Cuyahoga County Reform--your VOTE?

Submitted by lmcshane on Sat, 10/24/2009 - 16:57.
( categories: )

Poll only allowed on

Poll only allowed one entry...I wanted to vote NO for both issue 5 and issue 6. 

It does force you to prioritize

I was thinking the exact same thing - but only allowing one choice forces us to decide which vote matters most...

I'm thinking no - no, too.

But, you still should vote for Issue 5 committee members, even if you vote no on 5, because if 5 passes then whatever committee members are chosen will decide the new structure of government for us all...

Disrupt IT

issue 5 committee members

Norm is right on with the need to vote on committee members. A lot of people will be doing this so get your vote in in case it becomes the winning issue. It doesn't mean that you endorse either 5 or 6  

You can set up a poll

I never have set up a poll here but I think that you can. You can have one option be no on 5 and 6, yes on5 no on 6, etc. If you do try and have problems, can you post that as I am looking for things for the hitchhikers guide to using the site. Thanks W14R 

Thank you!  It was a good

Thank you!  It was a good poll and I did prioritize so that was a good exercise in thinking.

Does anyone know any of the people on that list we are supposed to chose from for the committee?  I don't know any of them and I don't know anything about them.  How can we chose?  Who's who?

Very good question- sounds like a good high school project

Very good question - I know many of them but do not want most of them involved in deciding anything about my government - a reason to vote no on 5 and 6.

Within the next week or so we need to profile and figure all these people out - sounds like a good high school project for our next generation of leaders, who will be stuck with the results of current voters' decisions

Disrupt IT

no, and no again

we need two radio buttons--I, too, think the right thing to do is to vote no on 5 and no on 6 as well--we should not give these government types permission for anything further--they haven't worked yet with what we've provided them so far.

No-No on Cuyahoga Reform vote

I voted NO on Issue 5 and NO on Issue 6--I did not vote for any of the Issue 5  candidates.  I confess that I assumed a NO vote on 5 meant NO to the entire slate.  Am I wrong?

I am sorry that I did not put the NO-NO option in the poll.  Jeff Schuler can you add it?

Please-everyone--make use of the poll option here at REALNEO.  It's an interesting exercise and often less volatile than a blog post.  The Annenberg School for Communications hosts the i-neighbors site, which like REALNEO, is meant to facilitate needed community dialogue and communication. 

Tremont-you can set up an account and use this site to manage more micro-neighbor concerns.  See:

my opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, my spouse, my cat, my neighbors, my extended family or anyone I happen to acknowledge on the street, bus, etc.

Even if you vote no on Issue

Even if you vote no on Issue 5 you can pick 15 candidates just in case the majority of people vote yes on Issue 5.  This gives everyone a vote on who will do the study should the study be done. 

The problem I have is I do not know anything about any of the people on the list.  I have to get busy and learn something fast. 

no, no, no and no

 and, no, no,,,

there's also an interesting issue that is not getting much press - Issue 17, which would amend the City Charter to allow for the appointment of two alternate planning commission members. (i will try to scan/post this letter on monday)

These two members would replace the councilpeople who are SUPPOSED to be showing up to the City Planning Commission meetings to help decide matters before them. Apparently. this hasn't been happening so they feel the need to amend OUR charter so we can create two new positions to cover the councilpeople's ass.

These two "alternate" members will be appointed by the mayor and will serve for SIX years. Their pay will "be determined" by council and WE WILL PAY for this. 

So - taxpayers will lose what is supposed to be two elected representatives on the planning commission because our councilpeople can't find the time to show up, we'll be asked to pay more salaries (offices? benefits?staff?) and the Mayor will have increased (absolute?) control over the planning commission - all to make their process "less tedious".

I call that audacity.

I voted NO on Issue 17

  The Planning Commission is a joke as it is--I don't want to pay for any more folks who are only committed to serve once a month and who get paid to rubber stamp any developer requests in the City of Cleveland. 

(That's right--Joe Cimperman--I am talking about you).

Currently, there is one council representative and six appointed "community" representatives.

my opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, my spouse, my cat, my neighbors, my extended family or anyone I happen to acknowledge on the street, bus, etc.