Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Todd Portune v. No Jail Tax PAC
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Guest article by Hamilton County Commission President Todd Portune.
The Beacon article quoting Suhith Wickrema’s statements that we do not need to house federal prisoners and which then forms the basis to launch other attacks against the Hamilton County Comprehensive Public Safety Plan offers a multitude of inaccurate or incomplete assertions in the ongoing effort to defeat the plan at the polls. As a consequence, people like Dan La Botz react without full knowledge, or worse yet, La Botz has willfully chosen to join in. Either way a full recitation of the facts and the reasoning is needed for the voter to make an informed decision.
I will do so here in the hope of soliciting independent reader opinion - not the rhetoric from people like COAST advocate Mark Miller who attempts to sound like a supporter of social causes in his contribution when in reality I have never witnessed Miller speaking in favor of more social programs or spending.
The Federal Prisoner Debate:
The proposal to end Hamilton County’s housing of federal prisoners has been decided in the negative only through the end of the year. The issue was first presented as a question of legality, of need and of finance. The simple argument of a $6.00 differential between spending on jail cells in Butler County versus revenue from federal authorities, coupled with overcrowding in the Hamilton County jail facilities at first sounds compelling. It is fair to say that all three commissioners were initially favorable to the concept. Instead of letting our emotions decide the question we asked for the facts. The facts present the following:
1. Through the end of this year we will not save any money if we end the contract. The reason for this is simple. Under the contract that Pat DeWine and Phil Heimlich brought to the county with Butler County we are required to pay for a minimum number of beds whether we use them or not. Butler county was unwilling to renegotiate that provision when we extended the contract through the end of this year. That means that during those frequent times when we are not using all 300 spaces in Butler County that we are required to pay for we will lose money if we do not fill the additional beds with paying customers from the federal authorities. The County Administrator said we will save no money through the end of the year. Period. So, if we save no money should we still do terminate the contract with federal authorities?
2. Pat DeWine argues yes notwithstanding the loss of revenue we would suffer. He has felt it is an illegal contract. We addressed that by ratifying the contract and prior actions. It made sense to do so given that the relationship we have developed of cooperating law enforcement agencies has served us well. The FBI Agent-in-Charge for Cincinnati testified that the relationship and accessibility of access to jail beds in Hamilton County has an impact on where he assigns his Agents. The benefits of such a cooperative relationship cannot be overstated. This leads me to the next reason for continuing the relationship through the end of the year.
3. In those times when we cannot house every inmate in Butler County the Sheriff testified that the only prisoners not housed are non-violent, low level female offenders. These are, first of all, the kind of offender that many people would probably argue should not be in jail anyway. Notwithstanding that argument though the tradeoff would be not housing a federal prisoner so a female bad check writer [for example] could be jailed. Who are these federal prisoners? They are, according to the FBI, the “really bad people”. These are the kidnappers, and bank robbers, and semi automatic gun users who are either from here or who committed crimes here. Just today two of them are in our jail because they robbed a bank in Evendale and were caught on I-71. Pat and Suhith and others would prefer we not house them. From a public safety standpoint I believe that we are better served and public safety is better enhanced by housing those kinds of inmates rather than our low level female drug users, and check passers and the like.
Regardless, we only extended the contract through the end of the year because that is the time frame that, for now, there is no financial benefit. We’ll revisit the issue during our budget process later this year, after the vote, when we have a handle on what next year will look like.
The Social Causes vs. Jail debate:
As for the arguments that we are somehow sacrificing investments in education, or for senior citizens or for those who present issues of mental illness, the comments by Miller and La Botz and others are absurd. David Pepper and I have taken historic steps to advance all of those causes this year and we tried to avoid a November election on the public safety issue in order to benefit those causes even further.
At the beginning of the year, over DeWine and COAST’s objection, we re-tooled the county Tax Levy Review Commission to make it operate in a fashion that will better ensure that the public’s needs are met. We replaced several DeWine appointees with a diverse slate of African American and Women Members who have the diversity of thought necessary to ensure fair deliberations. We repealed a DeWine provision that required levy requests to be shaped only by tax policy and not by need.
Specifically, the old policy required levy requests to come in at levels that would guarantee that Hamilton County is a low property tax county in Ohio. We felt that the TLRC must evaluate community needs as welland wrote that into their charge. The result of our efforts has produced two levy requests for Mental Health and Drug & Alcohol treatment [The Mental Health and Recovery Services Levy] and for In Home Health care, Meals on Wheels and other senior services that allow our seniors to remain in their homes and live independently longer [The Senior Services Levy] that meet community need and also that have come in under the rate of inflation. Our efforts are producing $187 Million for Mental Health and Recovery Services over five years and another $105 Million for Senior Services over five years. These levies and the dollars they generate will greatly amplify the services available in the county for these needs and the populations that require those services. That is if both levies pass.
We understand well the issue of voter fatigue and that is why we wanted to avoid a November election. We tried to send the issue to the voters in August, but after DeWine and others objected to a $1.5 million cost the legislature backed down and would not grant us permission. The delay in voting until November, or later, will result in an incremental $12.5 Million cost of construction and an overall loss of $36 Million to the plan. No matter to DeWine & Co. who objected so strongly to a $1.5 Million cost. Moreover, the Safety Plan is now on the ballot potentially jeopardizing the two levies that I spoke about.
In the area of education La Botz and others ignore the capital money the county is providing to Cincinnati Public Schools that will grow to $10 Million a year within five years. They ignore the $10 Million a year we provide in school based services to county and city school districts through the county Family and Children First Council, of which I am President. They have overlooked the historic joint Board Meeting I initiated this year with the CPS Board that will generate joint prioritization of effort to boost children’s educational performance. They ignore the $1 Million Medicaid outreach and enrollment initiative that I proposed and that is being implemented to make certain that no qualified man, woman or child in Hamilton County goes without available heralth insurance and which will give meaning to Governor Strickland’s increase in child medicaid eligibility, resulting in every child in Hamilton County having some form of health insurance because they will be enrolled. And they overlook our historic initiative to make contact with every High School dropout in Hamilton County in an effort to lead to re-enrollment and pursuit of a high school diploma or degree by also working with these 15-22 year olds in attacking all of the impediments they face to accomplishing that goal.
I won’t go into the details of all of the other efforts and initiatives under our watch, such as: - the summit that is occurring this October 15 to target the high infant mortality rate in the county; or the significant changes being developed to the county’s small business, job and workforce development policy; or our disability review policy for all county buildings; or the environmental policy initiatives including the pledge to reduce global warming emissions from county facilities; etc. - all initiated in the first eight months of our lead.
I will though remind Miller & company that the high tax burden he complains of in the county arose not because of us, but under Republican control and watch. I will remind him of my almost single handed fight to reform the terrible deal Bob Bedinghaus and the Republicans made with the Bengals and their fiscal lapses in construction oversight that have contributed to the high tax rates and financial problems he complains of. This was a fight that COAST could have asisted in but stayed strangely and quietly on the sideline on. I will remind him that I voted for all of the tax reform legislation in place at the county. And I will remind him as well that our reserve fund is depleted because of the deals that DeWine and Heimlich brought us on Butler County and as a result of judgments and settlements on legal matters that arose out of Republican misdeeds in a number of county offices - matters that we inherited and had to responsibly resolve. The combined effect of these matters leaves us without financial flexibility to approach our safety issues in any other way than by raising a new revenue source. Despite our reluctance to do so the cost of this for an average county spender will be less than a dime a day for eight years and less than a nickel a day for the remaining seven.
Whether we are able to implement the Safety Plan is in the hands of the voters now. I believe it is the right thing to do and represents a balanced responsible approach to the county’s needs while also preserving the county’s ability to move ahead as a full service urban county in the 21st century that must be a leader on multiple fronts. Others disagree. They would either have us cut virtually all areas of operation and break promises we have made to others, or sever relationships we have with others on the premise that they are not mandated by law for us to do. Maybe not, but we will have a difficult if not impossible task of growing out of our problems by standing alone.
