republican Party and the Election Board, was opposed to the issue and called the petitions "pure garbage." The Citizens League paid petition circulators 40c per signature. The Committee had collected donations of $19,278 by August 15; Contributors were GCGA, Citizens League, East Ohio Gas, CEI, TRW, Eaton, Ohio Bell, White Consolidated, Midland Ross, J.B.Robinson, Oglebay Norton, Sam Miller, Albert Ratner, Van Dorn, Blair Kost, and others who gave less than $200.

1995-96 A Citizens Committee for County Government Reform was appointed by Cuyahoga County Commissioners Boyle, Hagan, and Weingart to initiate discussion, direct research and recommend actions for county-wide governing that will promote accountability and enable county government to deliver high quality public service in the most efficient, cost-effective and equitable manner. The Committee was chaired by Kathleen Barber. The Committee held open meetings with the various branches of County Government. The League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County was present and testified at many of the meetings. A proposal for a home rule charter was presented to the Commissioners to be placed on the ballot. For accountability, it provided an elected executive; for representation and equity, seven-member council with two members elected at-large and five from districts; and for increased efficiency and cost- effective delivery of services, the conversion of seven elected officials to appointed administrators who would report to the County Executive. The Departments included finance, health and human services, and public works. The Prosecutor would have continued to be elected by the voters, but other currently elected officials in the justice system (Coroner, Sheriff, and Clerk of Courts) would have been appointed. The Commissioners took no action on the proposal because of opposition by certain officials.

1996 The LWV of Ohio Education Fund and the League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County surveyed Cuyahoga County voters to discover their level of knowledge about county government issues and their opinion of proposals for changing county government. The survey was funded by the Cleveland and Gund Foundations and Cleveland Tomorrow and was conducted by Opinion Dynamics, Cambridge, MA. The League found that although voters admit not having a solid understanding of county government, they do not believe that it is doing a good job. Three-quarters felt a need for change, but their reaction to the Citizens Committee proposal was evenly split between support and opposition. They preferred electing administrative officials rather than having them appointed, and strongly supported electing a legislative body by districts. And they also selected the League of Women Voters as the organization they would trust to provide them with information on county government.

2003-04 The Cleveland Bar Association, Cleveland State University, the Greater Cleveland Roundtable, the League of Women Voters-Cuyahoga Area, and others collaborated to conduct research and fact- finding to find common ground approaches for the public sector to advance economic development, create jobs, and enhance revenue for all the political subdivisions in the county. The recommendations of the collaborators were that: 1) the community should work toward finding common agreement on government reform and cooperation; 2) a community process precede any reform plan initiative; and 3)

42 the community process should commence immediately to arrive at a plan for regional cooperation within Cuyahoga County. During the study the Republican Party announced its intention to place a home rule charter on the ballot. Since the Citizens League was also planning to propose a charter based on the design of the collaborators, the Republican Party stepped aside and the Citizens League devoted its efforts to drafting a proposed charter, but it did not reach the ballot. No effort was made to continue the process.

2008 The FBI raided the offices and homes of Commissioner Dimora, Auditor Russo, and several lesser lights in county government and neighboring suburbs. The net continued to be cast wider and wider. The Plain Dealer did some investigative features on patronage and misfeasance in several independent offices. Recorder O'Malley was already in jail. Commissioner Hagan went to Columbus to ask the Legislature for special legislation to allow our voters to adopt a modest reform. The Legislature, instead, appointed 6 persons to a 9-person Cuyahoga County Commission on Government Reform (CCCGR). Governor Strickland appointed the other 3. David Abbott was its chair. Their charge was to recommend a statutory change only (no charter). They met every 2 or 3 weeks from July to the end of October (right through the Obama presidential campaign); League attended all sessions and testified on several occasions. Because Louis Stokes would not forsake the 3-Commissioner system or the elected Sheriff & Recorder, the rest (who wanted a council-exec plan with almost no independents) opted for compromise -- lowest common denominator. They submitted their Modest Proposal (a new Alternative Plan) to the Legislature, which adjourned in December without acting upon it.

2009 In the last weeks of the above CCCGR, Attorney Eugene Kramer submitted his version of a model charter for their review. He did not testify, except in writing. Over the Holidays, several other folks took interest in it. In early January and later in Feb, March & April, Kramer sent League successive drafts, which 8 of us LWV CoGovt committee members combed and criticized. Meanwhile, LWV published a 16-page brochure, A Citizens' Guide to Cuyahoga County Government. By April, Kramer’s group was joined by Prosecutor Bill Mason's group and, for a while, some other insider politicians, Civil Rights and Labor leaders. By June, the insiders had deserted the effort, but the charter was finished. 53 League volunteers and more paid petitioners combined to get 81,000 signatures (53,000 were valid, only 45,000 had been required). Huge! As soon as the Commissioners got the news, they quickly reacted by putting a rival proposal onto the same ballot -- to elect a Charter Commission to study for a year and write a different charter, maybe. They also fielded their slate of insider candidates to serve on it. A total of 29 candidates ran. Their Issue was called Issue #5, and our Initiative Charter was called Issue #6. League covered the county with 31 Powerpoint presentations, and our representative joined the Issue #6 campaign coalition, "New Cuyahoga Now." We posted on our website and distributed in print a number of position papers and analyses of the charter. In the final days, we leafleted, distributed yard signs and sent 51 volunteers to work the polls on Election Day. The Issue #6 charter won 67% of the vote countywide, and it carried every one of the 59 municipalities.

2010+: After a transition year, during which a League Workgroup submitted a formal proposal for a strong new Code of Ethics, the new government took office and the Charter took effect in January, 2011.

APPENDIX III

CONSENSUS QUESTIONS FOR ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT STUDY

The first general question deals with what an ethics policy should do -- with the actual contents of an ethics policy. The second general question then addresses the issue of what kind of enforcement is best. These questions are crafted in such a way that any consensus reached will address lasting principles which should still be valid years from now or in other subdivisions or counties, possibly even by other concurring Leagues elsewhere. This Fact Sheet corresponds exactly to the questionnaire. Check as many answers to each question as you would support.

QUESTION I: WHAT SHOULD AN ETHICS POLICY DO?

A. To whom should the policy apply?

All ethics policies begin with a statement of applicability. Some apply narrowly to the elected, appointed and employed public servants of a jurisdiction only, while others attempt to cast their net much further. Exempted must be all judiciary branch employees, who are governed by the state judiciary, and all municipal or township officials/employees are subject to local, not county policies. That includes employees of “mayors’ courts.” In addition, only Charter counties or cities in Ohio have the power craft their own ethics laws. All other local governments (even charter cities which have not adopted ethics ordinances), school districts, boards and commissions are covered by Ohio’s ethics laws.

B. What types of conduct should the policy prohibit?

The TAG group found many interesting and worthwhile provisions in the many county ethics codes they studied: e.g. misuse of authority, divulging confidential information, nepotism, inappropriate honoraria, some unbid contracting, inappropriate secondary employment, quid-pro-quo campaign contributions or gifts, discrimination, reporting false information. Some of these subjects are already covered by Ohio law and all are included in Cuyahoga County’s new Code of Ethics. All can be grouped into logical categories of improper behaviors. Because LWV positions work best when they establish principles and criteria rather than specifics, the checklist for consideration sticks to generalities.

C. How can transparency be fostered?

Leagues everywhere stand for openness and transparency in government, and they already advocate for means which enhance transparency. The TAG workgroup recommended a number of transparency measures, all of which have been included in the new Ethics Ordinance. They cluster around the general principles of disclosure, registry, and on-line, one-stop searchable posting of these data bases.

D. How can individual commitment to ethical conduct be instilled?

The majority of the counties studied mandated some form of ethics education for all employees. The new County Code of Ethics mandates receipt of current ethics policies by all employees, written acknowledgement of receipt of policies, and ethics training programs and classes. The Code also requires that contractors and lobbyists be informed of pertinent parts of county ethics law and certify receipt of training in writing.

E. How can ethical conduct by one’s peers and colleagues be encouraged?

Most of the counties studied provided in their ethics ordinance some mechanism for employees to report ethics violations they have witnessed on the job. Others may well have separate “Whistleblower” ordinances. The strongest was from the District of Columbia which requires employees to report violations and obligates them to respond directly to official probes. The TAG group recommended those provisions, and the new County Ordinance now provides a mechanism for reporting violations. Ethics violations may be reported to supervisors, to the Internal Audit Committee or the Inspector General.

Protection of Whistleblowers against retaliation by employers is also included. The new Code of Ethics does not penalize failure to report a violation that one may reasonably be expected to have known.

F. What principles should govern a complaint process for alleged violations?

All counties which addressed the issue of reporting ethics violations wanted the process to conform to several basic principles: The process should protect the person reporting a violation from repercussions, protect the accused from unfounded charges, and protect the privacy of both the accuser and the accused. Some counties instituted a hotline for anonymous complaints, now also a feature of Cuyahoga County’s new Code.

QUESTION II: WHAT SHOULD AN ETHICS ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM BE?

A. What general principles should be the basis for ethics enforcement?

Realizing that a Code of Ethics without enforcement is little more than a piece of paper, Leagues in 2011 advocated publicly for several principles, such as effectiveness (“teeth”) and independence from political influence. The TAG Workgroup also stressed several others. It wanted enforcement which was reactive to complaints but also active/investigative. It wanted anyone accused of ethics violations to have due process rights, and it wanted the range of possible consequences or penalties spelled out explicitly. Other questions raised: Does an enforcement officer need legal qualifications? Should enforcement be dispersed among several entities, or would a single, centralized authority be preferable?

B. How should an enforcement mechanism be authorized?

Ethics enforcement can be mandated in several different ways, and each has its advantages. The most immutable would be to require a certain structure or process directly in a county’s Charter. Most counties the TAG Workgroup studied mandate their enforcement mechanism by ordinance, either in their code of ethics itself, or in a separate ordinance. Counties or cities without charters can adopt processes or entities by resolutions too, as long as they faithfully reiterate state law. Other non-Charter governments can spell out their means of enforcement via easily modified administrative rules and procedures.

C. What enforcement mechanism is preferable?

The TAG Workgroup studied the enforcement mechanisms of 15 similar Charter counties very closely. Fourteen have established a single enforcement entity called a Board of Ethics or an Ethics Commission. The exception relies only upon its departmental supervisors. Most have an attorney as their key officer, although one relies upon the County Prosecutor for that function. Miami-Dade in Florida has an Ethics Commission but also appoints an Inspector General to investigate violations. Cities or counties without Charter powers rely on their State’s Ethics Commission. The TAG Workgroup recommended that Cuyahoga County establish an independent ethics board with a qualified chief legal officer.

The enforcement mechanisms this County has already established are unlike any other enforcement system the TAG group studied, although leaders say it is partly modeled on the Miami-Dade precedent. The County Council never gave serious consideration to the Workgroup’s proposal for a single, central ethics board. That is because the new Charter stipulates that ethics enforcement must be the duty of the Human Resource Commission, and because the new Executive and several council members campaigned on a platform promising to establish an Inspector General. Instead, the new Code of Ethics assigns several enforcement duties to the H.R.C., and several specifics to the I. G., who as yet has no Charter status.

