As the City's Department of Community Development assumes administration of the Neighborhood Support Program (NSP) from Invest in Neighborhoods, a new ordinance has been floated to amend and clarify a 1989 ordinance on just who "represents" each of the City's 52 neighborhoods.
The ordinance directs city manager Milton Dohoney Jr. to maintain a directory of Representative Community Councils, which would be required to:
- Define and codify their geographical territories
- Define a neighborhood resident as anyone who lives within those boundaries
- Extend full membership, voting, and participation priveleges to all neighborhood residents ages 18 and older, without regard to whether the resident has paid a membership fee
- Not discriminate against a resident based on housing type
- Not allow any policy, regulation or rule that violates any local, state, or federal anti-discrimination law or ordinance
- Require that voting privileges for non-residents be extended only through a vote of residents at the council's annual meeting
- Require that all issues of community interest, such as NSP funding allocation, zoning considerations, liquor licensing and development considerations be up for an open vote of all residents
- Provide appropriate and timely public notice for meetings covering all community issues of interest
- Provide neighborhood resident vote totals to any City department or agency that is working on a particular issue
- Refrain from campaigning on behalf of any candidate running for public office
Ordinance not finalized
Rick Dieringer, executive director of IIN, was part of the working group that was appointed by Councilmember and then-chair of the Vibrant Neighborhood Committee Laketa Cole to develop recommendations on how to better clarify the 1989 ordinance.
He says that the proposal he's seen from city solicitor John Curp diverges dramatically from the findings of his working group.
"As written, the proposed ordinance would strip from community councils the right to establish reasonable requirements for voting privileges, such as joining the organization by paying membership dues, attending a minimum number of meetings or participating in volunteer activities, or waiting a reasonable period – currently 60 days – after joining before one can vote," Dieringer says.
He argues that, as private corporations under state law, community councils have the right do decide those requirements on their own.
He says that some of those rules were made to protect the viability of the organizations and the best interests of the neighborhoods.
"Our working group concluded that the City has a legitimate interest in trying to determine whether a community council's request or position truly reflects the will of the neighborhood," Dieringer says. "Therefore, we suggested a change that calls for an open vote of residents, just like is done now on NSP proposals, on any matter a community council may convey to the City, be that a funding request, a zoning issue, liquor license issues, or any other request for City action. All other matters – elections, disposition of non-City funds, community activities not involving the City, etc. – would be left to the council to determine as it sees fit."
Dieringer worries that even the working group's suggestion could limit a council board's ability to conduct business and would make it more difficult for it to react to problems in a timely manner.
"As proposed, the new ordinance would impose upon community councils more stringent requirements for conducting votes than are in place for our political elections," he says.
Another change would require an annual community vote about whether to extend membership priveleges to non-residents, ostensibly to simplify a confusing requirement that each council grant any five resident the right to call for a vote once a year.
"I fail to see where new voting requirements contribute to the health and vitality of community councils not do they help councils be more representative of their neighborhoods," Dieringer says.
In a response to those concerns, Cole says that the ordinance is nowhere near being finalized, and is not likely to come up for a vote for several weeks.
"I agreed that revisions had to be made to many sections, which is why I presented the ordinance in the first place – to get community and neighborhood feedback," she says.
Other neighborhoods fear impacts
Oakley Community Council (OCC) president Dave Schaff doesn't see a City takeover of the NSP as the end of the world, but urges the City to treat the issue carefully.
He says that many community councils, including his, also serve as both a chamber of commerce and a residential advocacy board.
Any City ordinance dictating who can serve community councils – and who can vote – would decimate the OCC.
"The proposed ordinance would eliminate five of 12 Oakley board members, who play an instrumental role for Oakley, particularly as it concerns business development," Schaff says. "Yes, there is a caveat in the ordinance, but the mere suggestion that residents will control whether a business owner/representative can serve greatly offends me."
Schaff recommends that the City help provide checks and balances to struggling councils, but wait a year or two to assess whether a City takeover of NSP funding is really necessary.