Others still have argued against building a jail that virtually everyone knows we will need at one point soon on the premise that a multitude of other problems have not been solved first. I understand the sentiment, but in reality it is an argument that results in nothing getting done. We are trying a balanced approach that advances all of the elements requiring work. Pitting one against another is the recipe for failure.
Last, many have said “we need a better plan”. I don’t know what that is. Those who assert that have had years to offer solutions that work and that address all of the considerations that we must address but they have failed to come forward with a real solution. I have encouraged people to do so yet they have not. When I have met with leadership of the opposition it is clear that they have failed to understand even elemental aspects of the problem or the magnitude of issues that must be addressed. I don’t say that critically of them personally, but I do say it critically of what they are offering. They are offering people a false hope that there is a better way. There is not from my perspective. If this is defeated a jail will be built in some fashion but it will not have the reform elements that we need to truly make a dent in crime and to quit warehousing inmates because we will not have the revenues to do so. And the building of the jail then will come at a steep price to what we do in other areas of the county.
I ask everyone to make an informed decision. Go to the county’s website and read all of the reports and then make your own decision.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Todd Portune
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
15 Sep 2007 at 12:24 pm | #
What brought on this personal attack? For the record, I HAVE heard Mark Miller say that he did not oppose a large increase in the levy for senior services a few years agobecause he was convinced the need was real.
Hamilton County has low property taxes compared to the other counties in Ohio? I disagree. If they are so low then the commissioners should advertise that “fact.”
15 Sep 2007 at 02:55 pm | #
Okay, so Hamilton County must pay Butler County for a minimum number of beds whether or not they are used. But does Hamilton County have to pay for the beds in the Justice Center or Queensgate whether or not they are used? The 35 federal prisoners are housed in the Justice Center. If those beds are not used does that mean the county still has to pay for guards to watch the empty jail cells? Would the county have to pay for the food that is not eaten because no one is there to eat it? Would they still have to pay for the showers that the are not taken because no one is there to take them? Would they still have to pay for medical care that is going to no one? That would be extremely poor management.
15 Sep 2007 at 02:59 pm | #
Actually, the benefits can be overstated and Mr. Portune just did so. The testimony was that the these beds were a convenience, not a necessity. Of what is Mr. Portune so afraid? That the federal government may kick Hamilton County out of the Union if we do not provide them with extra beds? Do we have a shortage of jail beds or don’t we?
15 Sep 2007 at 03:08 pm | #
What a minute! “Notwithstanding that argument????” This is the Sheriff who said that the only shortage was that of beds for non-violent, low level female offenders. But the lack of beds is precisely one of the arguments made for spending $200 million on a bigger jail. If there is a need to spend that much money for a few extra beds so that we can house more female prisoners, then why don’t we start doing it RIGHT NOW? Or is the truth that there is no critical shortage?
Besides, the feds said that their prisoners would be housed elsewhere—just not in downtown Cincinnati. They would not be set free as Mr. Portune is implying. That is just scare-mongering.
15 Sep 2007 at 03:10 pm | #
Thank God for MEP! I’d love to see a televised debate between MEP and Portune.
I think Portune would be afraid to do it!
If not, let’s schedule one at media bridges!
15 Sep 2007 at 03:17 pm | #
There is no “grant us permission.” An August election is against the Ohio Revised Code. What the legislature would have had to do was to change the Ohio Revised Code.
And it is interesting that Portune and Pepper say they wanted to send it to the voters in August, that is, ahead of the levy request for Senior Services. The reason given for the August election is so that the jail tax would be more likely to pass. Why wasn’t this same consideration given to Senior Services? Or is a bigger jail more important than our senior citizens?
15 Sep 2007 at 06:14 pm | #
This is a very selective retellilng of history. Let’s not forget that Mr. Portune was instrumental in the Bengals getting such a favorable deal in the first place. And it was Republicans like Tim Mara and Tom Brinkman who fought against the deal.
Per the February 1, 1998 edition of The Cincinnati Enquirer, all 8 members of council who were present voted in favor of the stadium deal. Mr. Portune is specifically mentioned as turning the clock back so that council could complete its work in the alloted time. Interestingly, per the story, the deal still was signed after the deadline, even with Mr. Portune literally turning the clock back.
(The on-line version of the Enquirer only goes back to 1999. For the provided link one has to scroll about 3/4 of the way down to see that particular article.)
As for the lawsuit that Mr. Portune filed (with Carrie Davis), I and others have had some questions as to how it was filed and how the suit was conducted. But that is another subject.
15 Sep 2007 at 06:19 pm | #
This is silly. An environmental site assessment hasn’t even been done yet on the site. Before anything can happen THAT has to happen.
15 Sep 2007 at 06:27 pm | #
This is flat out not true. That there are massive process problems was only found out last year through the efforts of Pat DeWine. This results in over half the inmates being in jail because they cannot afford the bail and are awaiting their court date. They have not been convicted of anything other than being poor.
When I and others have said that the process problems must be addressed first, the response from Mr. Portune has been that they are working on them but the voters must pass the massive tax increase first. Then, sometime later, he will reveal his solution to the process problems. So much for hs assertion that he has a plan. No. He has an outline of a plan to plan.
15 Sep 2007 at 06:48 pm | #
I think the opposition understands all too well the aspects of the problem. They understand that the current system has massive process problems. They understand that Portune and Pepper are refusing to provide a solution to those problems until they get their massive tax increase. They understand that Portune and Pepper are whispering words of treatment, but refusing to commit to any in advance. They understand that the new jail will be designed so that even petty offenders will be locked up under maximum security conditions.
They understand that the new jail will forbid in-person visits to the inmates, even inmates who are there only because they cannot afford bail. They understand that the community-based treatment centers like Reading Road and Turning Point will be closed down and that even first-time DUI’s will be incarcerated as if they are bank robbers. They understand that the Sheriff is illegally using county money and assets to campaign for the new jail and that Portune and Pepper—who control his budget—are refusing to do anything about it. They understand that the Sheriff is threatening to take his critics to court in order to intimidate them.
They understand that the proposed new jail would cost over twice as much, per bed, as the just-built Butler County facility. They understand that even though Portune and Pepper claim that there is a critical shortage of beds, they also claim there is room for federal prisoners who could be housed elsewhere. They understand that the pro-jail side is engaged in scare-mongering, trying to get voters worried about early releases (actually just a handful of non-violent female offenders) and cost increases if there is a delay (and yet they haven’t even done the necessary Environmental Site Assessment, which should have been done before before accepting the site anyways).
The opposition understands the magnitude of the issues. That’s why there is opposition.
15 Sep 2007 at 08:39 pm | #
Patton is just wiping Portune all over the mat! This is getting ugly!
15 Sep 2007 at 11:06 pm | #
I didn’t realize “everyone” agrees we need a new jail and will need the space. Why are we committed to locking up a larger and larger percentage of our populace when crime is actually decreasing in Hamilton County? Why can’t we address the inefficiencies in our processes first before we decide to “super size” it?
15 Sep 2007 at 11:59 pm | #
I guess this brings us back to square one. Cue the personal attacks Mr. Patton!
We should have the debate on pay per view!
I’d pay to see it, especially if Leis is in it.
I’m with you Dean, Pepper and Portune wouldn’t dare debate. (Hell they did all they could to make sure there wasn’t any real public hearings. (At least not any that were well planned and publicized.)
But forget Media Bridges, John London said he suggested they have a televised debate to the Commissioners. (They obviously didn’t think it was such a good idea.) PBS or some commercial outlet would surely host it. Guess which side wouldn’t dare to show up.
(Those that are using scare tactic and peddling fear.)
