Columbus Coalition for Responsive Government issues Preliminary Endorsements for Columbus City Council Primary Election
(Columbus, OH) April 4, 2013
SUMMARY
Highly Recommended: Nicholas Schneider and Brian Bainbridge
Recommended: Greg Lawson and John Lively
Not Recommended: None
Unfit for Public Office (Preliminary): Priscilla Tyson, A. Troy Miller, Eileen Paley
Special Designation – Champion of Democracy: Nicholas Schneider
Final Ratings to Be Released April 10, 2013
The Columbus Coaltion for Responsive Government today issued a preliminary set of endorsements for candidates to the Columbus City Council. The screening process was performed in conjunction with the Columbus Coalition of Concerned Black Citizens.
The endorsements are currently listed as “preliminary” because the three incumbent city council members have not yet engaged in the screening process. The Coalition has a four-tier rating:
1) Highly Recommended,
2) Recommended,
3) Not Recommended, and
4) Unfit for Public Office
In addition to the ratings, the Coalition has a Special Designation – Champion of Democracy – which is awarded to the candidate whose scaled scores rank highest on the principles of a representative democratic form of government.
The Coalition is pleased to award the “Highly Recommended” rating to candidates Nicholas Schneider and Brian Bainbridge, and the “Recommended” rating to candidates Greg Lawson and John Lively. The Coalition has assigned a preliminary rating of “Unfit for Public Office” to candidates Priscilla Tyson, A. Troy Miller, and Eileen Paley at this point.
“We were impressed with the quality of candidates coming forward to serve Columbus,” said Screening Committee member Michael Moore, “Columbus residents should be proud of those stepping forward to serve. Each of the candidates had unique strengths, and we could see where each one of them could serve effectively on behalf of the citizens of Columbus.”
“Our analysis is that each of the four candidates who screened is eminently qualified to serve as a representative of the people to Columbus City Council. What is important about our endorsement is that candidates do not have to agree with us to receive our endorsement,” says Asad Shabazz, President of the Columbus Chapter of the Coalition of Concerned Black Citizens. “We recognize that we are in a pluralistic society where all people have the right to their beliefs. But we do expect candidates to be able to talk coherently about the major issues and be able to analyze and articulate the key components of the public debate.”
“The truth of the matter is that the Screening Committee members were very enthusiastic about all the candidates who screened, and the distinctions in ranking among those we recommend were slight. Each of these candidates showed a love and a passion for Columbus and is willing to bring his considerable talents to bear to make our city even better. Each brings a welcome perspective to the race for City Council. We have no doubt that these candidates have the requisite personal characteristics to excel on Council and we have no reservations about any of those recommended,” says Coalition member Jonathan Beard.
The Steering Committee released the following statement summarizing the candidates:
“We were pleased to extend the Champion of Democracy designation to Nicholas Schneider, in his first time on a ballot. The Champion of Democracy designation is for the candidate whose beliefs align most closely with those of the Coalition, and who most fully endorses the Coalition’s DARE 2B FAIR policy agenda. This designation is awarded above and beyond our Highly Recommended rating of Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider brings abundant energy, a creative and inquisitive mind, a business background, and a laser-like focus on maintaining the democratic ideals inherent in our political system. Though he is new to the political environment, our Committee rated him as the candidate who expressed the highest degree of alignment with the Coalition’s DARE 2B FAIR principles.
Brian Bainbridge and Greg Lawson ranked very highly in their commitment to the full and free speech and public debate that should be found at the core of our form of government, and both are seasoned and well-versed in public policy formulation. Both showed strong support for the principle that citizens must play a critical role in major policy and governance issues like decisions on the form of local governance. Of the candidates, Mr. Bainbridge exhibited the greatest depth of understanding of the specific policy issues we discussed.
While Mr. Lawson has reservations about our approach to the Nationwide Arena funding issue, he articulates a principled and forward-focused approach to the issue that moves Columbus forward responsibly; we appreciated and respected his rationale, thoughtfulness, and candor in describing his approach to an issue where we disagree.