To understand the enforcement processes for our Code of Ethics, one must look in two places: in the Inspector General ordinance and in the Human Resources Commission’s administrative rules (passed by ordinance). These are not all easy to locate. Here’s how the two-headed system works: In general, complaints first get to the IG by any of several conduits, including an anonymous hotline. The IG investigates and makes a “finding,” which is a formal but non-binding recommendation. Findings are 45 then forwarded for adjudication or sanction to the HRC, the Prosecutor, the OH Ethics Commission, the U.S. Attorney, or whatever other law enforcement entity is deemed appropriate. THEIR rules and processes govern. If the alleged violator is an employee covered by the county’s civil service, the H.R.C. will be the appropriate body, and personnel rules and processes will be followed.

APPENDIX IV

CODE OF ETHICS PROPOSAL BY THE LWV’S CODE OF ETHICS WORKGROUP (TRANSITION ADVISORY GROUP --TAG):

PROPOSED CUYAHOGA COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS

-- approved 08/16/2010, Code of Ethics Workgroup

ARTICLE I: PREAMBLE Residents of Cuyahoga County have the right to expect the highest ethical behavior from the County’s elected and appointed officials and employees. Ethical behavior requires that County officials and employees, as stewards of the common good, must be honest, impartial and responsible to the people. This Code shall serve not only as a basis for discipline, but also and more importantly, as a guide to nurture and sustain an ethical culture.

To meet these expectations, ethical officials and employees of Cuyahoga County will: A. Perform their duties with transparency, competence and impartiality; B. Comply faithfully with all laws and regulations applicable to the County; C. Promote decisions that benefit public interest, not private advantage; D. Keep safe all funds and properties of the County; E. Inspire public confidence in County government; F. Promote a work environment free of discrimination and distress; G. Aim for the best product for the lowest cost without sacrificing quality and fiscal responsibility; H. Show civility and respect in all dealings with colleagues, associates and the public; I. Collaborate with public agencies, local governments and other organizations to further the interests of the County; J. Avoid outside interests incompatible with the proper and lawful discharge of duty; K. Reject favoritism and all attempts to influence County decisions unfairly.

The County Council of Cuyahoga County, recognizing that representative government depends upon maintaining the trust of its citizens, does hereby enact the following Code of Ethics to ensure the highest standards of conduct for themselves, all elected and appointed officials, and all County employees. All such persons shall be well informed of their responsibilities toward that end.

ARTICLE II: GENERAL PROVISIONS A. DEFINITIONS All definitions pertaining to this Code are found in Article VI.

B. COVERED PERSONS The provisions of this Code of Ethics shall apply to all elected and appointed officials and all employees of Cuyahoga County, its administrative departments, agencies, boards and commissions, including the providers of all County adjunct judicial services. In addition, parts of this Code shall also govern lobbyists, contractors and others who seek to influence or do business with the County. Exempted are the Courts of Common Pleas and Appeals which, together with all their employees, remain covered by Ohio Ethics Law for the State Judiciary. C. RELATIONSHIP TO OHIO LAW Cuyahoga County continues to be governed by existing Ohio Ethics Law and guided by the Ohio Ethics Commission, and it is the intention of this Code to reinforce rather than to replace that principled 47 oversight. Where applicable, each County provision references the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) statute from which it is derived. Where County standards exceed those of state law, County measures and resources shall be responsible for enforcing them.

6. MINIMUM STANDARD This countywide Code of Ethics shall constitute a minimum standard for ethical conduct and practices in Cuyahoga County government. Other offices, departments or agencies may impose rules for their members which are stricter or more specific to their operations. If the provisions of this Code conflict with any other ordinance, regulation or rule, this Code shall control.

E. ESTABLISHMENT OF A COUNTY ETHICS BOARD The County Council hereby establishes the Cuyahoga County Ethics Board, which shall be scrupulously independent and shall be guaranteed sufficient resources to administer compliance with County ethics provisions, vigorously educate all covered persons, handle complaints, render advice, maintain records and monitor necessary technology for transparency. [See Article V]

F. SEVERABILITY The various provisions of this Code of Ethics are intended to be severable, and the validity or invalidity of one or more such provisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.

G. AMENDMENT The County Council, as recommended by its own members, by the County Executive, by the County Ethics Board, or by citizen initiative and referendum, may amend any provision of this Code of Ethics which is not otherwise mandated by the Ohio Revised Code or the Charter of Cuyahoga County.

ARTICLE III: PROHIBITED CONDUCT

A. PENALTIES

1. Violations of Ohio Law. Except as otherwise noted or as later amended, violation of an Ohio statute by engaging in prohibited conduct as detailed in this section constitutes a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1000. [ORC 102.099(A) and (B); ORC 2929.21 to .28]

2. Violations of County Ordinance. Violation of County provisions by engaging in conduct prohibited by this Code of Ethics shall result in the imposition of appropriate penalties as outlined in Article V.C.5 of this ordinance.

B. MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION

1. Misuse of Official Position. No covered persons, either during or for one year after County service, shall use their County positions to advocate before their agencies for their own financial interest or for that of clients, family members or business associates. [ORC 102.03(A)]

2. Misuse of Confidential Information. No covered persons, either during or at any time after County service, shall divulge without authorization any confidential information which has been officially so designated as essential to the proper conduct of County business. [ORC 102.03(B)]

3. Misuse of Authority to Secure Anything of Value. No covered persons shall use their authority to secure anything of value which could improperly influence the discharge of official duties. [ORC 102.03(D)]

4. Nepotism, Patronage. No covered persons shall participate in any employment decisions involving family members or business associates. Nor shall they provide unsolicited recommendations for jobs or contract awards to family members or business associates seeking to do business with the County or to influence its actions.

C. GIFTS AND HONORARIA

1. Soliciting or Accepting Anything of Value. No covered persons shall solicit or accept anything of value for themselves or family members -- including money, goods, hospitality, property, services, campaign contributions or promise of employment -- which could improperly influence the discharge of official duties. [ORC 102.03(E), (F) and (G)]

2. Gifts from Improper Sources. No improper sources shall give or promise anything of value to county officials or employees or their family members. [See IV.D.3] [ORC 102.03(E) and (F)]

3. Accepting Honoraria. No covered persons who are required to file financial disclosure forms shall solicit or accept honoraria, except for actual travel expenses or for recognition unrelated to their County office or position. [ORC 102.03(H)(1)]

D. UNLAWFUL INTEREST IN CONTRACTS

1. Conflict of Interest in County Contracts. No covered persons shall authorize or use their influence to authorize any contract in which they, their family members or business associates have an interest. This includes employment contracts. Violation of this law constitutes a fourth-degree felony, punishable by a sentence of between six and eighteen months and/or a fine of up to $5,000. [ORC 2921.42(A)(1) and (E)]

2. Profit or Gain from County Contracts. No covered persons shall have interests in any contracts awarded by their agency, unless competitively bid and awarded to the lowest bidder. Exempted from this prohibition are no-bid contracts for less than $150 which are not required by law to be opened to competitive bidding. See ORC 2921.42(B) for other exceptions to this law. [ORC 2921.42(A)(4) and (5)]

3. Voiding of Tainted Contracts or Investments. Any contract or investment in which covered persons, their family members or business associates are found to have had an improper interest shall be void and unenforceable. [ORC 2921.42(H)]

E. OTHER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. County Investments. No covered persons shall authorize or use their influence to authorize the investment of County funds in any security in which they, their family members or business associates have an interest or receives fees. Violation of this law constitutes a fourth degree felony, punishable by a sentence of between six and eighteen months and/or a fine of up to $5,000. [ORC 2921.42(A)(2) and (E)]

2. Outside Employment. No covered persons, either during or for one year after service, shall hold any position of profit in any entity seeking a no-bid contract with a County agency on which they currently or previously served. [ORC 2921.42(A)(3)]

3. Secondary Employment. No covered persons compensated by the County shall engage in secondary employment if that employment is incompatible with the proper discharge of official County duties or might impair objectivity or independent judgment on the job. This includes elective office in another jurisdiction or in a political party.

a. All such persons shall disclose such secondary employment in writing to the Human Resources Department and to the County ethics board on an official form approved by the latter, updating this information whenever it changes. b. Prior to accepting an additional job that could be seen as a conflict, such persons shall obtain an advisory opinion from the County Ethics Board, which must respond within five business days of the request. c. In situations pre-dating the adoption of this Code of Ethics, the covered person shall seek an advisory opinion from the County Ethics Board. d. Penalty -- If the secondary employment is ruled a conflict of interest, the concerned person shall either terminate that employment or face dismissal from County service, in compliance with existing personnel practices and collective bargaining agreements.

4. Board Appointments. No appointee to a County policy-making board or commission shall have one or more of the following conflicts of interest with the intended board’s objective and impartial operations: a. Elected or appointed employment with the County during the 12 months immediately preceding the board appointment; b. One or more family members or business associates serving on the same board; or c. An interest in one or more contracts that have been or may come before that board.

5. Failure to Recuse Oneself. All covered persons shall recuse themselves from participation or decisions in any matters pending before their agencies in which they have personal or family financial or professional interests. [ORC 102.04(E)]

F. IMPROPER COMPENSATION

1. Gratuities for Regular Duties and Internal Favors. No covered persons shall knowingly solicit or accept additional compensation for performing regular official duties. [ORC 2921.43(A) (1) and (2).] Likewise, no covered persons shall receive direct or indirect gratuities for personally assisting others with matters pending before their own agency. [ORC 102.04(C).] Exemptions to the latter prohibitions apply: a. If the agency in question is not the one on which the official or employee currently serves; or b. If prior to rendering this personal service, the official or employee files a disclosure statement with the County Ethics Board, with the agency with which he/she serves, and with the agency with which the personal service is to be rendered. [ORC 102(D)(1) and (2)]

2. Gratuities for Employment Favors. No covered persons shall solicit or accept anything of value in exchange for appointing a person to a County office, position or agency; or for granting preferential treatment (salary, duties, promotion) to a County employee. [ORC 2921.43(B)(1) and (2)]

3. Penalties for Violations. Covered persons who solicit or accept improper compensation are guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor and if convicted, shall be disqualified from County employment for seven years. [ORC 2921.43(D) and (E)]

G. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

1. Campaign Contributions for Employment Favors. No person campaigning for County elected office, or their representatives, shall solicit or accept campaign contributions in exchange for appointments to, preferential treatment in, or promises of future County employment. [ORC 2921.43(C)(1) and (2)]

2. Employee Contributions to an Elected Employer. No covered persons in County employ shall make political contributions or raise funds for their own elected County employer. Exempted from this total prohibition are voluntary employee contributions to candidates for any other public office. [Ed. note: Fangman v. City of Cincinnati USDC 1:08cv702]

3. Contribution Limits. No County elected officials, their campaign committees or political action committees shall accept individual contributions or loans of more than $1,000 for County Executive or Prosecutor candidates and $750 for County Council candidates, per election. H. IMPROPER TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES [Federal Law]

1. Discrimination. No covered persons, operations or entities of Cuyahoga County shall favor or discriminate against anyone because of race, religion, age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability or political affiliation, pursuant to U.S. Law [Civil Rights Act of 1964, 43 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.] and the Cuyahoga County Charter.