Michael Patton, Dan La Botz, and Christopher Smitherman, vs. David Pepper, Todd Portune and Si Leis.
That would make for great TV! Too bad our (Mis)leaders are too scared too debate!!!
16 Sep 2007 at 12:22 am | #
“The cost for the average county spender will be less than a dime a day”—meaning, one assumes, the $33 a year figure he’s used on other occassions. Someone has to call Todd on that one. That means that the “average” Hamilton County taxpayer only spends $6600 on taxable goods. Whatever.
Take a look at this report from a few years ago. http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/who_would_pay.pdf
It shows that a 1% sales tax hike costs an Ohio taxpayer in the middle 20% of income $173. Cut that in half for Todd’s half cent increase and you get $86.50 a year. A long way from Todd’s $33. And the report makes clear that the burden from a sales tax increase is five times greater on low income residents than wealthy ones.
It’s no wonder these guys tried so hard to avoid an election and public debate.
16 Sep 2007 at 03:37 am | #
Someone please medicate MEP, he’s manic and ranting and raving again. Instead of making 1 coherent reply to Portune, he writes 9 ranting diatribes over the course of 6 hours. He lost the majority of his audience after the 4th paragraph. Mr. Patton certainly seems to have a lot of time on his hands.
16 Sep 2007 at 04:07 am | #
Patton - If you have any “questions” about the Bengals lawsuit - just call me - you have my number, if not, the Dean has it. As far as public issues go - I’m an open book.
As for using my name in your attempt to attack Portune - don’t.
I’ve worked on behalf of disadvantaged populations without a voice and against waste and abuse of tax dollars for over a decade - you can bet I want that voice to be heard by ANY elected official willing to give them the time of day - and we haven’t had many with “the time of day” for nearly 2 decades. Dowlin bore the last bent ear that half way cared about these issues and we traded him in for Heimlich.(Dowlin worked with me to get the first child support committee in Hamilton County)
Politically, Portune has one BIG problem and one BIG asset and they’re both the same thing - he actually seems to care.
If Portune would close his door on nay-sayers (like the Dean on some issues and me on others)he would save alot of time, but instead he listens to everyone and tries to work out those differences. We’re just not accustomed to this.
He needs to stop acting like an honest person who happens to have a different opinion, and start acting like other politicians— that’s the “attack mode” that seems to appeal to too many people. If you can’t accept your differences - you’ll never work past them and find what you have in common - and what you can get done at the middle ground.
This “you’ve got to love ‘em or hate ‘em” attitude goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing.
For those who think I’m partisan: I’ve got news for ya, the Democrats in Cleveland hate me as much as the Republicans in Hamilton County. I’m loyal to issues, not people, not party. Neither party would touch me with a ten foot pole because they know I pull no punches and pull noone’s agenda but my own, no matter what party they happen to belong to or who they are. (Those who are passionate about their own work understand and don’t expect anything less - the rest are vindictive cry-babies just playing for playing’s sake)
And, having read every single article (literally) written about the Bengals deal, I can assure you that Portune, was in fact, the first elected official to step forward publicly to challenge the deal once the facts came out. What do you think made me think of researching it? (Mara did a great job, but it was a totally different slant)
As to your concerns about the jail processing issues and such, I share some of your concerns, but I’m wondering: why hasn’t your man DeWine forwarded a single initiative to address your concerns if he is so much in your corner? Why aren’t you working with the elected officials you support - DeWine and Brinkman - to get these important issues resolved if it can be done without the levy and is within the power structure that exists (without the committee proposed in the safety plan)?
Heck, if these problems can be addressed without the Levy - have DeWine who “discovered” them and did nothing to address them take SOME responsibility and forward a resolution to fix JUST ONE of the issues you care about.
Go ahead, call Portune’s bluff if we can fix ANY of these problems without the Justice Committee, without the Levy and without the entirety of the safety plan as proposed.
If it can be done—- why didn’t Heimlich and DeWine do it when they ran the board? And now without Heimlich and a new board, why hasn’t DeWine proposed a single fix to your concerns?
Because DeWine doesn’t REALLY care about your issues, and neither does COAST, et al. as long as it might cost them a pretty penny.
16 Sep 2007 at 06:45 am | #
I’d love to see DeWine and any one else of his pick go up against Portune and Pepper in a debate——that would be hysterical!
Now, MEP by the numbers:
#1 - The county tax rate in Hamilton County is directly in line with other major metropolitan counties in the state and the surrounding states. MEP and COAST continually wants to compare young, growing counties that surround us to us, when in reality, you have to compare us to other communities of similar size, incomes and service levels. Across Ohio and the country, largely, the tax rate is directly in line with these factors.
#2 - If the federal beds go empty then the county loses in those “hard costs” that are being spread over ALL the beds and are being shared proportionately with the feds. The “soft costs” insure that the county DOES NOT incur extra costs for having feds. C’mon MEP and Dean - you guys have read the formula by now, haven’t you?
#3 - This is a hard concept for you guys to understand, but - most federal laws have a corresponding state law. States and regions COMPETE to have federal offices in their communities because they naturally receive preferential treatment from the feds (not to mention the taxes they pay). Also, the feds will place an office where there is greatest need - the hub of regional problems, the centrist. For all these reasons the feds are here. The biggest loss for us will be the heavy load under the “shared crimes” (state and federal offenses) being carried by the feds so we don’t have to expend so much of our county revenues to address it and get the big wig, violent offenders. Without them here, it will be left for local police to enforce these same offenses under state law which has a cost far higher than 50 bucks a day for 30 inmates. (Remember how Butler County used to be the hub for the mob? When the feds moved into the area they eradicated the mob and now it’s just a piece of history - at the same time, they left Cincinnati and guess what happened here? History tells us, we WANT the feds here and we should support them with facilties because it saves of ten fold on law enforcement)
#4 - MEP, this is just a catch 22, the BOCC is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Why don’t you guys make up your minds- do you want check kiting women in jail or not? This interesting and unintended benefit should have you guys giddy - but you’re still stickin’ it to ‘em. Nobody can make you happy if you keep switching sides.
#6 - The best chance for all three needed and necessary fundamental programs up for levy vote to succeed was to separate them out. If you wanted them to succeed - separating them onto different ballots was the way to do it. Brinkman and the Republican has-beens left over from Taft put a nix on it - with COAST’s urging - in order to insure they ALL fail. You’re crowing at the moon - when the sun rises and shines some light on this - it will be clear that they were trying to give each levy the best chance of passing because they actually care about the people being served.
#7 - Judge Speigel (sp?) opined in various points throughout this case that, bascially, a conspiracy of deceit cheated the public and other elected officials from discovering the truth and acting with informed consent. A judge - who saw all the evidence both sealed and released - concluded that the Republican Bedinghaus and other operatives kept everyone else in the dark. So, I’m sure you know better than he did and had some extraordinary power to see through walls or something - but the rest of us are just men. The case was tossed because those who entered the lease were the ones with knowledge of the truth - the county, not the city
#8 - O:K chicken little, we know the sky is falling, but how is that relevant to this issue—get ONE, JUST ONE attorney willing to say that if there is hazardous waste on the property Sara Lee will be off the hook due to the contract—- it doesn’t exist. This is a diversion to the real argument because your argument is failing. (Oh, maybe you have those secret powers I mentioned above?)
#9 - Tell me MEP, if the process problems can be fixed without the levy and the BOCC has the ability to dictate another elected offices’ budget - then how was Winkler able to sue the BOCC for not adequately funding them? The BOCC doesn’t control the court budget, item for item, the only way to address the problems is for a bi-partisan assembly of respected members of the community to properly identify and cite the problems and issue recommendations for improvement that can garner support from the courts. You all have a tendency to look to the wrong elected officials for the problems caused by your own votes.