John Lively typifies to us the young strivers that are attracted to Columbus who want to make this city an even better place. He is a hard working and highly intelligent law school graduate who is working two jobs as he transitions to career, and who still has the belief in this city and the energy to step forward into public service.
Each of these candidates has something great to offer to the citizens, and we are pleased to recommend them to the electors of Columbus as being fellow citizens deserving of your trust.”
Coalition of Concerned Black Citizens Vice President Lorena Lacey said, “one of the things we hope to see is a substantive discussion about the role of citizens in our government moving forward. If Columbus is to become a world-class city, its citizens can not be marginalized and left on the sidelines when the big decisions about the future of our community are being discussed downtown.”
“We had hoped to have complete information out on all candidates by this date; however, we have not heard back from the three City Council incumbents who are running for re-election, and we wanted to extend every possible opportunity for them to participate in our screening process. These preliminary endorsements reflect our final evaluations of the four Council candidates we screened, and our preliminary thoughts about the incumbents who chose not to screen,” said Denise Benning, Coordinator of the Coalition’s Candidate Screening Committee.
Benning continues, “we made multiple invitations to the incumbent council members, beginning in late January. After extending deadlines and making provisions for written responses — and still not receiving any acknowledgement or response at all — we thought it important to get information to the early voters while still allowing the incumbents an opportunity to participate and thus change their rating if they so desired.”
Final ratings will be released on April 10, 2013 at a Press Conference, giving the incumbent council members yet another opportunity to participate.
Coalition spokesperson Jonathan Beard adds:
“We should all be concerned about a government that is unresponsive to the issues raised by citizens, which is why we have a category “Unfit for Public Office” for those candidates who refuse to recognize this citizens’ good governance initiative. Here in Columbus, many of us believe our democracy is being subverted by those we elect because we have a system that is designed and maintained by those in office to be completely unaccountable to the citizenry.
What our charter sets up as nonpartisan elections has been hijacked by more than a quarter century of mid-term partisan political appointments to council. Further, the campaign finance reform that the Dispatch editorialized in favor of and that 63 percent of the voters supported in 1994 were never enacted by City Council, exacerbating the huge barriers to competition caused by At Large council elections – which are both the most expensive elections possible and an electoral system rejected by 48 of the largest 50 cities in America, including most recently our sister city of Austin, Texas. Further, televised forums for citizens to express their views have been systematically shut down by our city government, while our government television station streams self-promoting propaganda 24/7: we are living in something that yearly edges closer to that dystopian society Orwell wrote about in “Nineteen Eight-Four.”
The Coalition’s Concerns about our City’s Governance
By our City Charter, Columbus City Council elections are nonpartisan elections: we vote for people, rather than party. In Columbus, we subscribe to the philosopy that New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia famously said: “there is no Republican way or Democratic way to clean a street or build a sewer, but merely a right way and a wrong way.” While candidates may attach a party label to their name, that party label is irrelevant for purposes of both Columbus elections and the Coalition, which simply seeks the best candidates for office. More importantly, the Coalition focuses on ensuring Columbus has a fair process by which voters can select those to represent them on Council.
The Coalition has been concerned for some time about the process by which members begin serving on council. Over the last 28 years, only 3 members have begun their service through a vote of the electors. Every other council member since 1985 — including all 7 of the current council incumbents – was initially appointed to council by the political party majority and then faced the voters for the first time as appointed incumbents. That is an abuse of monumental proportions that has become our norm in Columbus.
In addition, we have concerns about the vast amounts of money transferred between campaigns of the incumbents. In the 2011 elections, Council President Ginther transferred over $108,000 to each of the campaigns of fellow councilmembers: Michelle Mills and Zach Klein (who had both been appointed 10 months prior) and Herschel Craig, who had been appointed in 2008.