2. Sexual Harassment. No covered person shall harass or otherwise make unwelcome sexual advances that interfere with job performance, create a hostile work environment, or attempt to make a person’s submission or rejection of sexual advances a condition of his/her employment or appointment status. [Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.]

J. FALSE FILINGS, FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS AND FAILURE TO REPORT.

1. Filing False Information. No person shall knowingly file false information with the County Ethics Board on a registry or disclosure report mandated by this Code of Ethics.

2. Filing a Frivolous Complaint. No person shall file a complaint with the County Ethics Board which is found after preliminary inquiry to be not in good faith, frivolous or malicious in nature. [See Article V.C.2.d.]

3. Failure to Report. No covered person or contractual employee bound by the “Whistleblower” obligations of this Code shall fail to report criminal or unethical conduct of which subsequent investigation shows him/her clearly to have been aware. [See Article IV. F.]

K. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION No member, employee or legal representative of the County Ethics Board, acting in an investigation or a hearing pursuant to Article V of this Code, shall hold or consider any private communication with one party in a proceeding without the knowledge of the other involved party(ies).

ARTICLE IV: DISCLOSURE, TRANSPARENCY & PREVENTION A. ETHICS SIGN-OFF

1. Signed Ethics Statement. All covered persons shall receive personal copies of this Code of Ethics and shall sign an ethics statement saying that they have read, understand and agree to abide by the standards set forth. The signed agreement shall be a condition of employment, and signed statements for all covered persons shall be kept with their personnel files. a. Inaugural Practice -- The County Executive, as a part of the orientation process for current and new employees of this charter government, shall ensure that a portion of each information session to a discussion of ongoing State and new County ethics provisions. This policy shall be included in all orientation materials and/or employee handbooks. b. Ongoing Practice --After the establishment of a County Ethics Board and the completion of initial orientation for staff, the practice of ethics training and signed ethics statements for new covered persons shall be the responsibility of the Ethics Board. 2 . Penalties for Lateness or Noncompliance. Any covered person who does not file this statement within 30 days of receiving the information shall be subject the penalties outlined in Section V.

3. Appointees to Boards and Commissions. All County appointees to boards and commissions shall, as a condition of taking office, sign the same ethics statement, saying they have read and understood this Code of Ethics and agree to comply with it. Specifically, they shall also disclose that they are in

51 compliance with provision IV.E.4 of this Code and have no other conflict of interest with matters before the board to which they have been appointed.

4. Failure to do so invalidates the appointment. Appointees to advisory boards shall also sign the ethics declaration but are exempt from conflict of interest prohibitions and disclosure. All ethics statements and disclosures shall be kept by the County Ethics Board.

B. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Annual financial disclosure forms to the Ohio Ethics Commission shall be filed on every April 15 by the following individuals: County elected officials, appointive or hired heads of all County offices and departments, and all holders of other substantive positions in County agencies, boards and commissions, as deemed by the County Ethics Board to be both key to establishing an ethical culture and subject to the terms of this policy. In addition, all candidates for County elective office shall file same, at the time and in the manner required by Ohio law. Duplicates shall be sent to the County Ethics Board, which shall publish them online. [ORC 1.02]

1. Fees. The fee required by Ohio law shall accompany each filing to the Ohio Ethics Commission. [ORC 1.02.02 (E) (1)]

2. Penalties. Penalties for late filing, failure to file, or filing false information shall follow state requirements. [ORC 102.02(F) and 102.099] C. CAMPAIGN DONOR DISCLOSURE

All candidates for election or re-election to any County office shall report all donations to the County Board of Elections, as required by Ohio law. Candidates shall also identify the primary employer of individual donors who contribute more than $100, as candidates for statewide or legislative office already do. D. LOBBYIST REGISTRY AND REPORTS 1. Registry. All lobbyists shall register with Cuyahoga County on a form devised by the County Ethics Board. The form shall include the entity for which the person is lobbying, the employer’s name, type of business and current contact information.

2. Reports. All lobbyists shall file a report to the Ethics Board every April 15 and October 15 containing the following: a. A current list of the contracts or policies they are trying to influence; b. Campaign contributions to County elected officials, as permitted by U.S. and Ohio campaign finance law and this Code of Ethics. [ORC citation? and Article III.G] c. Food and beverage expenses that shall not exceed a $100 annual limit per elected or appointed County official. d. A $25 filing fee to help defray administrative costs.

3. Gift Prohibition. All monetary or non-monetary gifts or gratuities by lobbyists to County officials or employees are prohibited, with the exceptions noted above. [See Article IV.D.1.b and c]

4. Transparency. The County Ethics Board shall review and post online all registrations and bi-annual filings.

E. CONTRACTOR REGISTRY

1. Registry. All contractors doing business with the County must register with the County department responsible for procurement and the County Ethics Board, using the form determined by the Board. Information to be submitted shall include but not be limited to: corporate name, address, type of

business, names of principals and contracts with the County during the past four years. Registration shall be valid for twelve months and shall be accompanied by an annual filing fee of $50 to help defray administrative costs. As necessary, the department responsible for procurement may choose to require additional information.

2. Signed Ethics Statement. Contractors shall also sign an ethics statement indicating they have read, understand and agree to follow the pertinent sections of this Code of Ethics.

3. First-time Awards. Registration and signed ethics statement shall be pre-conditions for the award and signing of any first-time contract with the County. This provision does not prevent contractors not currently on the registry from submitting competitive bids.

4. Penalties. Contractors who fail to comply with provisions 1, 2, and 3, if applicable, shall do no business with the County until they are in compliance. Contractors who are found to be in violation of this Code of Ethics shall be removed from the registry and be barred from doing business with the County for a period determined by the County Ethics Board, along with such other penalty(ies) as the Board may deem appropriate. [Article V.C.5]

5. Transparency. The County Ethics Board shall post the registry on line.

F. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION The rights, responsibilities, prohibitions and protections prescribed in this section apply to all covered persons as well as to all contractual employers and their employees while working for the County. In this section, a “Supervisor” is a higher ranking public official or employee with authority over the employment status of others. An “Employer” or “Contractual Employer” is the principal of a private entity working on a County contract and with authority over the employment status of others.

1. Rights. All covered persons and contractual employees have, without impediment, the following rights: a. To speak freely about work-related matters, including unlawfully suppressed information, suspected illegal or unethical conduct, or suspected misuse of County funds; b. To communicate freely with County Council members or other investigators and respond with candor to Council inquiries or other investigations; c. To expect reasonable conditions of employment, respect for individual privacy and unrestricted access to their personal and personnel records.

2. Responsibilities. Covered persons or contractual employees who believe they have knowledge of criminal or ethical misconduct shall make immediate, lawful and protected disclosure to their supervisors, employers, or to the County Ethics Board. Supervisors or employers receiving such a report shall refer the complaint to the County Ethics Board.

3. Protections and Prohibitions. No supervisor or employer shall retaliate against an employee because of lawful, protected disclosure or refusal to comply with an illegal order. Nor shall he/she violate employee rights or obligations to furnish information to Council or other investigators. Specifically, no supervisor or employer shall discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, deny promotion to or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because of lawful and protected disclosures.

4. Posting of this Policy. All County offices and agencies shall conspicuously display notices of whistleblower rights, responsibilities and protections. The County Ethics Board shall also devise additional means to keep all employees informed.

5. Penalties. Any supervisor or contractual employer found to have violated these provisions shall incur such penalties and liabilities for the relief necessary to make the whistleblower whole, as shall be determined by the County Ethics Board or other law enforcement authority, subject to employment 53

procedures and collective bargaining agreements. [Article V.C.5] Contracts held by entities whose employers are found to be in violation of this Whistleblower section shall be void and unenforceable. [See Article III.D.3]

ARTICLE V. CUYAHOGA COUNTY ETHICS BOARD

A. ESTABLISHMENT. This ordinance hereby establishes the Cuyahoga County Ethics Board (Ethics Board or Board) composed of five respected, independent, civic-minded, resident citizens who shall administer both the letter and the spirit of this Code of Ethics.

1. Terms of office. Board members shall serve staggered, three-year, uncompensated terms, beginning with the appointment of one member for a one-year term, two members for two-year terms, and two members for three-year terms.

2. Nominating, appointing and confirming authorities. Leaders of established countywide, nonpartisan, nonprofit entities interested in good government and institutional integrity shall submit to the County Executive, upon request, the names of two nominees for each expected Board vacancy. [Note: suggested Nominating Authorities include: NAACP, Norman Minor Bar Assn., inter-faith clergy group, Greater Cleveland Partnership or Young Presidents’ Organization, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, the City Club, a local university ethics faculty, Center for Community Solutions, North Shore Federation of Labor or a County employee association, the League of Women Voters.] The County Executive shall appoint Ethics Board members from the lists provided, which appointments shall be confirmed by a two-thirds majority vote of the County Council.

3. Board Composition. The Board, in the aggregate, shall consist of appointees who: a. Reflect the range of communities in Cuyahoga County, including the City of Cleveland; b. Consist of no more than three members of the same political party; c. Reflect the diversity of age, gender and race of the County’s population; d. Have no record of criminal conduct; e. Hold no positions of financial, political or business interest in County governmental affairs during their term of service; f. Make no monetary or non-monetary political contributions to any candidates for District or County office during their terms of service; and g. Have signed the ethics statement required of all County covered persons, stating that they have read, understand, and agree to abide by the standards set forth.

4. Vacancies. To fill an Ethics Board vacancy, the County Executive shall appoint a replacement from the same list or shall request further nominees from the nominating authorities. Such interim appointees shall also be confirmed by a two-thirds majority vote of the County Council.

5. Removal. A Board member may be removed for cause by a two-thirds vote of the County Council. S/he shall receive written notice of charges and shall be granted a hearing, on request, to show reason why s/he should not be removed.

6. Organization. Within four weeks of Board confirmation and every anniversary thereafter, the five members shall convene and elect a Chair, who shall then preside for one year. The Board shall meet in public session at least four times each calendar year and shall post all minutes and records of official actions on line. The Board shall adopt needed procedural rules within 60 days of the first meeting. Three members shall constitute a quorum, and in the absence of a quorum the Board shall conduct no business. At the end of each calendar year, the Board shall submit to the County Executive and the County Council a written summary of the year’s actions and accomplishments.