#10 - Let’s address this crap about “community corrections” right here - have you EVER been to either of these facilities? What characteristic in them do you think makes them “community corrections”, is it just because they aren’t in the Justice Center? When you figure out what “community corrections” really means, let me know - you are debating something you don’t even understand. Under the proper definition, the CSP expands community corrections. Furthermore, the BOCC has /is establishing (I can’t remeber if it’s done yet) a special trust fund to hold the CSP revenues in order to insure that another elected official can’t raid it like DaWhine did the money for Drake and do whatever they please with it. Remember that ? This board isn’t the ones who play shell games with the will of the voters—- it was DaWhine, Heimlich, Fink and Brinkman’s boys who orchestrated that fiasco. So Portune is making sure these monies can ONLY be used for the purpose stated.
So there, by the numbers the top 10 reasons to vote FOR the CSP.
As much as I admire your work - this is below you and you’re dragging a lot of people down with you because you refuse to see the overall benefits of this plan.
As always, I don’t want a new jail but I want the reforms this will make to our entire justice system from root causes to release, but I’ll throw in my money for the jail, if you’ll throw in your money to help make sure people don’t ever go back there. The way I see it, if we get the reforms - who cares if the jail is filled completely with fed inmates or sits empty? Aren’t these people worth it?
This is the quintessential social compromise - if only people are willing to shake out the rhetoric and see it.
16 Sep 2007 at 08:43 am | #
Captain Queeg:
I’m glad he made different posts. It broke the argument into segments. How do you know what his schedule was the other day. Maybe he did some chores, posted, went to pick up something at the store, thought of another post, and so forth. Big deal. I think you are an Portune or Pepper office aide, and you can’t stand seeing your perspective dismantled.
Carrie Davis:
Why are you going crazy because MEP noticed a fact—that Portune filed a lawsuit with you. Relax. You are coming across like you’ve done something you should not have done!
anon2000:
Thanks for the numbered responses. The transcript of the real debate happening here will be quite the document!
16 Sep 2007 at 09:06 am | #
“#3 - This is a hard concept for you guys to understand, but - most federal laws have a corresponding state law.”
No, not really. Most laws originate with the states, the whole “states’ rights” thing. Cities like Cincinnati that have home rule will adopt the state laws and sometimes supplement them.
Occasionally Congress will federalize a law, but if Congress makes a law not on the books within a state, a state can’t then make that same law and trump Congress.
What would be the point? Congress can of course federalize laws that trump local laws; states can pass laws that void local ordinances. It doesn’t work in reverse.
Economically speaking having a Federal presence is no more value- or wealth-creating than any other governmental body. Yes they’re jobs, but they’re jobs that consume resources and don’t produce value or create wealth. Your’s sounds like an argument that the more people work in government and not the private sector, the richer our nation (and city) will be. Nonsense.
16 Sep 2007 at 12:58 pm | #
If my memory serves me correctly it appears that the law suit against the Bengals was a political tool to get Portune elected. The deal crafted by the CC was challenged in court and dismissed after the County joined the suit because the statute of limitations had expired. The judge held to a higher standard the county attorneys than he would have an individual. The whole thing was a setup from the start so the people get screwed while the democrats escape looking like they tried and failed (typical democrat behavior) At least they tried is the whining coming from the party while the taxpayers suffer. The shame never ends and the corporate party has two faces. One democrat and the other republican.
16 Sep 2007 at 02:08 pm | #
I am an angry old man and life evidently has not served me well. I will hunt down those who I disagree with even if I once supported those individuals. No one is allowed to have a say which is different than mine. I will hold hearings because I do not respect the stance of others and if they do not agree with my stance, those people are not true Hamitonians and will be exciled to Brown county. I can’t get a major political party to back my positions or candidacy. If I wasn’t such a coward, I would take on Portune, Pepper or Leis in a straight head to head election. I am experienced in going after others, I am the person the teacher appointed to take down names when she left the classroom and I enjoyed ratting on my classmates. I wish my name was Joseph McCarthy because I worship his legacy.
16 Sep 2007 at 03:43 pm | #
Urbanist- No, my point is, guns for example, can be charged criminally on a state or federal level - I gave no argument about this law trumps that—that is a totally different story.
The bottom line is, when feds have re-located for convenience, etc., it results in a surge of offenders in the area they left
It’s like what is going on in Butler County right now, the hispanic immigrants are on the move to other jurisdictions because they know the Butler County Sheriff is working with a federal presense. They will move into our area because we don’t have that relationship working. Same with the gun and drug trafficing laws, (don’t give me state law/ federal law arguments, they don’t apply in this example), if the feds move out—they’ll move in to a mcuh greater level.
16 Sep 2007 at 04:50 pm | #
Dang, I did go off didn’t I? As if the whole world rotates around me LOLOL. Sorry, I’m a little on edge, I have a state legislator who isn’t real happy with me right now and I’m a little touchy. Just dodging too much innuendo and rumors from all directions lately. Just leave my name out of it if you can’t do me the courtesy of a call if you’re going to insinuate crap.
I think my point in the rantings was: I don’t like the way this issue is being vetted. It’s like when my group did a public “report card” on customer service at the BOCC (because they were doing customer service issues in other county offices) and I hit Portune’s office with “bad marks” - he never came after me, he didn’t cut me off or refuse to listen to my side of other issues ‘cause I tagged him. I’m sure he wasn’t happy with me publicly tagging him, but he still played fair with me—the way this safety plan is playing out - everyone’s making it personal and the facts are being lost in the process. That isn’t a debate - it’s an attack.
16 Sep 2007 at 07:52 pm | #
Anon 10:58 am: Your memory is faulty, and you are full of shit. The Bengals stadium deal was 100% courtesy of you retuglicans. Talk about sticking it to the taxpayers. Can right-wingers be trusted with anything?
Oh yea anon, go fuck yourself.
16 Sep 2007 at 08:17 pm | #
Anon10:58 says
The truth hurts hey Cincycappel. The other characteristic of democrats is their ability to fix the blame rather than the problem. The corporate republicans may have brought the deal but the corporate democrats provided cover. Money talks and our politicians and judges roll over. The club remains intact.
16 Sep 2007 at 09:12 pm | #
Typical Rethuglican; blame others for something that’s entirely your doing.
16 Sep 2007 at 09:37 pm | #
aka Carrie Davis - Heck, if these problems can be addressed without the Levy - have DeWine who “discovered” them and did nothing to address them take SOME responsibility and forward a resolution to fix JUST ONE of the issues you care about.
Here you go:
http://www.bocc.hamilton-co.org/agenda/agenda.nsf/afae28929acda396852568a4007427f4/771d074ca799a5798525728a00577626?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,alternative,sanctions
It’s been a little longer than 14 days hasn’t it? Maybe Portune/Pepper just forgot.
OR
Maybe they told the County Administrator to deliberately drag his feet because if any of these programs were successful it would lessen the need for a new jail.
OR
Maybe their vaunted Criminal Justice Commission isn’t doing so much great work after all. It’s been months since they were directed by this resolution, and they’ve done NOTHING with it. These are the people you expect to swiftly implement real reform after the tax increase is passed? Give me a break.
16 Sep 2007 at 10:32 pm | #
It just amazes me how little the public really knows about what happens in government. There really are three sides to every story - the Dems, the Reps and the truth—and nobody is willing to do the work to even recognize when they really are hearing the truth for a change. Sad.
17 Sep 2007 at 12:20 am | #
Carrie Davis: It was Portune who brought up the subject of the suit. It was while reading some of the old newspaper articles that I realized your importance. You were constantly mentioned and identified as the lead plaintiff until the county took over. There was even a profile piece on you. In connection with this suit you are a public figure. You were proud about it then. All I did was put your name in parenthesis. I made no other comment about you—unlike you, who fill this website with personal attacks against me using pseudonyms (yes, I know who you are and have known for some time). You make personal attacks against me using your handle, but then dump on me for just mentioning your name in connection with a lawsuit that Mr. Portune brought up as a key reason why the voters should approve the jail tax.
