CPT: Marcia Fudge, County Council, County Judicial Races, US Senate

Cuyahoga Politics Today

New Political Season brings critical choices, questions

What is the value of a Fudge endorsement?

How does Mandel's exit affect GOP Senate Primary?

If it seems that politics is never-ending, that‘s because it’s true. Our interests, and those of our community — however we may define “interests” and “community” — are being negotiated, threatened, defended, or traded away continually by public officials who appear on your ballot. So it behooves us to pay attention to what our public officials do and say.

Consider that in a little less than 72 hours last week, roughly 100 local Democrats chose the newest member of county council and made recommendations for who should get the party’s endorsement in various judicial and legislative primary contests on the May 8 ballot.  Those choices, made in most cases by people you likely don’t know or seldom think of, have consequences with close-to-home effect upon who gets put in jail, where your taxes go, and which sections of our community get treated better than others.

That likely doesn’t sound fair, but it’s the way our democracy works. And if you don’t like it, you have a real chance to change it this year. And if you decide to get involved, you may set in motion positive changes not only for your neighborhood, but for your judicial system, your state government,  your country, and the world.

That’s not hyperbole. It’s the result of living in Cuyahoga County, which still remains the dominant political goldmine in a crucial battleground state.

Democrats hold the lion’s share of offices in Cuyahoga County. Republicans control some of the suburbs, especially those on the county’s outskirts. Though they are largely irrelevant to county politics — their political interests are generally expressed through the business community — the GOP functions pretty much the same way in its spheres, that is to say through a network of volunteer central and executive committees and ex officio  structures that carry great weight in influencing who gets on the ballot.

So last Thursday, 46 of a possible 75 or so precinct committee members who live in County Council District 10 — Cleveland Heights, East Cleveland, University Heights, Bratenahl, and Cleveland Wards 8 and 10, met at Dem Party headquarters to choose a successor to Anthony Hairston, who resigned his county council seat after winning the Cleveland Ward 10 seat vacated by Jeff Johnson, who opted to challenge Mayor Frank Jackson. [Johnson came in third in the September mayoral primary; he’s now running for the State Senate seat he had 20 years ago.]

Successful professional politicians chart their careers and their alliances with great care. Hairston’s county-to-city council switch was in preparation for at least a year, which meant that his council seat was potentially in play for at least that long. Michael Houser, who won the intraparty vote last week to replace Hairston, had long ago secured the latter’s support to replace him. In Cleveland, that would have been sufficient; a councilperson who leaves under honorable circumstances is permitted to designate a successor who is then ratified by the council.

County Council functions under a different set of rules, set by state law. When a vacancy occurs between elections, the successor is chosen by the Party of the outgoing incumbent. Even though the process is different, neither Houser nor Hairston gave much thought to any particular challenger. So Houser moved into an apartment in the district and apparently expected pretty much to waltz in to the seat.

But the unexpected is part of what makes politics so fascinating. Shortly after the November election, Cleveland Heights mayor Cheryl Stephens realized that a power realignment among council members meant that her colleagues were unlikely to reelect her as mayor. Moreover, she was about to leave her job as director of acquisitions, dispositions & development at the County Land Bank to take a job in Akron. Suddenly, she was seen as a preferred alternative to Houser by many party activists.

For starters, Stephens has an accomplished resume as a public official in both elected and managerial roles. Of perhaps greater weight politically, she represented a chance for the Heights forces to regain the seat that had gone to Clevelander Hairston when Julian Rogers had resigned to take a job with Cleveland State.

Stephens was especially appealing as a potential candidate to Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, who has increasingly sought to play a larger role in local politics. Once Stephens was officially offered her new job — as president and CEO of the East End Neighborhood Development Corporation — and prepared to leave the Land Bank, the conflict between her work and the part-time council position evaporated, and she agreed to seek the county council position.

Suddenly, Stephens seemed the favorite to succeed Hairston on county council.

In politics the currency that matters is votes, and so for 45 days or so Houser and Stephens sought to secure commitments from the precinct committee members of District 10. Fudge’s involvement put a strain on political and personal loyalties. Hairston had pledged his support to Houser but wanted to stay in her good graces. Julian Rogers, the Democratic city leader in Cleveland Heights, is tight with Hairston both politically and personally, but with a base that heavily favored Stephens. County Executive Armond Budish is a Fudge political ally but Houser was one of his executive assistants.