7. Cooperation of other County offices and departments. County offices or departments, if requested and able, shall furnish such supplies, professional assistance or technical support as may be essential for the discharge of the Board’s duties mandated in this Code of Ethics. 54

B. DUTIES

The Cuyahoga County Ethics Board shall see that the following duties are fulfilled:

1. Appointment of a County Ethics Officer. Appoint a full-time County Ethics Officer who is licensed to practice law in Ohio and has at least two years of experience in ethics or related civil or municipal law. S/he is the agent of the County Ethics Board and shall be delegated the responsibility for carrying out the decisions and duties of the Board and the requirements of this Code of Ethics. These delegated duties may include rendering advisory opinions, processing or initiating complaints, conducting inquiries and investigations, acting in the capacity of counsel for the Ethics Board, hiring staff and consultants, managing office functions, developing reporting forms and convening the Internal Ethics Committee.

2. Additional Staffing. Approve, in consultation with the County Ethics Officer, the hiring or other arrangements to obtain such educational, technical or clerical assistance as may be necessary and sufficient to fulfill the Board’s assigned duties.

3. Education and Training. Provide a periodic, mandatory training course for all covered persons and new County personnel in the requirements and processes mandated by this Code of Ethics, and determine the timetable for such training. This project may be jointly undertaken with the Human Resources Department. Initial training of the entire workforce shall be completed within the first calendar year after the passage of this ordinance. Educational duties shall include but not be limited to: a. Receiving from every covered person a signed ethics statement of understanding and intent to abide by its provisions; b. Informing all contractors and vendors who do or wish to do business with the County of all applicable provisions as well as the conditions for joining the contractor registry; c. Informing all covered persons of their rights, responsibilities and protections under this Code’s whistleblower provisions; d. Publishing and maintaining an up-to-date educational piece for covered persons highlighting the expectations, requirements and recourses set forth in this Code; and e. Posting the full text of this Code of Ethics for public access on the County’s website.

4. Advisory opinions. Determine and render written, binding advisory opinions as to whether given facts or circumstances constitute a conflict of interest or a violation of this Code of Ethics.

5. Complaints. Receive or initiate, inquire into and dispose of complaints or allegations by covered persons, the general public or the Ethics Board itself regarding suspected violations of this Code of Ethics. (See V. C. Due Process)

6. Public Meetings. Conduct at least four public board meetings per year. Additional meetings shall be called by the Chair or by three Board members in a written request to the Chair.

7. Forms. Devise forms for ethics statements, board appointments, lobbyist registrations and bi-annual activity reports, secondary employment reports, contractor registrations, complaints and such other forms as necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Code of Ethics.

8. Electronic Management and Data Monitoring. Monitor submitted disclosures, registries and reports. Post and maintain the data required by this Code as electronic public documents.

9. Administrative Fees. Collect all fees which this Code and its enforcement may require and apply them to the Ethics Board’s administrative costs.

10. Rules and Procedures. Adopt rules and procedures deemed necessary to implement the requirements of this Code.

11. Oaths and Subpoenas. Administer oaths, issue subpoenas and compel witnesses or evidence, as needed or requested, to implement this Code.

12. Recommendations to County Council and County Executive. Make recommendations to the County Council and the County Executive about possible amendments to this Code of Ethics.

13. Annual Report to County Council and County Executive. Make and publish an annual report to the County Council and the County Executive, detailing all activities and resolutions of complaints conducted during the just completed calendar year.

14. Internal Ethics Committee. Communicate with employees of County offices and departments by means of an Internal Ethics Committee. The director of each County office and department shall select from its employees a representative to serve on an Internal Ethics Committee, subject to the approval of the County Ethics Officer. Such representatives shall serve as liaisons between departmental employees and the Board and shall have the following responsibilities: a. Understand thoroughly the provisions and processes of this Code of Ethics; b. Attend periodic meetings called by the Ethics Board or its County Ethics Officer; c. Disseminate within the office or department the appropriate policies or materials relating to ethics for employees; d. Assist in the required education and training sessions within the office or department.

C. DUE PROCESS

1. Complaints. Any individual who believes a violation of this Code of Ethics has occurred may initiate a complaint either with the Cuyahoga County Ethics Board or the Ohio Ethics Commission. This ordinance outlines the procedure to be followed by the County Ethics Board. a. The complaint shall be in writing and filed with the County Ethics Officer; b. It shall contain the name, address and phone number of the complainant, name and position of the respondent, a statement of the alleged facts and circumstances, and a “sworn verification” that this complaint represents what the complainant in good faith believes to be a violation of this Code of Ethics. c. The County Ethics Officer shall, within five business days of receipt, date stamp it, acknowledge its receipt to the complainant, submit it to the Ethics Board, notify the respondent, and otherwise keep its substance confidential.

2. Preliminary Inquiries. The County Ethics Officer shall initiate the process by filing each complaint received with the County Ethics Board and shall complete a preliminary inquiry within 45 days. S/he shall keep all information, records and proceedings confidential. Outcomes of the inquiry may be as follows: a. Investigation -- Upon determination that a violation may have occurred and upon notification of the respondent, a full investigation shall commence. b. Referral -- Upon determination that federal or state criminal violations may have occurred, the County Ethics Officer, with notice to the Board, shall refer the complaint to the Ohio Ethics Commission or the appropriate county, state or federal enforcement entity. c. Termination-- The County Ethics Officer, with notice to the Board, may terminate the inquiry (1) if the events occurred before the adoption of the provision violated, (2) if the Respondent is not a person covered by this Code of Ethics, or (3) if there is no reason to believe that the Code has been violated. If the inquiry is referred or terminated, the County Ethics Officer shall notify the complainant and the respondent within one week. d. Determination of frivolous complaint -- The County Ethics Officer shall file a complaint against any person whom s/he believes has violated this Code’s prohibition against frivolous or malicious complaints. [See Article III.J.2]

3. Conduct of Investigations. The Board or the County Ethics Officer acting in its name shall conduct interviews, take statements, receive and inspect documents and records and otherwise obtain evidence 56

and gather information by lawful means, including subpoena power. They shall keep information, records and proceedings confidential. Within 60 days of commencing the investigation, the Board shall: a. Terminate the investigation if no violation is found, and notify the complainant and the respondent immediately; b. Extend the investigation for up to 60 additional days, upon showing of need; c. Issue a confidential findings report of the investigation to the respondent. The respondent may, within 30 days, accept or reject the finding, request or waive a haring, or opt for settlement; d. Make an effort, if a violation is found, to resolve it voluntarily by settlement. Options for settlement may be an administrative fee or community service.

4. Hearings. Upon request of the respondent, the Board shall conduct a hearing within 45 days. Time may be extended for cause upon application to the Board. A notice of the hearing, its date, time and location, shall be issued to the respondent or to his/her counsel. a. The respondent shall have access to evidence the Board intends to use at the hearing, as well as to any evidence from the investigation which might substantiate innocence. b. The hearing and all papers, records and disclosures will be confidential except for the contents of the final order which shall be public.

5. Penalties. The Board shall, upon finding violation(s) of this ordinance, determine and impose civil penalties as provided in this subsection. The following County penalties shall be available: a. Warning -- a confidential letter of warning to the respondent alone, if violation was inadvertent or unintentional; b. Admonition -- a letter to the respondent, complainant, County Council and County Executive, indicating that the respondent has been found to have violated this ordinance; c. Censure -- Notification to the respondent, complainant, County Council and County Executive, indicating that a violation took place and expressing strong disapproval of the respondent’s actions; d. Ban on further contracts with the County -- In the case of a contractor’s violation of this Code, removal from the contractor registry for a period to be determined by the Board; e. Administrative Fee -- as determined by the Board; f. Restitution, recovery of damages and litigation costs -- as determined by the Board; g. Suspension -- Recommendation to the appropriate hiring authority for suspension from employment without pay, in compliance with existing personnel practices and collective bargaining agreements; h. Expulsion/Dismissal -- Recommendation to the appropriate hiring authority for revoking the employment contract with the County, in compliance with existing personnel practices and collective bargaining agreements; i. Removal from elective office -- Recommendation for removal process as provided in the County Charter.

6. Disposition. In cases where recommended penalties involve altering employment contracts, the Human Resources Commission shall notify the Board of the disposition of those recommendations within 30 days.

7. Appeal. Upon imposition of such penalties by the Ethics Board or upon recommendation of employment sanctions, the aggrieved party may file an appeal within 30 days to the Court of Common Pleas in accordance with applicable law.

ARTICLE VI. DEFINITIONS

GENERAL PROVISIONS -- Except as listed below, words used in this Code of Ethics conform to accepted common usage and specifically to general usage prescribed in the Ohio Revised Code, §1.43. advisory opinion -- A written, expert judgment and recommendation by the County Ethics Officer as to whether an issue raised poses ethical problems and how the issue may best be resolved. It is binding in the sense that, if the recipient acts in accordance with the advisory opinion, s/he is in compliance with the Code of Ethics.

57 agency – Any department, office, board, commission or other public body established by official action of Cuyahoga County or its Charter. anything of value – See GIFT. board (lower case) – An abbreviation for any authority, board, commission or special district to which County officials appoint at least one member or to which County funds are appropriated. business associate – Any person or firm with whom any County official or employee may have a business or financial relationship by virtue of ownership, control, position, influence, or other financial interest. campaign contribution – Any monetary or non-monetary donation to a person campaigning for County elected office. compensation – Monetary or non-monetary payment for labor or services, including but not limited to salary, fee or gratuity. complainant -- A person who submits a complaint of ethical misconduct to the County Ethics Board. conflict of interest – A situation in which two interests collide, preventing impartial decision-making. [See also INTEREST] contract – Binding, legal agreement providing goods or services, including employment. contractor – A person or business – including but not limited to service providers, vendors and consultants – that provides goods or services to the County under terms specified in a binding, officially approved agreement. covered persons – All elected and appointed County officials and employees. This includes Council members and staff, the Prosecuting Attorney and staff, and all County-appointed members and employees of paid and volunteer boards and commissions or their agencies. Sections of this Code also apply to contractors and lobbyists. [See II.A] day -- A calendar day, unless otherwise noted. disclosure – The reporting of financial information, personal or business connections, gifts, activities, campaign contributions or potential conflicts of interest. due process -- A course of formal legal proceedings carried out regularly with established rules and principles; a fundamental right of any covered person accused of a violation of this Code of Ethics. family members -- Persons related by blood or by significant relationship such as sharing a household. Specifically, the term references a spouse, domestic partner, parent/guardian, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, first cousin, plus step-, half- and in-law equivalents. [See also IMMEDIATE FAMILY] finding -- The official decision reached by the County Ethics Board after thorough investigation or a formal hearing. gift – Anything of value, including but not limited to money, goods, future employment, interest in realty, payments, loans and services. [See also HONORARIUM] gratuity – Supplementary compensation as a “tip” to an official or employee for having granted any favor or service to the donor.

