Home · Articles · News · Winners and Losers · SVP and City Council

SVP and City Council

By Kevin Osborne · December 14th, 2011 · Winners and Losers


PAINT THE TOWN: A project of the Give Back Cincinnati group, Paint the Town is an all-volunteer effort that paints the exterior of dozens of houses in a single community in a single day. This year, the project has chosen Cheviot as its target area and is working with local officials to organize the event, which will be held June 9. Volunteers work within a targeted neighborhood to paint the exterior of owner-occupied homes for those unable to do the work themselves due to disability, age or other circumstance. The community service project, which began in 2002, has painted more than 300 homes in neighborhoods such as Avondale, Northside, Madisonville, Price Hill and others. This is the kind of “can-do” attitude we like.


KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: The current secretary of the federal Health and Human Services Department might be the ex-governor of Kansas, but she’s also a Cincinnati native and the daughter of former School Board member John Gilligan.

Instead of listening to scientific advice, Sebelius played politics by deciding to overrule the Food and Drug Administration and uphold restrictions on the availability of the “morning after pill.” The FDA last week decided the medication could be used safely by females of all age and should be distributed without a prescription. But Sebelius rejected the move. Her action is likely due to the fact that her boss, President Obama, is running for reelection and doesn’t want to face another controversial issue.


SVP: Social Venture Partners announced Dec. 8 that it would award nearly $160,000 in cash and in-kind services to four nonprofit groups to help them create sustainable organizational effectiveness. SVP will give $4,000 to the Civic Garden Club and $12,000 each to German Heritage Farm, Imago for the Earth and Whole Again International. Also, SVP will offer its business expertise to help strengthen the nonprofit groups’ strategic plans and marketing efforts. The group provides a network of donors that brings together nonprofits and talented professionals to pool resources, learn from each other and strengthen nonprofits to increase their impact. Truly a noble cause.


CITY COUNCIL: Cincinnati’s new City Council is getting off to a bad start. Council voted 6-3 last week to abolish a rule that requires the mayor to put items on the group’s agenda within 90 days. By getting rid of the rule, Mayor Mark Mallory essentially is given a “pocket veto” that he can use to delay or kill items he dislikes without a public vote or explanation. Kudos go to P.G. Sittenfeld, Christopher Smitherman and Charlie Winburn for opposing this awful idea. But then Smitherman goes and blows his goodwill by acting like a spoiled kid by threatening to “sue” over the rule change. Really? Get a grip, Chris. Council is free to enact and change its own rules, even if members make bad, undemocratic ones. 



12.21.2011 at 12:50 Reply

At anytime, 6 members of Coucnil can suspend the rules. So if there is an instance where the Mayor would not bring an item to full Council that has support of 6 members, he could not "essentially" use a "pocket veto."  


12.21.2011 at 01:05 Reply

Yes, but he can block something that has the support of five members, which is a majority of City Council. Also, why shouldn't members who are in the minority get their proposals vetted in a public forum?


12.21.2011 at 01:43 Reply

That's what committees are for!  That's where thing are supposed to be vetted.  The "but he can block something that has the support of give members" is troubling and my vote was not "black and white."  In the end, I considered that most governments, whether local or federal, allow the chair to set the agenda.....and the will of the voters in 1999 to have a "stronger mayor." 


12.21.2011 at 02:10 Reply

My understanding of the way the rule change works is that the mayor can prevent a proposal from ever making it onto a committee agenda. Therefore, it won't be debated at all.


12.27.2011 at 11:08 Reply

Gee Mr. Seelbach, what you are saying is that anytime the rules are uncomfortable, you just waive them. Is not this just like criminals? Hitler decided to waive the rules in the thirties, but at least he was doing it for a reason.

I don't have a problem with a dictatorial or stronger mayor, but I think the citizens should determine that; or have they already done that?