This really should have been no contest. Everyone recognizes the weight of a member of Congress. But for some reason, Rep. Fudge has established a track record of making endorsements but failing to put substance and resources behind them. Thus, she made a robocall on Stephens behalf but did not make the dozen or so phone calls that could have secured the seat for Stephens.

The immediate result was a dramatic 24-22 second-round ballot win for Houser at the party headquarters on Superior Ave. But this small episode has other winners and losers.

Stephens’ combination of experience, expertise, and leadership suggest she would have been a formidable representative of District 10 and a valuable asset to the county on all issues related to development and governmental performance. These were stated priorities when the battle was waged and won over reforming county government.

Houser is much more of an unknown quantity. He has long been eager to win elective office but already whispers abound that he will take his orders from County Executive Budish.

Houser takes office immediately and will need to tend his political flanks immediately. The filing deadline for the office is February 7 and a Board of Elections spokesperson has confirmed this seat will be on the May 8^th primary ballot, providing an early test of political strength for Houser and any challengers, including possibly Stephens, who is rumored to be considering a run.

A larger issue remains, and it was on display two days after the District vote. What does it mean when the Congresswoman cannot secure a seat for a highly qualified candidate of her choosing over a political novice? Let us note that race was not a consequential factor in this contest; both Houser and Stephens are black. But given that Fudge has chosen increasingly to involve herself in local party politics — she pushed for the election of Shontel Brown as local party chair; she has taken early sides in several  state legislative battles, even supporting challengers over incumbents — her constituents are entitled to question her end game.

This is no idle question. There are four open countywide judicial seats in this year’s election cycle. There are no black or Hispanic male judges on the county bench. Five African Americans and one Hispanic — three men, three women — are among the competitors for the four seats. Fudge is widely regarded to have negotiated with some party powers to secure endorsements of two black women lawyers in their respective races. Yet when forty city and ward leaders from across the county met last Saturday to present recommendations to the party’s Central Committee, which will meet this Saturday to act on those recommendations, not a single judicial candidate of color received a recommendation, and Fudge’s two choices were defeated handily.

We will explore this issue in tomorrow’s post.

# # #

Last week brought news that State Treasurer Josh Mandel, possibly the least-liked state public official of this century, was ending his campaign to win the GOP nomination for US Senate and challenge incumbent US Senator Sherrod Brown. Mandel was expected to defeat his challenger for the nomination, wealthy Cleveland businessman Mike Gibbons. But Mandel withdrew citing an undisclosed medical issue concerning his wife.

Gibbons does not have a clear field, however. Congressman Jim Renacci, who was in the midst of an uphill battle for the GOP gubernatorial nomination against Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Lt. Governor Mary Taylor, is now shifting over to the Senate race.

Gibbons is a relative unknown politically. He will be a guest tonight on “Race Relations in America with Laverne and Jack”, which airs Tuesdays from 6-7PM on WERE TalkCLE Radio 1490/AM.

Mandel was such a distasteful candidate — he specializes in ugly campaigns — but it seems that he will be replaced by another Trumpster.

While we are on the subject of that Senate contest, we understand why many Republicans don’t like to talk about the racist who heads their party. But we would like to hear what our own Ohio Senators, Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman, think about Trump’s “s***hole countries” comment.

# # #

-->

-->

Change Coming — Slowly — to Local Democratic Party

Executive Committee members of Cuyahoga County’s Democratic Party are meeting tomorrow morning on Cuyahoga Community College’s Metro Campus to pick a candidate to run this November in an election to complete the unexpired term of the late Judge Peter Sikora.

Since Sikora’s died after this year’s primary elections, Ohio law provides that the party may select a candidate to run in the next general election to serve the balance of the unexpired term, which ends December 31, 2016.

Only a few years ago, tomorrow’s meeting would have been pretty much a formality. Party bosses Jimmy Dimora and Bill Mason would have lined up their candidates, and after some horse-trading here and there the result would have been determined before anybody showed up.

Some party regulars rue the new order slowly being installed by new party chair Stuart Garson, who was elected chair by that same process himself when party heavyweights — led by Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, and über-labor friend John Ryan in US Senator Sherrod Brown’s office, bypassed calls for an open process and put in Garson. The new chair was largely unknown among the rank and file. He was known as a prolific fundraiser, having raised campaign funds for a number of candidates, including Fudge.

An attorney whose practice specializes in representing injured workers in workers’ comp cases, Garson had no hands-on experience in the hard core ethnic politics county Democrats have long engaged in. In fact, he despises that sort of horse-trading, preferring the more sedate politics practiced in Cuyahoga’s tonier regions, where meritocracy is at least touted, even if not always observed, as the order of the day.