58 honorarium – Payment of money or anything of value, directly or indirectly, to an elected or appointed County official or employee (or to any other person on his or her behalf) as consideration for a speech, a presentation, or a written document that relates to the official’s or employee’s County position. immediate family – Spouse or domestic partner, children, parents and step-equivalents. improper source – A party that gives or promises an unlawful gift to any covered person, specifically a party doing or seeking to do business with, regulated by, or interested in matters before the County, its departments, agencies, boards or commissions, including any lobbyist or contractor. interest – Being in a position to gain or profit from a financial or personal connection to a party seeking to do business with the County or any of its agencies. This includes but is not limited to the role of owner, part owner, officer, partner, legal counsel or board member of a company or organization. lawful disclosure – Public divulgence of a County matter not legally required to be kept confidential because of personal privacy, ongoing litigation, or property negotiations. [See also PROTECTED DISCLOSURE, WHISTLEBLOWER] lobbyist – An individual wholly or partially compensated for direct, private communication with County policy- making officials or their staffs, with the purpose of influencing the expenditure of funds in the awarding of a contract or other financial arrangement; or for making direct, private contact with same to promote, advocate or oppose the passage, modification, defeat, approval or veto of any legislation or policy. nepotism – The practice of hiring or appointing family members to positions, or of awarding other favors to same. nominating authority -- Leader of a nonprofit entity charged by this Code with providing suggested nominees to the County Executive for appointment to the County Ethics Board. official – A person who is elected or appointed to head a County office, department or agency or board. patronage – The practice of hiring or appointing political allies or business associates to governmental positions. personal gain – Any benefit or advantage a County official or employee receives when an interested party enters into a contract with the County. protected disclosure – Rightful public divulgence of a County matter covered by the Whistleblower provisions of this Code. [See also LAWFUL DISCLOSURE and section V.F.1 above] recusal/to recuse – The act of removing oneself from decision-making in matters where one has a conflict of interest. respondent -- A person accused of ethical misconduct in a complaint submitted to the County Ethics Board. secondary employment – Compensated employment in addition to a covered person’s employment with the County. settlement -- Mutual agreement between a complainant, a respondent and the County Ethics Board, in which the complainant agrees to dismiss the complaint, and the respondent agrees not to pursue his/her defenses and to accept a penalty mediated with the Ethics Board. sworn verification -- A signed promise that statements on an official form are made in good faith and are true to the best knowledge of the signer. Statements later found to be false can be considered falsified and are liable to penalty. to waive -- To give up, voluntarily, a legal right to which one is entitled. 59

whistleblower – A person who reports possible crimes or violations of this Code of Ethics.

APPENDIX V

CONSENSUS QESTIONS AND POWERPOINT SCRIPT FROM REGIONALISM STUDY

"Regionalism" means different things to different people. This study report deals with only two specific kinds of Regionalism: a) collaborative agreements between neighboring jurisdictions for the sharing of functions or services; and b) regional tax-base revenue sharing -- one large scale strategy for municipalities across Northeast Ohio to promote the mutual benefit of all. The term "Regionalism" does NOT here refer in any way to consolidations or "Regional Government."

Two-year study by the Regionalism Committee, LWV Cuyahoga Area.

Seven researchers, including outside counsel, conducted interviews, digested reports and elicited consensus from the general membership on six key questions. Now we invite other Leagues in Northeast Ohio or elsewhere to the West or South to consider adopting, by Concurrence, either or both parts of our new positions. It is the purpose of this report to share those new positions, along with the key background information which led to those conclusions.

The Role of Private Foundations:

In response to demands by The Cleveland Foundation and other private philanthropies to do something to improve the sinking economic climate in a 16-county Northeast Ohio area, over 80 funders joined forces in 2004 to advance a common agenda for the region. This coalition is called the Fund for Our Economic Future, or "The Fund".

The first project the Fund backed was a huge, 16-county study called Voices & Choices, which, after a two-year grass-roots effort, produced a four-part action agenda called Advance Northeast Ohio. The four parts are 1) business growth and attraction, 2) talent development, 3) racial and economic inclusion, and 4) government collaboration and efficiency.

The LWV Cuyahoga Area and possibly several other Leagues in the region have already joined Advance Northeast Ohio as coalition partners. We are especially focused upon the parts of the ANEO agenda which can be addressed by public policy and governmental solutions.

The Role of NEO Mayors & Managers:

The Fund also backed a study conducted by the Northeast Ohio Mayors & City Managers Association. That effort approaches its final outcome in Summer 2009. With the aid of consultants and 2 university urban studies departments, they conducted a Regional Revenue study. That Phase I study documented the region's economic plight and recommended three courses of action to reverse economic decline: 1) tax- base revenue sharing, 2) regional land use planning, and 3) regional governance. Phase II of their work will soon produce a Tax Base Revenue Sharing proposal for adoption by all Northeast Ohio municipalities. While they do not propose any regional governmental structures, they do expect to impact Smart-Growth Land Use planning over a wide area, as this report will show.

Existing, relevant LWV positions.

While these funders and local officials work on strategies for inter-municipal governance and areawide growth, Leagues of Women Voters in Cuyahoga County have long sought to reform the structure and enhance powers of county government, so that it can better coordinate countywide needs and services. We have also studied the county's complex web of Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Special Districts, many of which deliver services across county lines. Additionally, we have been guided by existing positions at both state and county levels regarding wise decisions on land use planning and 61 transportation policy. These related interests have already led to League participation in Voices and Choices; so now it is but a natural next step to take a sharp look at Regionalism, on both the "Micro" and "Macro" levels.

PART A -- "MICRO"-REGIONALISM:

Many forms of "regional" cooperation are already happening on a relatively small scale, while more wide-reaching forms will require trail-blazing ingenuity and even perhaps some legislative help in order to happen. Part A of this report deals with several kinds of "Micro-Regionalisms" already popping up in communities everywhere. Many municipalities are looking for ways to deal with issues which overlap municipal borders, or to share services which become too expensive or inefficient to support alone.

Five types taking place in the greater Cleveland-Cuyahoga area.

These collaborative efforts cover various jurisdictions, and some have been around for decades. Other areas throughout Ohio will have similar examples.

1) Authorities, Boards, Commissions or Special Districts. These supra-municipal bodies are authorized by State Law and instituted by the local officials who appoint and often fund them. They deal with area concerns such as countywide libraries or hospitals, a board of health, a metro-park system, a regional transit or sewer system, etc. Some, such as NOACA (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency), extend into several contiguous counties. All authorities and districts are independent of the officials who appoint or fund them.

2) Councils of Governments. COGs are confederations of municipalities, enabled by US law and formed to deal with one or more issues. An example would be the Suburban Water COG, made up of all Cuyahoga County municipalities, which works with the Cleveland Water department. COGs exist in many other states as well.

3) Joint Economic Development Districts. JEDDs are inter-municipal districts focused upon economic development projects, often across county lines. Solon and Bainbridge Township have one for the sharing of income tax from a shopping center, because townships may not collect income taxes. Avon Lake, Westlake and Bay Village have a JEDD to deal with a planned I-90 intersection at Avon.

4) Bilateral Revenue Sharing. This takes several forms. Independence and Cleveland have recently agreed to share revenue from practice facilities for the Cleveland Cavaliers, which moved to Independence from Cleveland. A similar agreement was reached by Shaker Heights and Cleveland when University Hospitals' administrative offices moved into the vacant Office Max headquarters in Shaker.

5) Miscellaneous collaborations. Seven of Cleveland's southwest suburbs plan to combine resources to create a regional fire and ambulance service. Others will join to police the Interstates and share heavy equipment, etc. The “Fund” offers grants to 3 such cooperative projects annually, providing they result in reduced cost and can be replicated.

PART A CONSENSUS POSITION: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COLLABORATION:

The LWV Cuyahoga Area supports "voluntary intergovernmental, collaborative agreements which reduce costs, foster transparency and accountability, improve efficiencies and maintain service standards." Members want to support collaborations such as those just mentioned, as long as the project is not coerced, reduces costs, is properly safeguarded, reduces duplication, and does not lessen the quality of service previously provided. The position goes on to add:

Such agreements: "are appropriate at local county, metropolitan, multiple-county or regional levels;” -- Our members favor collaborations among combined jurisdictions of any size which meet these principles. Furthermore . . .

Such agreements "should be practical and of manageable size;" -- Our members think that a collaboration should serve a practical purpose, and its proposed task and jurisdiction should be workable. And . . .

Such agreements, finally, "should demonstrate the interconnectedness of all neighboring communities." Members feel strongly that individual urban, suburban or rural communities are not islands unto themselves, but that they rise or fall together, with the fortunes of the area to which they are inseparably joined.

Potential League Action on this position:

Leagues which concur with this position will be able to do two things: 1) they can, without further program adoption, choose to gather information and evaluate any collaboration which might be discussed in their municipalities. And 2) they can, after research, take local action in support or opposition to a proposed local initiative. Without such a position, they would be unable to act on upcoming local issues without going through Local Program Choosing procedures. This position does not free a League of the responsibility to inform itself on the merits and faults of any given local proposal, however.

PART B: "MACRO"-REGIONALISM

Much larger in scope than the supra-local efforts discussed above are ones which cover a much wider geo-political landscape. This study focused exclusively on one initiative which was already underway at the time the study began: the possible Regional Tax-Base Revenue Sharing program being researched and formulated by the Northeast Ohio Mayors and City Managers Association.

Regional Tax-Base Revenue Sharing: Definition

A tax-base revenue sharing program is: An agreement between most or all municipalities in a region to contribute to a shared POOL of revenue, which is then allocated to other municipalities in the region according to policies or formulas spelled out in the agreement. The NEO Mayors and Managers study found, also, that all Tax-Base Revenue Sharing programs have 5 features in common: 1) A Jurisdiction must be agreed upon; 2) Objectives must be established; 3) An existing or new Administrative Mechanism must be designated to run the program; 4) a Source of Contributions to the common revenue pool must be chosen; and 5) Criteria for Allocations of those pooled funds must be set.

The NEO Mayors and Managers studied many regional programs in the United States where they found Revenue Sharing to have helped turn the tide. That study then narrowed a large field of examples down to three "Regions" in the country which faced economic conditions similar to those experienced in Northeast Ohio -- two populous single counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the 7-county region surrounding the Twin Cities in Minnesota.

Montgomery County, OH, and Allegheny County, PA.

Two of the three regions encompass hub cities in a similar state of economic hardship to Cleveland -- greater Dayton and greater Pittsburgh. In both, outmigration in the 1980's caused loss of business and deterioration of cultural amenities. In Dayton the Wright-Patterson Air Base nearly closed. Manufacturing businesses such as automotives in Dayton and steel in Pittsburgh moved away to non- union states. Environmental problems slowed development of old industrial sites.

Both areas responded to the impetus to change. Political leadership recognized threats to prosperity; so studies were commissioned: in Montgomery by the county commissioners and the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, and in Allegheny by Pittsburgh's Mayor and the Allegheny Conference. These studies documented loss of wealth, decline of revenue and deterioration of assets. The studies made recommendations which were eventually heeded, although not on the first try. Dayton targeted Economic Development, while Pittsburgh needed help building or maintaining cultural & sports amenities.