Well, thanks to your personal attack, I was forced to research the Appeals Court decision, Hamilton County Board of Commissioners v. National Football League. It makes for interesting reading. It looks to me the suit failed thanks to Mr. Portune, as #20 stated.
First, as I mentioned in my comment #7, Mr. Portune was a strong backer of the lease deal with the Bengals, even setting the clock back so that the lease could be signed “on time.”
Second, in the decision against the county, the court pointed out that Mr. Portune was well aware of the antitrust problems when he approved the lease. As they put it, there were red flags then and yet the lease was signed anyways.
Third, and I thought this was very telling, the Appeals Court said that Mr. Portune had multiple opportunities to amend the complaint so that the Bengals’ amended lease of 2000, as opposed to the lease of 1998, would fall within the four-year statute of limitations. Mr. Portune failed to do so.
It was because Mr. Portune was well aware of the antitrust problems, because the four-year statute of limitations had passed with respect to the original lease, and because Mr. Portune failed repeatedly to include the amended lease of 2000 in his suit, that the Appeals Court found for the Bengals.
One other thing: the county took over the suit because Mr. Portune and Mr. Heimlich voted to do so. It could not have happened just because Mr. Portune wanted to do so. It took one other (Republican) county commissioner, and that commissioner was Phil Heimlich! Portune was not alone, as he states. Phil Heimlich supported him!
Now, I would never have brought up this issue in connection with the jail tax. But it was Mr. Portune who started making personal attacks on the opponents of the jail tax (Mark Miller—see comment #1—and Dan LaBotz, whom Portune accuses of willfully joining the debate without full knowledge). Then Mr. Portune says to vote for the jail tax because the citizens have him to thank for the lawsuit against the Bengals, a lawsuit that went down in flames thanks to Mr. Portune.
Myself, I would rather deal with the facts about the jail tax. But if Mr. Portune insists on basing the jail tax vote on his performance on the Bengals lease—which he supported!—then I guess I’ll have to deal with that, too.
17 Sep 2007 at 02:42 am | #
The Beacon should change it’s name to Unhinged: The Michael Earl Patton’s Rant Blog. But hey MEP, why let any facts make their way into your rants?
The case you linked to mentioned Portune exactly 8 times. Amongst those eight mentions:
“On May 16, 2003, six years after the parties signed the stadium lease, Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune (a former Cincinnati City Council member, though not a Hamilton
County Commissioner at the time the parties executed the lease), filed this lawsuit in federal district court against the NFL, the Bengals and the other 31 NFL teams. The Hamilton County Board of Commissioners eventually was substituted as the plaintiff in the case.”
_____________________
“Third, before becoming a Hamilton County Commissioner, then-Cincinnati City Councilman Todd Portune co-sponsored two pertinent motions on the issue. In one, Portune (the original plaintiff in this case) urged the city to join Cleveland in a lawsuit geared toward stopping the Browns from leaving Cleveland. See JA 1372 (motion stating that “[c]ities are being ‘held up’ by the professional leagues and team owners acting in a conspiracy to exploit the taxpayers of . . .Cincinnati and other member cities”). In the other, Portune urged the Cincinnati City Council to “take national leadership in forming a league of cities and counties to provide unity in defending against the professional sports team blackmailers who threaten moving their teams unless they’re paid ransom in the form of billions of taxpayer funds for stadia.” JA 1374. Portune discussed the motions publicly and told County officials about them. See JA 788–89 (deposition of Portune during which he was asked if he discussed the motions “publicly,” to which he replied, “I’m sure we did”). Another city councilman asked the city solicitor to provide a report declaring that the “NFL is a cartel[,] . . . [a] rival league cannot obtain franchises[,] . . . [and] [a]s a result of the monopoly owners can extract enormous subsidies from taxpayers. Some call it extortion.” JA 1114.”
“The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the four-year statute of Limitations had run on the claims. In ruling on the motion, the district court determined that any injury Hamilton County suffered “occurred when the lease was executed” in May 1997, D. Ct. Op. at 68, that the execution of the lease triggered the start of the four-year statute-of-limitations period and that the plaintiff filed suit two years after the limitations period had expired. It nonetheless denied the motion, reasoning that Hamilton County should be permitted discovery to support its theory that the limitations period should be tolled.
For the next two years or so, discovery proceeded in fits and starts and was suspended for
a time while the parties tried to mediate their dispute. After the mediation effort failed and after the parties had conducted initial discovery, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the statute-of-limitations issue, denied the County’s Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery and dismissed the case.”
______________________________________
“Fifth, newspapers across the nation carried articles reporting on and editorials decrying the NFL’s monopolistic behavior. See, e.g., JA 1120–21 (Baltimore Sun article dated October 24, 1993); JA 1118 (USA Today article dated October 25, 1993); JA 1115 (Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial entitled “Break NFL’s stranglehold,” which was dated November 20, 1995, and which sparked the Cincinnati city councilman to seek the report from the city solicitor declaring the NFL a cartel). Then-councilman Portune maintained a file of such articles and other documents, which he introduced into the official city council record. JA 794 (Portune testifying in deposition that he “took it upon [himself] to introduce things that were relevant so that there was a record of the materials that had been received”).”
_________________________________
“All of this shows that the County in May 1997 had ample information to file a complaint that the NFL had a corner on the professional football market and used the cartel to “extort” one-sided stadium leases. And all of this suggests that the County knew the material facts underlying its antitrust claims long before the four-year limitations period had run, precluding it from relying on the fraudulent-concealment doctrine to save this lawsuit.
The County to its credit does not disclaim knowledge of these facts. It instead denies that these are the operative facts—or at least all of the operative facts—of its claim. What remained unknown was “financial information” about the Bengals’ profitability, which the defendants refused to disclose during the lease negotiations. Br. at 53. As the County sees it, the Bengals painted a misleadingly bleak picture of their financial health, leading the County to believe that the team was suffering serious financial woes and could not survive without a new stadium; as it turns out, the Bengals ranked in the top half of the NFL in profitability and thus did not need a new stadium (with
a favorable lease) at all. Br. at 47. The County maintains that it did not learn about the Bengals’ profitability until May 2001—when the Los Angeles Times released information about the finances of all of the NFL teams. Without this information, it submits, it could not allege a cognizable antitrust injury and, without the existence of an antitrust injury, the claim would fail at the pleading stage.”
Portune didn’t become a commissioner until 2000, and he was a lone Democrat until last year (ie perenialy outvoted 2-1). Bob Bedinghaus, John Downlin and Little Tommy Neyer signed the stadium deal. In fact, when the stadium deal was signed in May of 1997 Portune was one of the 9 City Counsil members. Again, as the decition states:
“On June 24, 1995, Brown gave Cincinnati what amounted to an ultimatum: If the city did not agree to a new stadium deal within five days, the Bengals would start negotiating with Baltimore. Cincinnati’s City Council and the Hamilton County Commissioners relented, opting to fund the new stadium with a proposed county sales-tax increase. In March 1996, the sales-tax referendum passed with 61% support.
During negotiations over the new stadium lease, the County retained two national experts in developing and leasing professional-sports stadiums. As negotiations proceeded, it became clear to the County that the Bengals’ goal was to acquire sufficient revenue under the new lease to move the team from the last quartile of NFL teams in revenue to the second quartile. County officials asked to see the Bengals’ financial records during the negotiations but the team refused, explaining that the disclosure of this information would violate league policy. The parties executed a lease for the new stadium in May 1997.