Over the objections of a number of party regulars, Garson has stood firm on a process that reduces the chaotic railroading prevalent in the Dimora era.

Tomorrow six or seven candidates will appear on a first ballot. If any of them receives 50% plus one of the assembled voters, he or she will be the party’s nominee. If no candidate gets a majority, only those who receive at least 15% of the votes cast will pass to the next round. It will likely take 3 or 4 rounds to determine the winner.

Mason candidate O’Malley has perhaps the most political experience and is the presumed frontrunner, but he is by no means assured to emerge as party nominee. Each candidate was required to answer a series of questions about his or her credentials, fitness for office, record of public service, stance on diversity, and other criteria. While there is no guarantee that executive committee voters read the responses, Garson is clearly working to put in place a process that over time should diminish style cronyism.

Competing for the party’s nomination in tomorrow’s vote:

John Lawson, Ed Lentz, William McGinty, Terease Neff, Michael O'Malley, and Michael John Ryan.

The winner will be heavily favored to defeat Republican Anjanette C Arabian Whitman, who was appointed to the seat last week by Gov. John Kasich.

Fudge-Turner: What’s Really at Stake?

I start this post fresh from my unannounced but necessary pre-holiday hiatus with renewed energy and a heightened sense of urgency. Real Deal readers should rest assured that even when output slows, inputs continue unabated. It is my hope that occasional time off heralds a sharper perspective upon my return. But you, Real Deal followers, are the ultimate judge of that.

I began blogging in earnest back in November 2009. I had become by turns disheartened, perplexed and finally aroused by the failure of the county Democratic Party to act with swift resolve to denounce and remove Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo from party positions which made the whole party a convenient piñata for pundits and Republicans.

So I got off my proverbial couch and started going to various Democratic Party functions, asking questions and looking for answers. I visited offices of various elected officials, county and city of Cleveland. And I tracked down and got involved in with a random group of party activists who eventually evolved into an effective but short-lived caucus under the banner Cuyahoga Democrats for Principled Leadership.

[Column interlude: last week evidence of reform was on public display at the county Democrats’ Executive Committee meeting at Music Hall. Not every incumbent was unchallenged, one — Juvenile Court Judge Joseph F. Russo saw his opponent endorsed — and party chair Stuart Garson suffered with good humor when the will of the body contradicted his own preference for an measured and orderly process.]

Looking at Cuyahoga County politics of course requires an examination of black politics, unless you restrict yourself to local Republicans, all of whose significant black players could fit inside a nice-sized powder room.

And when you look at local black politics, you see problems. Big-time problems. Disorganization. Disunity. Disconnectedness. Ineffectiveness. Perpetual Reaction Mode. All of this forms the backdrop for the most exciting political development in the black community in twenty years [Mike White-George Forbes face-off in Cleveland’s 1989 mayoral election.]

By exciting political development I refer of course to Nina Turner’s Democratic primary challenge to Marcia Fudge’s bid for a third Congressional term.

Let me state clearly on the record that if the election were held today, I am uncertain which of these public servants would get my vote. I am neither anti- one or pro- the other. I am pro-Cleveland, pro-Cuyahoga County, and pro-African American community. I am anti-entitlement and anti-establishment where either means the status quo.

My esteemed friend Dick Peery articulated a view in this forum early this month in a comment to my post on Fudge’s then-pending reelection announcement. I don’t know the habits of Real Deal readers with respect to reading comments. [I do know that I love them, read every one, answer virtually all of them, and wish there were more! I know that not everyone has the time or energy to state a reasoned view; I do know that we need a space for intelligent exchange of community views, and that remains for me a constant goal.]

Dick’s thoughts always merit consideration and response. I didn’t answer them in a comment to his comment because I was concerned that the exchange would be out of eyesight for too many readers. In essence he said that an incumbent’s challenger needs to articulate why she would do a better job and why change is necessary.

Lou Stokes became the most important black elected official in Ohio once his brother left Cleveland City Hall in 1971. He established an enviable record in Congress thanks to his skill, his seniority, his party’s majority status, and his place on the Appropriations Committee. He brought bacon home to a community in dire need of it. All of Cleveland respects him, and pretty much all of black Cleveland loves him.

As a pioneer Congressman from a unique urban area, Stokes achieved practically without effort a sort of godfather political status. He didn’t really have a political machine, so to speak, but then he didn’t need one, since he had practically no serious local challenger once he got in office. Some might say the 21^st [now 11^th] District Caucus that he and his brother established functioned as his political machine. Truth is, the Caucus had already reached its political apex by Stokes’ second term, thereafter coasting on its reputation for decades as its power and relevance steadily declined.