Both counties instituted Revenue Sharing plans which use increases in county sales taxes. Montgomery's increased by .5%, which was earmarked for Economic Development. Allegheny's increased by 1%, and they established a Regional Assets District. But here their paths diverged. Pennsylvania state law had to be changed to allow a countywide sales tax, but the new law did not pass and compromises had to be made so that smaller communities would buy in. The PA Dept. of Revenue now collects and administers the pool for a fee.

In Ohio, the sharing of tax monies between municipalities was not even legal at the time. When Dayton's political, business and labor interests finally united behind the concept, the General Assembly passed legislation to enable the measure. [Arguably, that statute may apply only to Montgomery Co. though. The legalities under current State Law are still being pursued by the Mayors & Managers Association.] In Dayton there were long debates and legal appeals before all agreed to set up two separate but interrelated funds. The Economic Development Fund [ED] distributes grants each year to projects, and the Government Equity Fund shares a portion of the revenues generated from those projects with program participants.

Finally, both counties' revenue sharing plans were challenged in court by municipalities which opposed the program. Both plans were vindicated by court decisions. However, both of these successful programs involved a single county only. Not so the third key example -- the Minneapolis/ St. Paul Metropolitan Area

Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN.

This 7-county effort began in 1957 with the formation of a Metropolitan Planning Agency. Their main issues were urban sprawl and improving infrastructure. Minnesota's governor was charged with appointing a 7-county Metropolitan Council with broad operating powers. Their first project was a regional sewer district.

The Revenue Sharing component evolved slowly. In 1969 a Fiscal Disparities Program was proposed but the factions could not agree on details. The Citizens League, the LWV and others did studies and reports on the concept. Finally the Minnesota Fiscal Disparities Act was passed in 1971 by one vote. Since then, 40% of NEW commercial and industrial taxes go into a regional pool. The money is then redistributed on a per capita basis and adjusted by a measure of local property wealth.

Although the similarities are striking, there are some things we need to remember about that very successful initiative. Strong business advocates lobbied legislators. Support from key organizations such as LWV was necessary. Each project bogged down or even failed at first, until compromises were struck. Even after the legislation passed, there were lawsuits by holdout municipalities, just as there were in Pittsburgh & Dayton. The lawsuits again failed. Indeed, Minneapolis and two inner ring suburbs -- at first net receivers of fund assistance -- have all turned around into net contributors just a few decades later. In all three case studies, Revenue Sharing is given much credit for improving the economic climate of the entire region.

A Land Use Component: Existing LWV Land Use Positions:

As already mentioned, regional Land Use Planning was also named in the Mayors' and Managers' study as a key component for reviving Northeast Ohio. And Land Use Planning has been a major topic of interest for LWV members in Cuyahoga County as well as in Ohio for decades. A brief review of those positions reveals that no new consensus is necessary to address the Land Use component of the Mayors and Managers proposal.

At the State Level, Ohio Leagues have had the following positions for some time: Support for urban revitalization, farmland preservation and the curbing of urban sprawl; A supportive role of the state in providing authority and incentives for local governments to exercise land use planning and regulatory techniques ( e.g. land banking, planned unit developments, purchase/transfer of development rights,

64 zoning, scenic easements, agricultural districts, cluster development, conservation reserves, land trusts, urban enterprise zones, environmental impact assessments, impact fees, tax abatement.)

Leagues in Cuyahoga County, after a subsequent 2-year study, adopted a position in 2000 that called for county government to work with federal, state, regional, and local governments and agencies to develop and implement policies that would encourage balanced growth and a sustained quality of life. We support, among other things, "a comprehensive plan to discourage sprawl, policies that favor maintaining roads rather than new construction, and government incentives to maintain infrastructure, farmland, and open space." The mayors we interviewed stated that going it alone usually just turned into intensive competition with neighboring municipalities. They named cooperation, not competition, as the only acceptable approach to solving cross-border problems.

LWV-- Cuyahoga Area also published a 60-page booklet, Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County, which concludes with support for "comprehensive planning by local, county, regional, state, and federal governments and agencies in order to achieve policies on transportation, tax structures, farmland, open spaces, and urban centers that will encourage a sustainable, balanced, and healthy economy."

Land Use Planning Linked to Revenue Sharing:

Land Use has so far been addressed, if at all, by smaller, often toothless planning bodies without the Smart Growth of the entire Region at heart. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), of which Northeast Ohio has four, serve the primary function of coordinating transportation decisions with federal highway funding. They exist in metropolitan areas throughout the U.S. But they also perform a non- binding planning function, and they all have the potential for expanding their missions into other areas of regional governance. The Twin Cities' MPO actually morphed into the "Met Council".

The Mayors' and Managers' study has pinpointed Northeast Ohio's 4 MPOs (and their equivalents in rural counties) as springboards to a Regional Land Use Plan. Mayors comprise or control those agencies' boards, so all four have been convened by the Mayors and Managers to begin work on a comprehensive plan. The MPO for Cleveland's 5-county Metro-Area is the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, or NOACA. Howard Maier, its Executive Director tells us he is enthused about such an expansion of their mission, but he also warns what a HUGE and daunting task that effort will be.

The 4 MPOs say they will undertake a 16-county Regional Land Use Plan which seeks to regulate orderly, smart growth and conservation in Northeast Ohio. Mr. Maier tells us that the collaboration will happen. It is the intention of the Mayors and Managers group, that compliance with the Regional Land Use Plan be a condition for municipal participation in any upcoming Revenue Sharing program. In that way, they hope to link Revenue Sharing with Smart Growth without resorting to subjective ranking of allocation decisions.

PRO Arguments for Revenue Sharing:

Benefits are said to be: 1) Promotion of economic development throughout the area, 2) Lessening of inefficiencies and a competitive environment between local entities, and 3) Stimulation of regional land use and infrastructure planning.

The theory is that the adoption of revenue sharing benefits the entire area, instead of solely benefiting the local community where the new development occurs. That helps an entire area become economically competitive with other comparable regions. It reduces an environment of inter-municipal "poaching" by encouraging the sharing of development ideas. It offers the region the opportunity to pick the optimum location for new projects. It deters unbalanced growth and allows projects to take place close to workers, thereby increasing jobs and incomes. Regional land use planning helps eliminate urban sprawl, protects and develops green space, affords environmental protection and minimizes the cost of energy and maintaining infrastructure. Business and industry are encouraged to locate in areas with strong availability

65 of infrastructure to support them. And revenue sharing addresses fiscal disparities by allowing the gain from commercial development to benefit the entire area.

A fourth argument is also often mentioned: 4) Incentives for regional cooperation improve in a climate of recession and decline. This may motivate disadvantaged and advantaged municipalities alike. Those facing tough conditions may be more willing to cooperate in order to stimulate much needed revenue. Likewise, advantaged communities may agree to share the largess from new local development if they see their surrounding region so adversely affected by a serious downturn. It may surprise some to learn that two NEO municipalities at the forefront of this campaign are Hudson and Pepper Pike.

CON Arguments against Revenue Sharing:

Opposition to Revenue Sharing seems to coalesce around four arguments: 1) Competition a basic American principle; 2) Redistribution of wealth wrong; 3) 13-16 county jurisdiction too large; and 4) No big new bureaucracy

The first two arguments seem to be ideologically based, but that makes them no less potent. Critics of the Twin Cities' MetCouncil complain that it engages in social engineering that no government should have the power to do. Each of the three plans cited earlier was challenged by "advantaged" communities which were reluctant to share revenue they felt they deserved. The basic complaint is that revenue sharing arguably promotes the transfer of money from productive to non-productive communities.

More pragmatic are the arguments about size and bureaucracy. The largest revenue sharing plan currently in place is the Twin Cities model, and that involves only seven counties. That model also features a very large, costly and unelected MetCouncil. Allegheny's collections & disbursals are handled by the state Department of Revenue. Montgomery's disbursals required the formation of an appointed advisory board. The Mayors and Managers so far envision a plan with no new bureaucracy at all -- with collections and disbursals managed by county Treasurers according to established formulas.

PART B CONSENSUS POSITION: REGIONAL TAX-BASE REVENUE SHARING

The LWV Cuyahoga Area supports: “Regional tax-base revenue sharing as a constructive form of intergovernmental cooperation for the mutual benefit of participating communities." Members agreed that a regional revenue sharing program should enhance the growth and competitiveness of a region, even a region as large as Northeast Ohio. As was noted earlier, all Revenue Sharing programs have five features: jurisdiction, objectives, administration, a source of contributions and criteria for allocations. These consensus positions deal with each in turn:

[JURISDICTION] Part A above, on Intergovernmental Collaboration, indicates that our League's support extends even to "Multi-County" or "Regional" jurisdictions. The subsections of this position further address the other four features.

Such a program should. . . .

[OBJECTIVES] . . . "advance smart growth, economic development and fiscal equity within the target area." Additionally, if possible, the program could "impact positively upon infrastructure, housing, education, recreation, inclusion and/or shared public facilities." This does not suggest, however, that the secondary objectives should be conditions for support, but neither do League members wish to see these secondary objectives negatively impacted.

[ADMINISTRATION] . . . . “set standards for finance, staffing and administration that are consistent, accountable, transparent and efficient." This wording indicates that members support at least a minimal administrative structure which would assure the standards and efficiencies named.

[SOURCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS] . . . "pool contributions from an agreed portion of new growth in local commercial and industrial tax revenue." Members believe only local commercial and industrial tax revenues are appropriate to be shared, and they much prefer that "New Growth" alone be chosen.

[CRITERIA FOR ALLOCATIONS] . . . "distribute that revenue pool among participating communities to further fiscal equity across the area." This position is to be taken, together with the furtherance of Smart Growth and Economic Development, as the key criterion for the disbursal of revenue sharing funds.

[OTHER CONSIDERATIONS] Such a program should, finally, "honor local sovereignty and school funding resources, be flexible, and grow with time." Members feel strongly that local control and school funding not be endangered, and that all formulas be fair and current. They also believe a program could possibly begin simply but may well evolve with time and success and trust. For example, the most effective administrative structure could emerge gradually from within, as participants and experience may later determine.

Finally: "Formulas for collection and allocations should be determined by the participating communities and periodically reviewed." Members want any formulas used be fair and current. Taken together, we believe that a Regional Tax-Base Revenue Sharing program along these lines will nourish the soil and grow the economy in Northeast Ohio.

Potential League action on this position:

It is important to emphasize that these principles do not pertain to any particular Regional Tax-Base Revenue Sharing proposal. They furnish a yardstick by which any future proposal may be measured. The Mayors and Managers have not yet announced their proposal, so it is still impossible to know what many features it may contain.