"We elect nine Cincinnati Councilmember to establish and execute policy and operate city government because you are working day in, day out on issues," he says. "Oakley should not be subject to transactional voting, where we will see a flurry of folks, who may never attend another meeting, vote to swing an issue."
Schaff is not alone in his concern -- on April 20, Councilmember Roxanne Qualls submitted for public record 75 pages of e-mails and letters from representatives of the Walnut Hills Area Council, Over-the-Rhine Community Council, West End Community Council, Westwood Civic Association, College Hill Forum, California Community Council, Carthage Civic League, Lower Price Hill Community Council, Mount Washington Community Council, Avondale Community Council, Columbia Tusculum Community Council, and more.
Some of these issues will be discussed this afternoon at 2 PM in council's Vibrant Neighborhoods Committee.
No dollars disbursed
As of two weeks ago, 20 community councils had signed contracts with the City of Cincinnati for NSP services: Avondale, Bond Hill, Camp Washington, Carthage, College Hill, Corryville, East End, East Price Hill, Evanston, Kennedy Heights, Lower Price Hill, Madisonville, Mount Airy, North Avondale, Northside, Roselawn, South Fairmount, Spring Grove, Walnut Hills, and the West End.
Nine community councils have outstanding contracts, but have not filled out a proposal or registration forms: Columbia-Tusculum, Downtown, East Westwood, Hartwell, Hyde Park, Millvale, North Fairmount, Westwood, and Winton Hills.
No vouchers have been submitted since nine of the NSP contracts have become fully executed, and no NSP has been paid.
Moral obligation
As a moral obligation, council is considering an ordinance that would transfer $60,100 from a contingency account to the Department of Community Development to help pay for costs above the original $50,000 budgeted for administration of the programs.
Because of a break in services, council also is considering advancing NSP funds from Department of Community Development accounts to three community councils as a moral obligation for expenditures accrued prior to February 5:
- Spring Grove Village Community Council: $1,021.90
- Mount Washington Community Council: $681.15
- Avondale Community Council: $501.00
Previous reading on BC:
$110K, new staffer needed to administer neighborhood support funds (3/4/09)
Invest in Neighborhoods wins NSP contract (12/9/08)
Kamuf: Look into Invest in Neighborhoods turmoil (11/5/08)
Invest in Neighborhoods under scrutiny, NSP out for bid (9/10/08)
Former Invest in Neighborhoods board member says agency 'hiding more than they're telling' (8/8/08)
10 comments:
Looks like more hoops for neighborhood councils to jump through to get anything done. Personally , i think most 'community councils' represent too large an area and most things get done by smaller neighborhood or block club groups that operate independently from the council anyway. As a local neighborhood group we dont have the time to deal with community councils, and we are getting more done operating independently of our communitry council anyway. I do think the city should maintain a registry of block clubs and local neighborhood organizatons like most cities do.
An issue at hand here is the mess that exists with the Uptown area community councils. The boundaries are constantly in question creating this mess of no one really knowing what neighborhoods exist in that area and thus just referring to it all as "Clifton."
This all started really when CUF refused to allow students to vote at their meetings. The Heights formed as a result so that the tens of thousands of University of Cincinnati students living in the area also had a voice in their community. This ordinance would seem to address these issues in a way that would possibly remedy these issues.
This is a perfect example of why I didn't vote for Laketa Cole and why she is not fit to hold a position on city council. See how arrogantly she reacts when Carl Uebelacker (outgoing President of the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association) wishes to respond to her smackdown (about 1:30 into this video clip).
We have so many more important issues that need to be addressed, yet she wants to remake one of the few things that works well in this city.
Cecil Thomas understands the issue and spoke the honest truth about who really performs the lion's share of work in our communities. Watch at 5:52 minutes into this video clip.
Mike Morgan, Deputy Director of the OTR Foundation, makes an excellent point how these revisions to the existing ordinance would allow someone like Anthony Kirkland to vote, but would deny Mr. Morgan the same right because he is not a resident of OTR. Maybe it's a bit over-the-top, but it shows the type of foresight that council member Cole is clearly lacking. Watch 3:09 minutes into this video clip.