Lou Stokes, George Forbes and Arnold Pinkney today stand as rusty ornaments of a time when Cleveland’s black political power was respected for its ability to deliver. But a Lou Stokes-George Forbes power struggle in 1972 was precursor to the eventual departure of Forbes and Pinkney from the Caucus, leaving the Congressman in control of what was increasingly only a symbol of black political power.

The political scientist William Nelson has observed that the decline of the caucus in the aftermath of [Carl] Stokes’ departure from local politics “changed the fundamental goal of black politics from community uplift to self-aggrandizement.”

Nelson’s observation gets to the crux of the matter. What kind of leadership does the black community seek? Can we move from personalities and personal agendas and political fiefdoms to public policies? Answers to these questions have been wanting for forty years. Indeed, the questions don’t even get asked.

We applaud the upcoming Congressional primary as an opportunity to gain a hearing for these questions.

Let’s stop the bogus talk about dividing and weakening a black community that is already laughably and lamentably weak and divided.

Let’s talk instead about why our schools produce such poor results [and about the miraculous results some of our students produce nonetheless]. Let’s talk about why residents in inner city zip codes have a life expectancy so much shorter than their suburban counterparts just minutes away. Let’s talk about addressing the cyclone effects of predatory lending and how we can rebuild our communities. Let’s talk about the absence of jobs in our community and why with six billion dollars or more in major construction activity in Greater Cleveland, black contractors are still fighting for crumbs.

Congresswoman Fudge, State Senator Turner: what strategies do you have for us? Which of you is better equipped to help us rebuild our community?

• • •

Reminder: your scribe is a guest on The Civic Commons radio show today at 12:30PM on WJCU-FM 88.7. Tune in or catch it online either here or via iTunes.

Cuyhaoga Dems & Repubs: Confluence and Contrast

  This week found me attending the annual dinners of both the Cuyahoga Democratic Party and the County Republican Party. I’m not sure if they typically fall in a four day-period but the contrast was instructive.

  It had been some time since I had witnessed a GOP function in the flesh, and as it was my first-ever Lincoln Day shindig, I was uncertain what to expect. 

  I was struck immediately by subliminal markers as I entered the GOP turf and moved towards the Grand Ballroom of the downtown Renaissance Hotel. First, all I saw were white people. A lot of them old. Thin. Wealthy in appearance. No identifiable Hispanics, or even Asians. There was a smattering of young professionals. 

  Whether I moved around or stood near a central vantage, I seemed invisible to most attendees. I was looking for either familiar or friendly faces but found only a few. One belonged to Bruce Akers, the ever-gracious mayor of Pepper Pike, a consummate political insider who is always ready to listen and engage in reasoned exchange. 
  Another friendly face belonged to Skip Claypool, an affably dogmatic Tea Partier from Geauga County.

  Once I received my media pass [the volunteer handling that chore was, to my delight, a regular reader of the irregular Real Deal] I moved around with a little more verve, confident that I would not be unmasked and expelled.

  I stationed myself at the ballroom entrance, the better to observe  the entering celebrants. Like the Democrats three days earlier, the main event was preceded by a VIP reception. The GOP crowd was more subdued, notwithstanding their  November victories that have them feeling entitled to remake Ohio. ["Give them an inch, they'll make it a mandate."] 
  There was a cash bar and a silent auction display that seemed to feature mostly Reagan adorabilia. Laura Bush seemed more popular than her husband, and there was a heavily discounted offering of books by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi donated by “a former Democrat”.

  There were about 750 people in attendance, about the same number as attended the Democrats’ bash. The room was much bigger, however, so the evening seemed less intimate and the attendees were in the main less gregarious. The evening’s loudest roar came when final passage of Senate Bill 5 was announced.

  New Ohio Treasurer and hometown boy Josh Mandel was given a prime opportunity to speak. There seems little doubt that he will challenge Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown next year, as Mandel went out of his way to address standard GOP hot buttons like abortion that have little to do with state finances.

  The evening’s featured speaker was former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who recently kicked off his campaign to be the Republican nominee in next year’s presidential campaign. While he was blunt, harsh, and direct in his assault on President Obama’s leadership, Pawlenty still managed to appear more reasonable and thoughtful than just about all of his rivals for the GOP nomination.
  Pawlenty denounced President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for not understanding that America is exceptional, and that “our place is to lead the world in everything”.