Our screening questinos were more nuanced. However, if they do not screen, we believe the voters should request that council incumbents seeking re-election answer a few fair questions, such as:
1) Will you refuse to accept more than $20,000 from any other campaign or source of funds for your campaign this year, because it gives the appearance that you are not independent but that you are controlled by the source of that money?
2) Given that in 2011, at least two council members could not raise sufficient funds for their own elections, would you support a campaign finance system that reduces the costs of running for office?
3) Would you refuse to vote on the mid-term appointment of a council member without a clear commitment that the person would not stand for election at the end of the term?
4) Given that Columbus voters have turned down public financing of sports facilities on each of the five occasions on the ballot, would you support a vote of the people on the continued funding of Nationwide Arena?
5) Why has council refused to provide funding for a public access television channel for the people’s use, while the budget for the City Government channel (CTV-3) continues to grow in size?
The Screening Process
On January 24th, the Coalition mailed letters to each of the three incumbent council members inviting them to proposed screening dates in early-March. On February 10th, the Coalition mailed letters to each of the other four candidates on the ballot. The Coalition continued in efforts by phone, email, letter, and finally in person at the March 19th Council forum at Barnett Recreation Center. While the four challengers readily agreed to screening dates on March 14th and March 20th, to date we have not received any response from any of the three incumbent council members – including to our invitation to submit answers in writing.
The Coalition’s candidate evaluation process focuses on the commitment of candidates to represent the citizens of Columbusin an accountable and responsive manner. While we clearly have a public policy agenda – DARE 2B FAIR – the axes we use to screen and evaluate candidates did not depend upon whether the candidates agreed or disagreed with any of the planks of our platform.
The Coalition’s 8-member Screening Committee evaluated each candidate for office based on their responses to a series of questions sent to them the week prior to their screening date. Each of the Screeners had a rating sheet that allowed them to scale candidate responses related to four critical issues areas facing the City of Columbus:
1) The public debate about the form of council organization by Council Districts and/or At Large,
2) The process by which public funding for Nationwide Arena should be approved or ratified,
3) The provision of campaign financing provisions for elections to the offices of Member of Council and Mayor, and
4) The appropriate level of access to city-funded mass media outlets provided to the citizens by city government.
And for each issue area, Screeners could rate candidates based upon the following two criteria:
1) The candidate’s expressed or demonstrated support for basic democratic principles related to each issue area, and
2) The candidate’s expressed or demonstrated knowledge and understanding of each issue area
A Final Word About The “Not Fit for Public Office” Designation
Beginning in late January, we made multiple efforts to reach Council members Troy Miller, Eileen Paley, and Priscilla Tyson. By mid-March, we extended offers for them to submit answers to our screening questions in writing. None has responded, and at the March 19th Council meeting at Barnett Recreation Center, council member Paley indicated verbally that they are running as a slate and decided not to screen with “people who don’t agree with us.”
The Coalition believes that type of attitude and belief system indicates a set of people who are unfit for public service, and as such, the Coaltiion believes the citizens of Columbus would be well-served to not return them to office. City council members represent all the citizens of Columbus – not just the ones who agree with them. To adopt a posture of not talking to people with whom one disagrees is simply childish, and condemns the council to narrow and noncreative thinking.
The Columbus Coalition for Reswponsive Government believes a candidate is not fit for public office if he or she can not support fundamental principles of our democratic system of governance, such as a respect for public debate and a marketplace of ideas. We believe the public should expect that people voted into positions of public trust share these fundamental precepts of governance, which values serve as a check on power. To the extent people do not espouse or act in support of those values, citizens should have concern about those individuals.
We have concerns about the three members of Columbus City Council who did not even respond to our multiple requests to screen. Their failure to acknowledge that a democratic process is based on the resolution of competing claims in the public marketplace is a damning indictment about their fitness for elective office. We hope they see the error of their ways and agree to screen prior to April 10th when final recommendations will be issued at a Press Conference.
For more information about the Columbus Coalition for Responsive Government:www.columbuscoalition.info, or www.facebook.com/columbus.coalition, or (614) 595-2986.