If this ordinance passes it would effectively neuter the last best hope of Cincinnati: those people that care most about their communities. And if it passes, my family and I will take our income, our taxes, our hiring of local workers — and leave this city for good.
@^Randy Simes:
Who should have more say in what goes on in their community? A temporary "resident" of 4 years attending the University — or a 30-year resident who has been paying taxes, maintaining property, and is a contributing member of the local community council?
I'm sorry, but you can't equate the two — they do not have the same stake in the neighborhood.
^I don't know how you solve this issue, but the students that live in these communities do deserve some sort of voice. They are the ones who make the area run, they support the businesses, the property owners and the cultural institutions in the Uptown area. To not allow them to have a voice is criminal in my opinion...and the current way the system is set up just makes the whole system more convoluted and complicated.
On a related note, are renters Downtown able to vote with the Downtown Residents Council, or is it a similar situation to what happened in CUF?
^ Simes:
In situations like the one in Clifton, perhaps the local community council / civic association should ask the students to elect a representative to serve on the board of the council / association. This would allow the students a voice in what goes on in the community, but not allow the vision of long-term residents to be overridden by a more transient population.
The big issue of "non-owners", I don't mean business owners because they rent but own the business who operate in the community is that they are real long term "stakeholders" Not like, "non owner" temporary residents. I understand the student issue, but the other side of the coin would be say a "slumlord", that owns 10-20 properties and they bring in their tenants who are voting on long range issues and policies,like zoning, that due to the transient nature of the tenants, will be in effect long after they are gone. Or,of direct benefit to the slumlord. It's basically stacking the deck and giving one owner multiple votes and that in my opinion is wrong.
This has the potential to make the community council totally ineffective.
Glad people are picking up on this and kudos to Brian Lee for posting the meeting.
I think some standardizing of councils might be in order, but they are not actual governing bodies and don't have the time or money to administer governmental type elections.
I am guessing a lot of people don't attend meetings because of the time of the meetings. A second shift worker can't really justify taking time off work to vote in what is essentially a quasi governmental election
The councils don't have the facilities to publish agendas well in advance of meetings, print ballots and have 8 hrs of polling every month.
Most citizens are apathetic, as Mr Thomas noted. I think he's being pretty generous saying 20% of the citizens are active. I'd put it closer to less than 5%.
On vote stacking, consider this: Northside Community council gets maybe 100 - 150 people at a meeting. The Taliband gang rounded up last fall had about 100 members. What would have stopped these guys from voting themselves in as the "official" representatives of the community ?
Well, stupidity..... :-)
I think Ms Cole would do better with "awareness raising" than legislation in this case.
Good post and comments.
I watched this VN meeting on TV and saw about 25 people give great arguements against the ordinance.
Cole is angry because the Bond Hill CC took a position on a zoning issue she didn't like. So rather than handle it locally, she tries to handle her personal complaint with a sweeping, destructive ordinance.
Cole has lectured people to "get involved in your community councils". She didn't get involved with her CC, yet she raises holy hell when her CC does things that affect HER Bond Hill abode.
She didn't want to listen when past West End Community Council President took EZ money to promote the mega homeless mall CityLink to a neighborhood that violently opposed it.
Dale M was an Invest in Neighborhoods Trustee.....The cover ups of that 2006 Board was a root cause of the eventual demise of IIN. The 2007 Board voted to hire a new Director, then. Dieringer then tried to pull a fast coup that backfired.
Finally, Cole's smack down of someone using the term "mob rule" was incredible. That ignorant woman obviously had no knowledge of the Federalist Papers and the lenghty arguements our founding fathers had regarding mobs and the checks and balances needed to protect against the tyrany of the mob.
I agree about the great comments.
It just occurred to me that the more I read about this whole thing, the more I realize how little I know.
Post a Comment