Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Jeff Berding’s “Hurry-Up Offense”

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Take a look at the first item on yesterday’s Rules Committee agenda:  document # 200600632. Council member Berding is proposing to remove the section of the rules which requires new items being introduced into a committee to be held for one week. 

If this motion is adopted, then a committee held on Tuesday could introduce a new item, pass it through the committee, and then get adopted by City Council the very next day.  So according to the rules of Council, if Berding’s change passes, a new law could literally be made in one day. 

A couple of years ago Council had gotten into the habit of bringing legislation into committee then adopting new laws within one or two days. In response, the rules were ammended to ensure that new items were held for at least one week in order to allow for careful consideration—but also to ensure the general public had an opportunity to wiegh in on matters.

In a statement attached to his motion for the new hurry-up legislation, Berding writes the following:

Sounds good, unless you are familiar with other rules of council.  Check out 10.10:

This rule allows for the full City Council to remove an item from committee and vote on it at any time with a vote of 6 members. In cases of genuine emergency this rule can be invoked.  Berding’s hurry-up offense, however, works to change the City’s charter such that immediate legislation becomes normalized.

Socializer!

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.

Chris Henry says:
27 Jun 2006  at  07:24 am | #

he da man.

Bad call, Berding says:
27 Jun 2006  at  08:30 am | #

Good catch, Dean. The hurry-up is exactly why fiascos happened—no transparency, no full public review, no week of scrutiny to allow everyone to focus on bad, flawed ideas. This is a step backward. 

They can always bring an emergency item right to Council and suspend the rules as well.  They are now changing rules that are good for the vast majority of issues simply to address the rare, exceptional emergency.  Dumb.

"Just Trust Us" says:
27 Jun 2006  at  12:32 pm | #

That’s an offensive foul! They are moving the process behind closed doors and out of sight from the public. That’s a good indication that they are up to no good. He should be booted out of the legue and we should draft someone who can block these assaults on the taxpayer. We need some defense right now.

The good ole boys are kicking the taxpayers asses.

says:
27 Jun 2006  at  03:43 pm | #

Hang on, folks.  Get it straight.  Many rules were changed when this session started including the one noted above.  By-leaves were eliminated, dramatically reducing the speed of legilsation.  The one week delay was added after the fact and has proven to be overly cumbersome.  Because committees meet every other week the net effect is twice the delay on a whole host of very mundane administrative functions. 

As it stands, legilsation introduced in a full Council session must be held a week.  Committees should be able to move more quickly since any action a committee takes still must be acted upon by Council in full session.  Delay is already built in to the system.  The additional committee delay creates a ripple effect down through the administration that frustrates citizens trying to get service from the city.  Aren’t many of you always demanding more efficient government? 

-Chris Bortz

Not so fast! says:
27 Jun 2006  at  08:13 pm | #

Service delivery does not require legislation.  No Council action is needed there, so these rules will have no effect on whether the city is quick to respond to service requests. THat’s a false argument.

Legislation, on the other hand, should result from deliberation, discussion and input.  COUncil has had its biggest screwups in the past when it rushed stuff, and there was no time for public scrutiny (or Council scrutiny, for that matter).

That is precisely what happens with this kind of rule change.

Alicia Reece still don't live here anymore says:
28 Jun 2006  at  07:23 am | #

Welcome aboard Bortz.  You’re part of the problem now.  Congratulations.

says:
28 Jun 2006  at  08:50 am | #

What a bunch of shit!

When Bortz and Bernding get their way they can raise their mugs to a Sieg Heil just like ol Adolf did when he suspended the rules in the thirties. And Bortz’s definition of efficiency is similar to the arguments forwarded by Hitler. If we really want that type of efficiency, then all that we have to do is eliminate Council all together.

What kind of issues that Council has to approve are so important that a week makes any difference?  Why is there ever any immediacy except when it is cause by poor planning? Even if we accepted Bortz’s red herring that efficiency of service could be improved, I have a tough time understanding, for instance, that even a basic service such as a garbage pick-up on the hottest summer day might would require this type of so-called efficiency. Even garbage on the hottest summer day could be endured more than the crap they are trying to pull.

Finally, the point of the public having time to “weigh in” on an issue is naive anyway. With our present system of at-large representatives, how does a citizen really have the means to weigh in effectively? What is the EFFICIENT way in which it can be done? Does one contact one council person or does one contact every council person? And how does one even get through the aides to an actual council person? And where does the average citizen get the information about any of the issues being considered? In order to become informed, a citizen would have to “live” at city hall and that would defeat the purpose of having a representative government in the first place. It seems that the longer that we endure government, the more the people seem to exist only to serve the government instead of the other way around. Until we go to an all-district means of electing representatives, the people will never really be heard.

Dieter Schmied

says:
28 Jun 2006  at  09:25 am | #

Dieter, your overuse of Hitler references obscures your point.  Bortz is not a genocidal tyrant.  He is a council member in a shrinking mid-west city, for Christ’s sake.

Perspective, please!

says:
28 Jun 2006  at  01:18 pm | #

Dean!

The term “Sieg Heil” is not a Hitler or Nazi phrase.  It is a German phrase that far predates Hitler. Hitler also said Guten Tage; does that make Guten Tage a Nazi phrase?
Guten Tage means good day. Sieg Heil means essentially Hail Victory. Actually it translates as a salutation to salvation or a deliverance from some difficulty or perceived evil or destruction.

What phrase would you think better fits Bortz and Bernding after pulling off their plan?  Perhaps “Gimme a high five; we really pulled one off against the ignorance of those stupid thoughtless peasants!”.

I think Sieg Heil is more fitting and by far more succinct.

I would also thank you to refrain from judging German culture using Hitler as a standard.

Guten Tage!

says:
28 Jun 2006  at  01:38 pm | #

Dean!

One of the reasons that Cincinnati is “a shrinking mid-west city” , it that there is no respect for the leadership. One of the reasons for lack of respect is that our government is not trusted.

What this city does not need is another reason for the citizens to have distrust. There is distrust because there is no confidence in the ability of council and there is distrust because council is not transparent and there is distrust because the government is remote from the people.

Without the trust and backing of the people, the government will fail.

Your comment implies that they are just guys trying to do a job. Well that is not good enough. They ran for office saying that they could do the job. What they are saying now is that they want their job easier. It would be easier if they did not have to deal with the public, but they knew that the public must be considered when they asked for the job. Again it is placing the government authority ahead of the people’s rights. There is a term for that; do you know what it is?

says:
28 Jun 2006  at  01:38 pm | #

Dieter wrote, “...just like ol Adolf did when he suspended the rules in the thirties.”

I’m sorry.  By “Adolf” I thought you meant Hitler.

Jonathan Richmond says:
28 Jun 2006  at  01:49 pm | #

...I could show you mem’ries
to rival Berlin
in the thirties…