Four years later, in May 2001, the Los Angeles Times published an article disclosing the revenues and profits of NFL teams, which it had obtained from the record in a lawsuit between the NFL and the owner of the Oakland Raiders. The data showed that the Bengals ranked eighth in profits in 1996 and ninth in 1997 out of 31 teams.
On May 16, 2003, six years after the parties signed the stadium lease, Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune (a former Cincinnati City Council member, though not a Hamilton County Commissioner at the time the parties executed the lease), filed this lawsuit in federal district court against the NFL, the Bengals and the other 31 NFL teams. The Hamilton County Board of Commissioners eventually was substituted as the plaintiff in the case.”
________________________
The County lost this case on its merits under established antitrust law, and statutes of limitations. The decision says that plain and simple. The decision by the court does not mention moving back a clock or any actions by Portune as a reson for their decision in the case.
Also, the court clearly states that Portune has almost single handedly fought against the NFL & the Stadiums. So tell me, Old Yellow Stain, err MEP, how exactly is the stadium deal and the subsequent loss in court Portune’s fault? The answer is simple: It isn’t.
You are a lying liar MEP. You are so blinded by the folly of your ‘campaign’ (such as it is) to get elected (which will never happen, BTW) that you will go to any length to sully Portune or anyone else who opposes you. You are a sad and pathetic character, and I hope that you get the professional mental health care that you so desperately need.
17 Sep 2007 at 04:54 am | #
Guys - are you kidding me? So Portune was really for a public giveaway and knew the Bengals were bluffing and this was just a conspiracy to hide the Democrats acquiese in the whole thing? If it was a political stunt, why would Heimlich have signed on and brought the wrath of the Republican Party as well as lose all the Bengal clan endorsements and campaign donations - I guess because he was such a fan of Portune’s and wanted to support HIM?
C’mon, that makes no sense and nobody would believe it.
I told you if you have any questions, just call me, (I have darn near a whole library on this case) isn’t that what “reporters” are supposed to do or would that interfer with your re-creation of the facts?
If you want to know who blew this case - ask me, I did.
17 Sep 2007 at 05:33 am | #
FrankyB - good stuff there, DeWine is very good at asking for studies, but HOW is he going to implement it if he doesn’t control the courts?
Frankly, pardon the pun, I think that his proposal is great and I think it is ridiculous that no report has been issued back yet. Does anybody know why? I mean really, not the conspiracy theorists, I’d ask DeWine, I’m sure he’s followed through and I can’t believe he hasn’t done a press release on it.
Is it because the courts won’t let them in? I mean, if we have these beds available and the services with them, why aren’t the courts placing inmates in them in the FIRST PLACE? Is there some stupid reason the inmates are being X’ed from these beds.
Nice find, frankly B, but my guess is someone at the court house or in the prosecutor’s office shut this concept down -it had the full support of the Pepper and Portune
Excellent proposal for a study, but why doesn’t he just pose a resolution to transfer the inmates? Hmmmm…
17 Sep 2007 at 10:53 am | #
In response to Captain Queeg (#30):
What’s your point? I stated that the clock story was in The Cincinnati Enquirer, not the court’s decision. See my comment #7. Perhaps I should have repeated the source in my comment #29 for emphasis, but it dowsn’t change the fact that it happened. I did identify the items coming from Appeals Court decision.
And Captain Queeg notably failed to quote the most relavant section of the decision, which was the lawsuit failed due to Mr. Portune’s repeated failure to amend his complaint so that IT WOULD be brought within the statute of limitations.
Instead of trying to rebut me by inventing personal attacks, why not trying to rebut me by using facts? I’m waiting (yawn!).
17 Sep 2007 at 11:57 am | #
In response to anon2000, #17:
#1. Portune did not say, “The county tax rate in Hamilton County is directly in line with other major metropolitan counties in the state and the surrounding states.” Portune said, “Specifically, the old policy required levy requests to come in at levels that would guarantee that Hamilton County is a low property tax county in Ohio.” I rssponded to what he wrote.
#2. There has been ample testimony that the feds reimburse only the operating costs of housing the prisoners. At the Commissioners’ staff meeting last Monday there was testimony that this was reduced due to the federal government having contributed to the construction cost of the Justice Center, and that therefore they wanted a discount. That is why the county is reimbursed for less than the actual operating cost.
#3. The testimony on Monday was that housing federal prisoners here was only a matter of convenience from the statdpoint of the U.S. Marshalls. They have several other county prisons open to them in the area. Because their office operates in Southwestern Ohio, they had not explored the option of housing their prisoners in Northern Kentucky, although they conceded that was a possibility because they are FEDERAL prisoners, not STATE prisoners. Therefore they can do it—they just had never checked it out.
Further, they stated that the prisoners housed here had a connection to the general area, not just Hamilton County. The area has 15 counties in Ohio and included Columbus and Dayton.
#4. It is the pro-jail side that switches back and forth as to whether there is a critical shortage of jail beds or not. Therefore the side opposing the jail tax has to respond to the argument of the moment. Look at what Portune wrote: ” ... Sheriff testified that the only prisoners not housed are non-violent, low level female offenders…. Notwithstanding that argument though .....” To what should I respond? The Sheriff’s argument or Portune’s?
#5. Seems to be missing from anon2000’s comments.
#6. Levy fatigue means that people get tired of voting for tax increases so it becomes progressively harder for even needed levies to pass. The levies in the earlier, and special, elections are easier to pass because the voters have not yet seen all the others. This was an advantage that only the jail tax levy was going to get.
#7. See my comment #29. Portune supported the Bengals’ lease even when he was aware of the antitrust problems. The Bengals’ did not keep everyone in the dark. Our so-called leaders, and this includes Bedinghaus and Portune, knew and chose to keep the voters in the dark. And the final reason why the lawsuit failed was because Portune failed to amend it so that it fell within the statute of limitations.
By the way, Mr. Heimlich, who was absent from council at the time the lease was approved, was the one person who did not vote for it.
#8. (And yet nother attempt at personal insult instead of addressing the facts.) An Environmental Site Assessment is required before the use of the old Kahn’s plant site can be changed. The contract that the commissioners approved says that Sare Lee will be off the hook if hazardous or toxic wastes or substances are found.
Anon2000 challenges, “... get ONE, JUST ONE attorney willing to say that if there is hazardous waste on the property Sara Lee will be off the hook due to the contract ...” Since Mr. Portune is an attorney and signed the contract, there is the attorney which anon2000 demands.
#9. Portune and Pepper claim to be studying the problem and will tell us what they will recommend AFTER the tax increaee is passed. Who would pay for a new house to be built with the knowledge that the drawings could be seen only AFTER the house is paid for?
#10. “Under the proper definition, the CSP expands community corrections.” Well, this is interesting. Don’t fix the problem—change the definition of success.
Portune and Pepper repeatedly talk about the benifits of consolidating facilities. But how, then, are they going to handle those requiring treatment? Are there going to be two duplicate sets of treatment facilities, one in the Justice Center and one at the new jail? Or will inmates be transported every day from their jail cells to the treatment center and back?
The logic behind the Reading Road and Turning Point facilities is that not everyone who breaks the law needs to be treated the same. The punishment should fit the crime. Many opponents of the jail tax state that there should be such things as home incarceration and work-release, too. Reading Road and Turning Point recognize that for some, such as DUI offenders, they are addicts first and criminals second. Leis, with the support of Portune and Pepper, says that they are criminals first. His new jail will consists mostly of maximum-security cells. Since the Justice Center is already all maximum-security, that means that there will be only a few minimum- and medium-security jail cells. Treatment is only a secondary thought.
17 Sep 2007 at 11:58 am | #
I read with amusement the postings in this thread. What comes to mind is a football game. We have the reps v dems and they are all about winning. The only difference here is the public is the ball. The way the game is rigged is the reps and dems share in the victory because one side always wins. The public on the other hand gets kicked or thrown around. The public never wins. We have fans for both teams that defend their favorites and cheerleaders for both but the public gets the boot every time. Until the spectators get off their asses and get involved the public will never win. Democracy will never work for people until people work for democracy.