  I counted perhaps fifteen black faces in the crowd, exclusive of hotel staff, or about 2% of the nominal heirs to the party of the proclaimed "Great Emancipator".

• • •

  The foregoing account may fuel perceptions that I am race-obsessed. Rest assured that I did no racial counting at the Democrats’ bash last Sunday at the Intercontinental Hotel. The gathering was too integrated for that. In fact, by most demographic measure — race, gender, religion, geography — the Democrats were so thoroughly integrated as to render such considerations moot.

  A relaxed tone for the evening was set during the invocation by a priest who delightfully, naturally, enthusiastically and reverentially channeled his inner Father Guido Sarducci. Of course the mood of the Party was enhanced by numerous surprising touches initiated by new county party chair, Stuart Garson. There was  — gasp — an open bar [!], which adroitly shut down before relaxation could turn to mischief, and then reopened when the dinner ended exactly on schedule, as an inducement for attendees to continue mingling.

  The evening clearly reflected from beginning to end chairman Garson’s desire to obliterate any connection with the Party’s slovenly past, dominated by the hail-fellow-well-met atmosphere fostered by its disgraced former officials, Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo.

  On this evening the effort was a complete success. Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson was characteristically brief, but several members of Congress spoke, and all were on and off the podium in record time. There was a professional video that radiated pride in Democratic core values, and a total orderliness to the entire proceedings at the Inter-Continental Hotel. The impression fostered was that of a party focused on its mission.

  The dinner was a pricey $175, in contrast to the GOP’s $50 affair, but the Democrats need operating cash.

  Keynote speaker for the evening was Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald, who is the face of the new, leaner, inclusive, and effective party that Garson is intent on building. His demeanor — humble, professional, earnest, compassionate, and policy-oriented to serve county residents — seems to make him ideal for the role.

Once to Every Chair and Party Comes the Moment to Decide

Barring total revolution instigated by an energetic but unorganized cadre of newly-elected grassroots leaders known as precinct committee people, who would have to be abetted by a heretofore demotivated and enervated hodgepodge of old guard precinct people, Stuart Garson will be elected tonight, possibly by acclamation, to a four year term as chair of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party.

This will be a good thing for the Party in many ways. First, it ends the Jimmy Dimora era without the made-for-television spectacle of federal agents hauling away the sitting party chief at dawn in pajamas and handcuffs. If this happens in the next seven months he will be described as County Commissioner and former Democratic Party chief. One word can make a big difference in both fact and image.

Second, it speaks to a new era of cooperation between the county and state Democratic organizations. Fact is, the stench of corruption cooked up by a few bad actors and ignored by too many others created a political Imperial Avenue that downstate Democrats avoided like the plague it was. They didn’t know who to talk to up here, or even who was in charge. They certainly had no confidence in who they could safely add to the state ticket. Lee Fisher is on the state ticket only because he went after it and could not be denied.

So CuyDems have avoided the worst-case scenario and can begin to brace themselves for whatever future shock may accompany the ex-party officials known in polite company, bar and barroom circles as Public Official No. 1 and Public Official No. 2.

But the party’s issues are far from resolved. It is easy to conflate official corruption and party problems. The voting public sees the Party as corrupt because its lead officials allegedly committed crimes while in public office. Dimora’s replacement as party chief by an ethical and highly-regarded attorney will eliminate the fact of questionable ethics at party HQ. It does not resolve either the electorate’s perception of how the Party operates or the more fundamental problems that enabled the see-no-evil atmosphere that made Dimora politically invincible.

Garson comes into office with the support of all major party officials. He brings with him a mindset of getting good people to run for office and supporting them in their campaigns. He is acclaimed as a fundraiser and possibly a superior tactician. He can articulate a vision for a better city, county, and region. But he is not a big-picture guy in the sense that he sees the same picture as the electorate.

I speak here of the electorate that rejected the status quo in virtually every quarter by astounding margins. No matter that the landslide vote for Issue 6 was the beneficiary of backroom dealing, GOP chicanery, tons of cash, and some of the most unbalanced journalism since the yellow days of Randolph Hearst a century ago. Cuyahoga voters emphatically said no to the old ways of doing business. "Anything but this!" was the overwhelming public sentiment.

Now what they get in January may be no more to their liking. It will depend in large measure upon what the Democrats offer up and how they are perceived to have done it.