The LWV-Cuyahoga Area realizes that, for concerted League action throughout the region to be taken, it would be necessary to have most or all local Leagues in the area on board. However, there is much action at the local level which can be taken by Leagues which concur separately with this position. Specifically, each concurring League can urge or discourage participation in a revenue sharing program by local governments in their own areas. And they can explain and/or promote the issue to citizens of their communities.

APPENDIX VI

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE GRANT APPLICATION

BACKGROUND:

The League of Women Voters is a national nonpartisan organization established in 1920 to promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government. It is the policy of the League to take action on governmental measures and policies in the public interest. The League never supports or opposes any political party or any candidate.

In 1920 after the passage of the 19th Amendment, which extended the franchise to women, the Woman’s Suffrage Party of Greater Cleveland changed its name to the League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County and its purpose from securing the vote to encouraging and assisting women in using the ballot and in working for legislation favorable to them. Issues of interest to women identified in those early years are of continuing concern today – education, child welfare, employment, health, citizenship, and the environment.

Today in Cuyahoga County there are eleven local leagues that include a total of 650 members. Local leagues are active in Cleveland, Cleveland Heights/University Heights, Shaker Heights, Hillcrest Area, Euclid, Chagrin Valley, Fairview Park, Lakewood, Rocky River, Bay Village, and Westlake/North Olmsted. League membership is open to any citizen of voting age, male and female.

Local leagues have the responsibility for study and advocacy on public policy issues and local ballot issues in their individual communities and to provide local voter service and citizen education for their residents.

The mission of the League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County is to identify county-level issues; coordinate study and research on county public policy issues; coordinate local League action to achieve change at the county governmental level; and provide voter education on candidates and issues that cross municipal lines. The League publishes a Voters guide and distributes it throughout the county to help citizens make informed decisions at the polls.

In 1997 the League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County began to study urban expansion as a major force in depleting the tax base of Cleveland and its first ring of suburbs. Urban sprawl has many contributing factors that are intricately interwoven, but one overarching issue has a profound impact on outmigration from Cuyahoga County -- the transportation policies of the federal, state, and regional governments and agencies. The League’s research is focused on: inefficient use of existing infrastructure, existing competition and conflict among public officials and agencies, destruction of farmland and natural areas, depletion of the population density required to maintain mass transit, increased traffic congestion and pollution, and the loss of the citizen’s sense of community.

NEED: Between 1980 and 2010 the five-county region (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina) is expected to lose three percent of its population, which, at the same time, will occupy thirty percent more residential land (Dr. Thomas Bier, Cleveland State University). The reasons people give for moving from Cleveland to the suburbs are well documented – safety, better schools, lower taxes, and the desire for more land. Business and industry also have legitimate reasons for moving out: it is easier, quicker, and cheaper to assemble the needed land in less densely populated parts of the county than in the city where developers must contend with brownfields, small plats, and uncooperative neighbors. Affluent suburbs can offer economic incentives that the city cannot match. Most people acknowledge these forces but there is no agreement on remedies that will halt or slow the outmigration in the county.

As a framework for studying the impact transportation policies have on urban sprawl, the League compiled a list of unintended consequences that the continuing net movement of population from cities to suburbs and surrounding counties has caused. Sprawl:

depletes the tax base of Cleveland and its first ring suburbs; creates additional cost for new infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, schools) for the same number of people spread over a greater area; is strongly affected by and can affect transportation development plans of the Ohio Department of Transportation, Ohio Turnpike Commission, and Regional Transit Authority. places local public officials in conflict with each other, private developers, and the State; destroys farmland and natural areas; decreases population density required to maintain mass transit, disproportionately affecting the elderly, poor, young, and public institutions; receives encouragement from governmental agencies at the same time that there is little incentive for developing the urban core and first ring suburbs; increases traffic congestion and pollution; causes controversy between Cuyahoga County and adjoining counties over highway development; engenders conflict between Cleveland, first ring cities, and more distant suburbs; destroys a sense of community. is a priority of several local organizations that continue to research the issues and serve as resources to the League.

The Cuyahoga County League formed a research committee of members of the local leagues. The committee developed the following objectives: 1. Determine ways the tax structure can be improved to increase equity, reduce redundancy, reward maintenance, and create incentives for building better public transit systems. 2. Determine effective regional institutional structures for making Ohio’s transportation decisions. 3. Define a regional governmental structure to make land use and transportation decisions that would encourage thinking regionally and cooperatively. 4. Identify a combination of transportation systems that would preserve farmland, open space, natural habitat, and encourage redevelopment in the City of Cleveland, and first ring suburbs. 5. Define the role of transportation systems in enhancing a sense of community and of place. 6. Identify federal, state, and regional policies that inhibit a progressive transportation system; e.g., zoning laws, enterprise zones, constitutional earmarking, state long-range goals for transportation development and maintenance. 7. Publish its research and distribute copies, at no cost, to citizens, organizations and government agencies throughout the region. 8. Find and begin to build on common ground among all stakeholders—environmentalists, developers, urban and suburbanites, industry, and especially citizens.

In addition to reviewing the currently available literature on urban sprawl, the Research Committee has systematically collected information using a variety of methods.

The committee continues to monitor the meetings of the Regional Transit Authority committees, NOACA and its Transportation Advisory Committee, the Turnpike Commission, the First Suburbs Consortium, the Canal Corridor, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, and hearings held throughout the county.

The committee continues to attend conferences, symposia, presentations, hearings, and workshops on sprawl held in northeast Ohio, including: Sierra Club – To Create Livable Communities, October 21, 1995 Ohio State University Extension and the OEPA – Growth and the Future: A Land Use Conference for all of Ohio, March 25, 1997 69

Transportation Advisory Council – Recommendations on the Rebuilding of Interstate I-71, where the League presented a statement, June 26, 1998 EcoCity Cleveland - Agenda for Smart Growth in Ohio, October 2, 1998.

The committee continues to interview decision-makers and interested individuals, including state representatives, a state senator, county commissioners, RTA and NOACA officials, Cuyahoga County city mayors, ODOT officials, academics, developers, and public interest groups.

The Research Committee prepared preliminary study materials as information for members of the local Cuyahoga County Leagues. In March, 1999, League members were invited to participate in discussion meetings held throughout the county. The meetings were well attended and the discussion lively.

The League is now seeking funding for the publication and wide distribution of its research. The publication, Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship, will explore the pressures, policies, and attitudes that have led to inefficient use of land and resources – what many refer to as “urban sprawl.” The publication will identify the most important factors and examine their impact on each other. Transportation policy is used as a touchstone for considering a wide range of seemingly unrelated issues. The publication will assist the reader to develop an understanding of the dynamics that create inefficient land use. It will be divided into the following sections that have been designed to be used by the reader as a handy reference when questions arise about a particular aspect of public policy and its impact on land development:

a. The Impact of the Past and Present provides information, graphs, and charts that explain the assumptions and facts that offer the basis for the publication. b. Attitudes provides an overview of the diverse opinions interviewers encounter when discussing land use and transportation policy with local and state decision-makers. c. The Role Played by Tax Policy examines federal, state, and regional tax policies to discover intentional and unintentional impacts on land use and transportation choices. d. The Role of Other Laws and Policies discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the 1998 federal transportation legislation, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). It also examines two sections of the Ohio Constitution that can create problems in land use and alternative transportation decisions – the earmarking of funds for highways and the 1912 Home Rule Amendment, as well as the impact of local zoning codes on development. e. The Role Played by Public Institutions and Agencies discusses the actions and interactions, structures, and missions of federal, state, regional, and county agencies most concerned with transportation policy and services. f. The Impact of Law, Policy, and Practice on Social Issues highlights how transportation policy affects housing, land use, segregation, and work.

The second phase of the proposed project is the development and presentation of citizen workshops throughout the county – workshops designed to expand citizen knowledge, understanding, and interest in the problems associated with sprawl. Because of its long success and experience in the development of balanced information meetings, the League of Women Voters is the ideal organization to initiate and facilitate citizen dialogue on this vital topic. The general public trusts the nonpartisan League to bring a balanced, well-researched, and well-developed presentation to citizen groups and organizations.

The League’s Research Committee has participated in nearly all the formal meetings, conferences, and symposia on sprawl and land use held in Cuyahoga County and northeast Ohio during the past two years. These meetings and conferences, which are very timely and informative, are attended primarily by public officials, academic personnel, and members of environmental and other interest groups. It is time to engage a broader citizen base in the discussion. If change is to occur, citizens, who will be affected, must be a part of the dialogue and decision-making process.

The Research Committee has interviewed mayors in all parts of the county and is very much aware of the concerns they have as well as the resistance of citizens to change. The information that the League

70 has gathered adds a local political viewpoint to the academic work done by Dr. Bier at Cleveland State University and David Beach and Bradley Flamm of EcoCity Cleveland. League interviews with mayors of the outer as well as inner ring suburbs shed light on the reasons for the problems and concerns that result when development and revitalization are in competition. The Committee has found there are many sides to these issues. For example, League members attended an Ohio Environmental Protection Agency hearing on a controversial wetlands issue in Parma. We listened to those who desired to preserve the few wetlands remaining in Parma, and heard the concerns of Parma’s public officials, who wanted to use the wetlands site for an industrial park. Industry would bring new taxes and jobs to Parma where one-third of the citizens are over 65 and school levies are difficult to pass. The League can offer a balanced presentation to citizen groups and organizations – a presentation tailored to the local issues and problems of the community.

Wide public dialogue on these issues is critical. As a community we need to find common ground and consensus to develop solutions to the problems created by sprawl. We need to find new ways to look to the future.

THE PROJECT:

Purpose: to publish the well-documented League research on major aspects of the urban sprawl phenomenon and to promote a citizen dialogue in communities throughout the county on the effects of urban sprawl and public transportation policies on our communities in Cuyahoga and surrounding counties.

The League is uniquely positioned and prepared to initiate a dialogue among citizens throughout the county. The League brings a new face to the discussion, which to date has been largely academic. The Research Committee has listened to all sides of the issue as it traveled throughout the county interviewing mayors and other elected officials both within the core city and first ring suburbs as well as officials in the outlying suburbs.

The League will provide trained speakers who will organize and present workshops for community organizations in municipalities and neighborhoods in Cuyahoga County. The publication of the League’s Research Committee, Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship, will be provided as background reading for the participants.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To publish the work of the Research Committee, Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship, in book form and use the publication as background information for community dialogue workshops.

2. To disseminate the publication widely to individuals, organizations, and public officials in Cuyahoga County and northeast Ohio.

3. To develop a workshop designed to promote participant education and discussion.

4. To train 12 to 15 workshop facilitators.

5. To provide at least 50 workshops to local community organizations over a two year period.

METHODOLOGY:

Complete and publish in book form the results of the League research on the effect of transportation policy on outmigration from Cuyahoga County, Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship.