17 Sep 2007 at 04:16 pm | #
Let’s clear this up once and for all. Portune is not the reason why the county last their case against the Bengals. Let’s review what the Court said in their judgement:
“For the next two years or so, discovery proceeded in fits and starts and was suspended for a time while the parties tried to mediate their dispute. After the mediation effort failed and after the parties had conducted initial discovery, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the statute-of-limitations issue, denied the County’s Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery and dismissed the case.”
The judgement says that the County unsuccessfully tried to mediate the suit with the Bengals for two years. Brown ran the clock out during the negotiations with no intention of settling, as is consistent with his behavior. The County tried, as stated above, to have the time period extended without success. Thus they lost the suit for this reason.
Portune did not represent the County in this lawsuit, the County hired attorneys who are (presumably) practiced in this area of litigation. These attorneys advised the Commission on their actions in the suit, for better or worse. Lawyers have different areas of expertise, just as your foot doctor wouldn’t perform heart surgery on you. Portune’s area of expertise is civil rights, mineral law and disability law, as per his biography on the Commissioner’s website, not this sort of litigation.
So how is it Portune’s fault alone and above everyone else that this suit failed? As everyone can plainly see, it was Portune’s single-handed doggedness that caused the County to go after the team in the first place, the court even said so, after the three previous Republican County Commissioners gave away the house away to the Bengal’s. For the love of god, Bob Beddinghaus went to work for the Bengal’s after he got his *ss kicked out of office! Heimlich, for all his numerous faults, even saw that this was a bad deal, plus he saw how the voters went after Beddinghaus (so did Neyer, who knew he was doomed to loose and dropped out). Get your facts straight and try to separate your anger over the jail from other issues.
20 paragraph ranting & raving MEP response in 3,2,1…....
17 Sep 2007 at 11:38 pm | #
Go on Patton, write a reply. We all know that you’re sitting there sweating and shaking like a junkie going through withdrawal from smack, trying to resist the urge to write one!
18 Sep 2007 at 01:03 am | #
Kudos to #36.
In this great debate about Portune and the Bengals deal, ONE THING IS DAMN CERTAIN, Portune single-handedly shut down the NFL from doing this ever again, to ANY other city. And every community in the country is now aware of the deceitful tactics of the NFL courtesy of the Portune Doctrine.
Putting a greedy monopoly in its place when noone else had the political or personal balls to step forward (regardless of the former commissioners preventing him from turning back the hands of time)is courageous and if we had more politicians willing to step forward - the world would be a much better place than we’ve had in Ohio with the Worker’s Comp scandal, Ney, Taft’s golf trips, insider deals and pay-to-play
So—- who says Portune really lost his case against the NFL and Bengals? He didn’t—he got the touch down, just missed the extra point. He ran them up and down the field and extinguished an otherwise continuing and prosperous fraud upon the public.
He made his allegations, proved them irrefutably, stopped the practice nationally, .... I call that a hell of a win without the glory and he should be proud he did it.
And in Hamilton County as well as every other “major league city”, the NFL WILL pay the public back for their transgressions, ten-fold (when they go to re-negotiate these leases, and our kids can thank Portune for it).
THE GAME IS OVER!
18 Sep 2007 at 01:17 am | #
In response to Reality Check (#36):
Here’s the paragraph of the Court of Appeal’s decision that Reality Check seems unable to find:
To remind everyone, it was Portune who claimed that he fought this “almost single handed.” So I took him at his word (except that I did note that Carrie Davis was the lead plaintiff for a while and that Phil Heimlich backed him in the commission). I frankly do not believe Reality Check’s assertion that Portune had nothing to do with this lawsuit after it was taken over by the commission.
In addition: It was Portune who turned back the clock so that the lease could be approved by council. Portune voted for the lease.
Portune was aware of the antitrust problems at the time he approved the lease. He tried to claim that he was deceived, but the court noted that Portune even had his concerns about the Bengals read into the record. Portune, in other words, came down firmly on both sides of the fence. He approved the lease and had it put into the record that he was concerned that the Bengals were violating the antitrust laws.
Since he KNEW about the antitrust laws, he knew there was a statute of limitations. He’s a lawyer—don’t tell me he doesn’t know about that. He should have written his suit in the first place so that it included the 2000 lease amendment. That was an obvious thing to do. He did not. As the court pointed out there were numerous opportunities to amend the suit. Why wasn’t it?
So what is Reality Check’s claim? That it’s not Portune’s fault at all, even though he approved the deal, even though he know about the anti-trust problems, even though he knew about the statute of limitations, even though he drew up the suit wrong, even though his own file was used as evidence against the County? Oh, no! It’s the fault of some unknown whom Portune told to work on the suit!
Look, if Portune is so incompetent about anti-trust laws he never should have drawn up the suit in the first place. Don’t tell me Portune isn’t at fault because he is not an expert in that area. By filing the suit he said he was competent in that area. Unless, of course, it was just an election stunt.
Since this part of the story is so little known, it may be worth an article of its own in the Beacon someday.
18 Sep 2007 at 01:41 am | #
Snap! Looks like someone “unhinged” Patton and the Dean on this one.
18 Sep 2007 at 03:04 pm | #
Mr. Patton, as you have set yourself up as an authority on the Hamilton County v Bengals, NFL ET AL case please reply to the following remarks:
1. Do you have any training in the law? Do you posses a JD (law degree), or have you taken any undergraduate or graduate law classes from an accredited university or college, and if so what were those classes and when did you take them?
2. If the answers to the above questions are no, what qualifies you to interpret the appeals courts decision for the readers of this site? Have you researched the precedent cases cited by the court, and if so please provide us with a summation of those cases.
3. Do you have any proof that Portune personally wrote the suit and filed it himself, as opposed to his hiring another attorney or attorneys to do so? Have you researched who the attorneys of record on the cases are, and if so please provide them for us.
4. You maintain that Portune ‘knew the anti-trust laws’. I can tell you that my Spouse, my Uncle and one of my best friends are all very successful local attorneys and none of them know very much about anti-trust law, aside from what they earned in law school many years ago. Anti-trust law is a highly specialized area of law (as is patent law, medical and legal malpractice, etc) and you will find that most attorneys have only a passing knowledge of this field. In fact it would be a violation of the ABA Cannon of Ethics for an attorney to take in such a case without experience in this area.
5. Your repeated charge that Portune ‘personally turned back the clock’ is completely irrelevant. The article states that the only reason the clock at City Hall was turned back was the fact that negotiations and deliberations were ongoing, and Bengals owner Brown had imposed a time sensitive deadline, with the penalty being that they would begin exclusive negotiations with another city if the issue was not resolved by a certain time.
We await your responses.
19 Sep 2007 at 12:44 am | #
A brief response to Anonymous (#41):
1. The opinion is written in English. One does not need a law degree to read English.
2. If you think that one needs a law degree to read English, then you are clearly not qualified to interpret the decision. Of course, I note that you did not give an interpretation, so maybe you agree.
3. I based my comments on Portune’s statements. I also note that per this Enquirer story, Prosecutor Mike Allen was strongly critical of Portune and Heimlich for hiring attorneys without shopping around.
4. I said that Portune had declared himself to have known the anti-trust laws.
5. I mentioned the fact that Portune had turned back the clock because the Enquirer had mentioned it in connection with council’s determination to sign the lease. And that clock story clearly meant that Portune was there and was also determined. I also mentioned a couple other things that Portune did or failed to do that lead to the suit’s demise.
The court’s opinion was quite critical of Portune’s suit. It could not understand how he could claim he was duped when he read his concerns into council’s record. It could not understand how Portune could claim that even though he knew about the anti-trust concerns, he just didn’t know how much money an illegal trust could make. (What? Did he think that the Bengals were engaged in illegal activities just for the fun of it?) It could not understand why the suit was never amended to include the 2000 lease modifications.
