Cincinnati voters will decide in November whether to double the length of their council members' terms.
City Council voted 6-3 on Wednesday to put the ballot initiative before voters. The measure would have all nine members run at the same time, instead of a competing ballot initiative that would have staggered their terms.
“We are the only major city in Ohio that still has two-year terms for its leaders, and the cities that we compete with are also moving to four-year terms, including Louisville and as far as St. Louis, Minneapolis, Denver and Atlanta,” said Councilwoman Laure Quinlivan, who spearheaded the effort.
If approved by voters, the change wouldn’t affect council members serving currently and would go into effect in 2013.
Not every council member was thrilled with the idea.
“I think accountability is paramount, and I don’t see going from two-year terms to four-year terms as increasing the accountability citizens want,” said Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who was one of three new faces to join council in last year's election, which saw four Republican incumbents booted from City Hall.
“I’m sure it’s not lost on my colleagues that last November the electorate was craving change and wanted change, and if we had been in the middle of a four-year cycle they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to make that change and a substantial portion of this council … wouldn’t be sitting up here today.”
Sittenfeld equated an election to a job evaluation. He, along with councilmembers Chris Smitherman and Charles Winburn, voted against the ordinance.
Quinlivan has said her rationale for pushing four-year terms would be to eliminate the cycle that currently has sitting council members spending half of their terms campaigning.
Councilman Cecil Thomas said four-year terms would allow council members to focus on longer-term projects as well.
“Four years gives us plenty of time to gel together, to work together,” Thomas said.
Councilman Chris Seelbach attended all four public hearings council held throughout the city and called the number of people who support four-year terms “unbelievable.” Seelbach said he himself was “semi-conflicted” over the proposed changes, but was not conflicted over whether voters should have that choice: He voted in favor.
Mayor Mark Mallory was sure to remind councilmembers before their vote that they are forbidden from using city resources to campaign for a ballot initiative.
The good news first: Most of HB 194 is being repealed. It’s good to see Republicans follow the advice of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a moderate Republican who called or the repeal of HB 194 earlier this year.The bad news: Some new limits on voting rights are going to remain in place, and the entire repeal process, which involves the passing of SB 295, might be unconstitutional.
While it’s good to see HB 194 repealed, it’s not the only voting law Republicans enacted last year. The Ohio legislature also passed HB 224, which prohibited voting the Saturday, Sunday and Monday before election day.For Democrats, this poses a bit of a problem. Democrats are happy to see most of the restrictions on voting repealed, but they want to see all of the restrictions repealed. If SB 295 passes, Democrats worry that the rest of the restrictions won’t be repealed because Republicans will think they have done enough.
Even the Obama team spoke on this issue. In an email to Obama supporters Tuesday, Greg Schultz, the Ohio State Director on the Obama team, urged voters to speak up: “This bill could mean an end to our last three days of early voting this November — and would change the rules, right in the middle of an election year. It's an unambiguous attack on our voting rights.”The other problem is the repeal could be unconstitutional. After HB 194 passed, voters were quick to speak out against the new law and put it up for referendum in the November 2012 ballot. So Republicans are repealing a law that is already up for referendum. This is the first time that’s happened in the Ohio legislature, and Democrats claim it might be unconstitutional.
The lawsuit claims that Hebert was complying with instructions given by an investigating officer when he was shot and killed by Mitchell. The suit claims excessive force was used and that Mitchell “acted intentionally, recklessly, wantonly, and with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Mr. Hebert.”
Hebert was shot and killed by Mitchell after officers responded to a 911 call around 3 a.m. during which an intoxicated man alleged to have been robbed by Hebert and assaulted with a pirate sword. Hebert was located sitting on a sidewalk on Chase Avenue in Northside about 10 minutes later. During subsequent questioning, officers say Hebert drew a knife and moved toward an investigating officer, causing Mitchell to believe the officer’s life was in danger. Mitchell shot Hebert twice, killing him. Toxicology reports found Hebert to have a blood alcohol content of 0.33 at the time of his death, along with marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his system.
Three investigations cleared police of any wrongdoing, but Friends of Bones says the facts from the investigations show Hebert complied with police orders during the encounter.
The lawsuit demands a trial by jury and compensatory and punitive damages, along with attorney’s fees, costs, disbursements and additional relief as the court deems proper. The suit, which is embedded below, was published on the “Friends of Bones” website (www.friendsofbones.org).
The incident has drawn considerable media attention, especially this week in conjunction with the anniversary of the shooting.
The Cincinnati Enquirer on Monday published a story titled “Reports: Cops came too close in killing of David 'Bones' Hebert” comparing accounts of the incident in public records to standard Cincinnati Police Department guidelines, which concluded that “police officers got dangerously close and failed to have a plan before approaching Hebert, who police thought was carrying a sword or large knife.”
Cincinnati Magazine’s May issue will feature a story, “Salvaging Bones,” which is subtitled: “David Hebert was a lot of things: the dreadlocked maker of burritos; a punk rocker; a womanizing, tatted-up former Jesus freak with a kind heart and a wild streak. What he wasn’t was a guy you’d expect to find dead at the end of a police standoff.”
CityBeat on Sept. 14, 2011 published a story titled “Digging Up Answers for Bones” in which friends and family of Hebert alleged that Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters’ closing of the investigation was politically motivated.
CityBeat on May
4, 2011 published a story titled “A Shot in the Dark,” detailing
the early questions that surrounded the incident.