Disseminate Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship at no charge throughout the County. Mail the publication to elected and appointed official in each municipality in the county at no cost. Mail the publication to League members. Make the publication available to participants in local and regional conferences. Provide the public libraries and area high schools with copies of the publication at no cost. Provide copies to officials and Leagues in counties in northeast Ohio. Provide copies to college and university libraries at no cost. Develop a workshop designed to promote participant education and discussion.

Plan a workshop approach in which there will be both presentation and discussion. Write presentation materials. Develop handouts and visual displays to be used in the workshop. (maps, graphs, data, and worksheets, videotapes) Each participant will receive a copy of Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship as background information for the workshops.

Train speakers and workshop leaders.

Develop training materials. Provide background information for speakers and leaders.

Provide at least 50 workshops throughout the county over a two-year period

Gather lists of community organizations and contacts for each municipality in the County. (Organizations such as PTAs; service organizations - Kiwanis, Rotary; church groups; business women’s organizations; AAUW, library discussion groups, senior organizations – AARP, retiree groups, senior education organizations, high school earth science classes, and elected officials – council members and planners). Develop promotional materials and notify organizations of the availability of the program. Schedule workshops. Secure information about the community issues before workshop presentations so that the programs may be tailored to the individual community. Provide at least 50 workshops over a two-year period. Reach 600 citizens over a two-year period. Offer follow-up presentations.

EVALUATION

An evaluation tool will be developed to measure the usefulness of the workshop to participants. It will broadly measure participants’ expectations and what they learned.

An evaluation tool will be developed to measure the usefulness of the publication. It will be included with each copy of Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship.

In addition the project will be evaluated by collecting and analyzing the following data: Number of workshops Number of trained speakers/workshop leaders Geographic area of workshops: The workshops should be presented in all parts of the county, especially in the outer suburbs. Number of participants in workshops. Number of copies of Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County disseminated. 72

BUDGET EXPLANATION:

A project coordinator will be hired to manage the project at the rate of $14 per hour for 20 hours a week for 80 weeks over a two-year period.

Support staff: The League will provide volunteer member support to the project including preparing mailings, identifying and contacting organizations to hold workshops, etc.

Trained Workshop Facilitators: The League will provide volunteer member facilitators, who will be trained and will present the workshops. It is estimated that the time involved will be four hours for each workshop at $25 an hour. The Facilitators will volunteer their time.

Workshop Kits for Facilitators: Facilitators will have a kit for each workshop. Kits will contain wall charts and maps, a video, overheads and/or a large newsprint pad.

Participant workshop materials: Each participant in addition to the publication, Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship, will receive work sheets, and other printed materials. An anticipated cost for the materials for each participant is estimated is estimated at $2.50.

Printing and binding: Cost of publishing 3,000 copies of Land Use and Transportation in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship. The book will contain about 90 pages, stapled, with a coated cover. The cost includes the graphic design, preparation for printing, and the printing.

Distribution of the book, Land Use and Transportation Policy in Cuyahoga County: A Close Relationship: postage costs and mailing envelopes.

Office supplies, copies, equipment maintenance: These costs will be shared by the League.

Telephone: These costs will be shared by the League.

Travel: Travel costs will be incurred by the Project Coordinator, Research Committee, and Workshop Facilitators. These costs will be shared by the League.

The League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund, a 501 {c} {3} nonprofit organization, will accept grants to be used for educational purposes by the League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County.

APPENDICES: [Ed note: no longer available]

I. List of Conferences, Symposia, Hearings attended by the League Research Committee II. List of Interviews conducted by the League Research Committee III. League of Women Voters Study Materials Prepared for by the Research Committee IV. League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County Board of Directors V. League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund Trustees VI. League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County 1999 Budget VII. League of Women Voters of Cuyahoga County Transportation/Outmigration Research Committee

APPENDIX VII

BACKGROUND ON DIKE 14 NATURE PRESERVE STUDY

WILDLIFE HABITATS and STATE PARK USE of CLEVELAND'S DIKE 14

By Barbara A. Martin, LWVC Environmental Committee, Jan/Feb 2002, The Cleveland Voter, Vol. I, Issue 1, pp.1-2

Since September 2000, the Environmental Committee of the League of Women Voters of Cleveland has pursued a study of Cleveland's Dike 14, a remarkable coastal wildlife area that developed from Nature's reclamation of her transported dredged soils. Federal actions during 1999 and 2000 closed the confined disposal facility (CDF) use of Dike 14, and the 88-acre landmass of Dike 14 began its transition to becoming a Cleveland Lakefront State Park.

The League of Women Voters of Ohio passed a Resolution in May 2001 to "Protect Lake Erie Coastal Wildlife Habitats at Cleveland's Dike 14". This LWVO Resolution appealed to Governor Taft and Director Speck of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources ( ODNR) to protect the Dike 14 site from degradation and dumping so that the wildlife habitats, which are sanctuary to significant numbers and diversity of migratory birds, could be given full consideration during the State's public planning process for State Park use of Dike 14.

The league's ongoing advocacy work for Dike 14 is based on its 16-month study of the issues and the Natural Resource Positions of the League of Women Voters of the United States.

DESCRIPTION

Cleveland's Dike 14 is an odd-shaped, stone-walled, 88-acre container built in Lake Erie, at Cleveland’s eastern shoreline, during the 1970’s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). Dike 14 is a confined disposal facility (CDF) that has received 20 years of annual deposits of dredged sediments taken from the navigational channels of the Cuyahoga River and Cleveland Harbor Dike 14 is one of 45 CDF's built throughout the Great Lakes since the late 1960's when environmental regulations forbade open lake disposal of contaminated dredged sediments.

Designed for a 15-year service life (1979 to 1994), Dike 14 was modified by Federal action in 1993, extending its CDF use to 20 years. The ACE ended dredge disposal at Dike 14 in 1999 when it opened Cleveland's new CDF, Dike 10B, north of Burke Lakefront Airport. Dike 14 is located 4.5 miles east of Downtown Cleveland at the mouth of the Doan Brook and at the shoreline of Cleveland Lakefront State Park at Gordon Park. The Doan Brook empties into Lake Erie through a culvert that lies within Dike 14. The perimeter of Dike 14 measures about one mile, and its 88-acre landmass projects 2,200 feet into Lake Erie

DESIGNATED STATE PARK USE

In 1979, the year Army Corps began placing dredged materials at Dike 14, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) depicted Dike 14 as a State Park in its Master Plan for Cleveland Lakefront State Parks. Support for State Park use of the 88-acre site continues today among all interested public agencies including ODNR, but until the City of Cleveland takes control of Dike 14 and grants a lease agreement to ODNR, the transition to State Park use will be limited

WILDLIFE HABITATS AND MIGRATORY BIRDS

Dike 14 functions as a premiere wildlife sanctuary for migratory birds. It contains diverse wildlife habitats including wetlands, mudflats, shrub lands, grasslands, meadows and woodlands. Dike 14 is documented with 274 species of birds of which 28 are endangered or threatened and 52 are species of concern. Dike 14 is also documented with tens of thousands of birds per month during 4 months of 74 spring migration and 5 months of fall migration. Dike 14 is located at the intersection of four important migration routes: the shoreline of Lake Erie; the north-south route across Lake Erie; the Doan Brook Valley leading to the Shaker Lakes; and the Cuyahoga River Valley.

Dike 14 provides the only high-quality wildlife habitat along an 80-mile stretch of highly urbanized coastline between Mentor and Huron. The sanctuary functions of Dike 14 equal that of the 650-acre Mentor Marsh State Nature Preserve and the 575-acre Old Woman Creek State Nature Preserve in Huron. Recognized as deserving of the highest conservation priority, Dike 14 was designated a National Audubon Society Important Bird Area by Audubon Ohio in October 2000.

From an environmental and regional perspective, Dike 14 is functioning as the original Lake Plain eco-region functioned, before urbanization, by providing nutrient-rich shoreline habitats that support significant numbers and diversity of migratory birds and other wildlife.

PORT AUTHORITY

In February 2000, the Army Corps transferred the responsibility for long-term maintenance of Dike 14 to the local sponsor, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. In late December 2000, the Port Authority. exceeded its maintenance role and placed 1,500 cubic yards of dredged materials onto the Dike 14 site without governmental. approval. Since January 2001, public scrutiny has halted the Port Authority's stated intention to continue to alter the site with dredged materials.

THE DIKE 14 COMMITTEE

The Cleveland Waterfront Coalition created the Dike 14 Committee in January 2001 as a grassroots voice for the future of Dike 14. The Dike 14 Committee was made independent of the Waterfront Coalition in August 200l. It is an informal group open to all organizations and individuals. It acts as a clearinghouse, an information source and a point of contact on Dike 14 issues. The LWVC Environmental Committee is an active participant in the Dike 14 Committee.

OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

There is broad-based community support among citizen groups, individuals and public agency representatives for allowing the existing Dike 14 site, and its diverse wildlife habitats, to continue to serve as sanctuary for significant numbers and diverse species of birds until the completion of the State Park planning process. In this way, conservation proposals based on the existing wildlife conditions of Dike 14 are assured during the State Park planning process.

This vision extends to hundreds of citizens who appealed to Governor Taft, ODNR Director Speck and U.S. Senator Voinovich through petitions, letters, e-mails and phone calls during 2001, to protect Dike 14 from the Port Authority’s desire to dump dredged materials at Dike 14. Support for this vision also extends to Audubon Society, U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Sierra Club, Cleveland City Council and the Bratenahl Village Council.

In contrast, the Port Authority seems to view this transition period as an opportunity to re-introduce dredge disposal at Dike 14 primarily because of a troublesome permitting process at Cleveland's new CDF, Dike l OB. Addressing the LWVC in October 200 l, the Port Authority stated that Army Corps Buffalo was taking up to a year to issue permits for dredge disposal Dike 10B when previously permits were issued within 3 weeks to 3 months.

THE SOLUTION

In mid-October, the LWVC called for a review of the Port Authority's role at Dike 14 in the context of the terms, objectives and agreements of the Federal Projects of Dike 14 (1976 and 1993) and in the context of the authority of Federal actions that completed and closed Dike 14 in 1999 and 2000. Elected officials are reviewing the situation and are working to resolve any unreasonable delays in 75 the issuance of Army Corps permits for use of Cleveland's CDF, Dike 10B.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation is essential during the upcoming ODNR Public Input Process, a 4 - to - 6 month process to take place in Cleveland in 2002. Through private interviews, small informal meetings, and two public meetings, the public's views on "what kind of State Park use is desired at Dike 14" will be gathered. Public input will greatly influence the ODNR draft plan for Dike 14, which will lead to a revision of the Master Plan for Cleveland- Lakefront State Parks. Final planning and implementation are dependent on funding.

A special ODNR Public Meeting will be held in early 2002 for review of the Port Authority's Submerged Lands Lease Application for Dike 14. The Port Authority submitted an application to ODNR in July 2001, but did not clearly describe its proposed and intended use of the site. Concern for the wildlife habitats at Dike 14 prompted the Dike 14 Committee, Sierra Club and the Cleveland City Council to request this ODNR public review.