Look. I consider this whole Bengal’s lawsuit thing as a distraction from the jail issue. And that is supposed to be what this article is about. But Portune brought up the subject of the suit against the Bengals. I think he blew it. But why do you keep bringing it up when it has nothing to do with the jail?
19 Sep 2007 at 01:35 am | #
Patton won’t respond because the reality is, this anti trust stuff is way over even some of the best attorneys in the country’s heads. And if he tries to respond it will only be rhetoric.
Do you know why Portune’s opposition in his re-election campaign didn’t bring up the NFL suit? Because Portune is squeeky clean on it, that’s why. If there was ANY dirt to be dished out on it - it would have been used to try to beat him.
It was a non-issue because not a single campaign consultant could find a hit against Portune in it. In fact, they knew the public already has a firm grasp of what happened, and they didn’t want to boister his votes even more by reminding the public what he did.
19 Sep 2007 at 05:13 am | #
Shorter MEP: “I have no training in the law, and despite desperately digging around for the past 9 hours I can’t interpret the legalese, I haven’t read any of the supporting cases cited by the court in their decision, I don’t know who the attorneys of record were in the original lawsuit, I can’t prove that Todd Portune filed the lawsuit himself or that he knew about the anti-trust provisions and I’m pretty much talking out of my ass. Now I’m going to cast aspersions on you for distracting us with this Bengals nonsense, even though I’m the one who brought it up to begin with in comment #7!”
Is this guy serious? Does he really think that people are actually going to vote for him to represent them on City Council?? Look at his ramblings on this site for Christ’s sake! Get real man!!
19 Sep 2007 at 08:29 am | #
Captain Berding-Queeg:
Yes, people will vote for MEP. And if he gets more votes than last time, that percentage increase represents about many people are opening their eyes to what goes on in this town.
19 Sep 2007 at 10:46 am | #
Here’s my unsolicited opinion of Patton - he’s extremely intelligient, very caring, willling to do theleg work to develop an opinion on an issue and would usually never assume anyone else’s talking points.
I have heard claims that he is a conservative groupie - he’s been on this side and that.
One thing’s for certain - he is dedicated to doing what he believes is right and fair. These are all reasons I would vote for him.
Of late, I don’t agree with the positions he has developed nor the quality of his research to support his positions - I think he’s PUI, politiking under the influence - what that influence is that has marred his usual high standards -???????
Regardless - he is sincere which is more than you can say for most politicians
19 Sep 2007 at 11:43 am | #
I agree, people will vote for MEP indeed; 12 people will vote for MEP.
19 Sep 2007 at 11:51 am | #
A quick response to the comments #43 and 44:
The suit failed not due to failing to prove anti-trust concerns, but for failing to meet the statute of limitations and for failing to show a deliberate cover-up. Can’t Captain Queeg and his friends read?
The anti-trust concerns themselves are still valid. But is anybody there going to do anything about it?
As for the 2005 election:
From The Cincinnati Post’s coverage of the 2004 election:
The more Captain Queeg and his friends challenge me on this issue, and the more they try to flame me, the more I dig and the more interesting it gets. So the jail was a big issue in the 2005 campaign by both Portune and his opponent, then it disappears until it is resurrected by Heimlich last year.
Or, if one believes what Sheriff Leis said at the Blue Ash Republican meeting recently, the jail issue was driven by all the Cincinnati City Council people who came to him worrying about not having enough jail space. I remember Leslie Ghiz specifically making a public comment about there not being enough room for those convicted under the new, tougher, marijuana penalties (for which she voted anyways).
Anyways, one possible explanation as to why Grossman did not bring up Portune’s previous support for the Bengals’ lease was advanced by anon #20:
Certainly the timing of the suit fits that theory. If it had been filed in a timely manner then the county’s chances would have been better, but it would not have been so politically opportune.
19 Sep 2007 at 07:24 pm | #
Patton-Keep Digging Captain Crazy! You are making a fool of yourself, you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Do you really think that people take you seriously?
By the way, the Captain Queeg tag is aimed at you, but you don’t get it! HA!!
19 Sep 2007 at 11:09 pm | #
I started the comments with the question as to why Portune was engaging in personal attacks. See comment #1. It was a point I raised again in my comment #29. I want a discussion based on facts, but this thread is getting to be nothing but personal attacks by anonymous backers of Portune. See especially the joy of #49.
If this is the best that proponents of the jail tax can muster, then the tax will fail.
The pro-tax forces can extend the thread as long as they want with attempted insults. It won’t help the tax pass.
P.S: It’s obvious Anonymous (#49) never read the book, or at least never got to the end.
20 Sep 2007 at 12:56 am | #
Captain Michael Earl Queeg: Better be careful-your steaming in circles and your running over your own towline. I suspect that you’ve got the marbles out of your pocket by now too.
20 Sep 2007 at 01:22 am | #
Geez, does noone realize that the suit didn’t arise until AFTER Portune had been elected?
And what the paper states Portune campaigned on : he did.
He followed through on every campaign issue he raised.
Emergency communications—done. (appropriated funds to repair and expand siren services to all of Hamilton County)
infant mortality rate - done.(establsihed working board developed interventions)
jail - almost done.
Looks to me as if Portune is one of few politicians who actually does what he says he’s going to do - point by point.
You know what that gets you at election time? The largest majority support ever had by a county commissioner, if my memory serves me correctly.
Portune actually uses his office as an opPortune vehicle to deliver on his campaign promises. OpPortune? You’re damn straight.
20 Sep 2007 at 03:48 pm | #
Emergency communications—done. (appropriated funds to repair and expand siren services to all of Hamilton County)
Actually, there is no money appropriated for the siren fix. The budget, I think, simply had a placeholder for the fix in case any unexpected money popped up. I wouldn’t count on that happening. I could be wrong, but you might want to double check that. - UNDONE
21 Sep 2007 at 01:40 pm | #
I really loath supporting status quo guys like Portune, Pepper, Leis. I cut my political teeth in the 70s when the idea was to fight the status quo.
But the tactics you anti-tax fellows have stooped to are so sickening, so repellent, so petty, juvenile and irresponsible, I have no choice but to support the jail tax and the status quo.
For example, why was it necessary to pimp the NAACP? The jail tax isn’t a Civil Rights issue, the WHOOPPING $33 increase per year, per taxpayer doesn’t single-out blacks and it isn’t even an increase we in the black community will notice. Hell, I know Welfare mamas who blow $50 on their hairweaves each month.
And then there’s your demonization of the opposition.
Right now there’s a lawsuit in the courts charging Sheriff Leis with misuse of public funds. It’s based on his sending emails to other members of his department asking for their support of the jail tax.
Without question it’s the most frivolous lawsuit to ever be filed in the County. The District Attorney wasshocked and appalled that there are people who think so little of his time that they would ask him to litigate it.
Have you people gone insane?
Where’s your sense of proportion, your fundamental respect for another human being? Mature men and women of character don’t pull stunts like that. Mature men and women don’t so callously accuse someone of being a crook for non-reasons like using his county computer to send unofficial email.
How dare you accuse a public official with a 30 year unblemished record as being a crook because he used his county computer to encourage support for a more modern facility.
Again, where is your sense of proportion?
What am I missing here? Neither you nor anyone you know conducts himself with the circumspection you say Sheriff Leis must.
We’re human; it’s impossible. We all make personal telephone calls from the office, use the office computer to email our love ones, walk out of the office with a company pen or pencil.
All of us.
taht doesn’t make us a crook and it doesn’t make Leis a crook.
Honestly, is this the new world order you fellows have in store for us here Hamilton County?
Is this what you call progress…?
ricland