This is Garson’s challenge and possibly his Achilles heel. He must find a way to re-arm a party whose campaign apparatus is far weaker than he realizes. And he must quickly learn how to deal with an environment in which transparency, emotional intelligence and consensus-building are increasingly as vital in an era of independent early voting as “boots on the ground”.

If Garson wants to create a user-friendly county Democratic Party that attracts voters who don’t bleed blue, he will open up the Party to new ideas not after this campaign is over, but simultaneously, starting tonight. He will re-energize the disaffected, encourage the disaffected, and invite in the reformers whose collective energy could propel party candidates to local, county and state success this November. He will do this not by his words, but by his actions. And there will be no better time to start than tonight.

The endorsement calendar and process the Democrats normally follow has fallen victim to larger forces, primarily the abomination of an election schedule that combines a June 24 filing deadline, a September 7 primary and early voting that begins in August. The endorsement process is furthered muddied this year by the Dems quadrennial election of new precinct people who won’t by law be fully organized until nearly September.

The fact that a retiring Executive Committee is scheduled to do the endorsements instead of their successors is Machiavellian only to the extent that GOP strategists secured the September primary date while the Democrats were asleep.

A political party has the right and sometimes the duty to endorse candidates who choose to run under its banner, and to do so at an early enough stage to allow preferred candidates the benefit of the endorsed status they presumably worked for and earned.

But these are perilous and unusual times, politically and otherwise. If Garson were to recommend to the Executive Committee that it support a no-endorsement process in this unprecedented time of transition, and then back his play with an inclusive cabinet comprising new and rising leaders such as Mark Griffin, and an unimpeachable commitment to party reform, he would go a long way towards establishing his credibility with both the rank-and-file who had little choice but to ratify him, and with the independents who will be watching with hawk-like intensity to see if it’s S.O.S., different day.

I wrote last fall that reforming the Democratic Party was more important than reforming the county government [here]. Stuart Garson has the opportunity to prove us all wrong or all right.

Party Chair a Done Deal

Last night’s meeting in Shaker Heights of assorted eastside Democratic clubs and affinity-based caucuses was designed to ratify the selection by county party brass of Stuart Garson as the next chairman and to offer him a platform to articulate his vision of the future of the party. Mission Accomplished. Mostly.

Stuart Garson will be elected chairman of the party when the newly elected precinct leaders convene as the party’s 800-plus central committee on June 16 at John Carroll University. The party’s new crew chief brings an old-fashioned roll up your sleeves and outwork the other fella attitude to the task of electing Democrats and defeating Republicans. He projects a rough-and-tumble attitude that may be borne of his workers’ comp practice.

Garson will bring a strong array of assets to the party, the most obvious being his strong rapport with soon-to-be senior Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge. Gov. Strickland is very much on board with Garson’s designation, as his spokesperson Anne Hill said at last night’s meeting. Garson’s manner exuded self-confidence without suggesting arrogance, and a glimpse of his sense of humor occasionally broke free of his straight-ahead approach.

Last night Garson offered his view of the party. He said there would be a zero-tolerance policy for self-dealing by party leaders. He wants to find, recruit, elect and support the best Democratic candidates for public office.

Garson deplored the stagnant vista from his 16th floor Rockefeller Building office, which he said for 21 years has offered up only surface parking lots on the Public Square. He sees this as representative of a collective community failure to create opportunities for young people in this region. Acknowledging that he has reached the stage of life where he is planting trees under whose shade he will never sit, he acknowledged a personal resonance to the city’s decline: all three of his daughters have moved so far away that he can see them only by flying cross-country. He decried the cost of this brain drain, observing the investment Clevelanders make in raising and educating our young who then spend their productive energies building other communities.

The analysis, both heartfelt and keen, did not mask the new leader’s potential problems with the “vision thing”. He seems not to appreciate the “soft skills” of communication and cultural sensitivity that make for successful people management in today’s complex society. He seems more a Woody Hayes disciple of the “three yards and a cloud of dust” football approach than to the fluid, evolving triangle offense of basketball’s Phil Jackson. Thus, he wants to defer party reform until some future day, without giving much thought to how the top-down, behind closed methodology contributed to the atmosphere in which malfeasance thrived. During the Q & A that followed his prepared remarks, he suggested without a shred of hubris that the party’s image had changed, because he was now heir apparent.

Voters, along with many rank-and-file, will more likely demand a transplant in operations instead of a makeover before agreeing to renew a courtship that ended in betrayal.


• • •

Mark Griffin made a concise and eloquent plea for the party to take responsibility for its past mistakes and to take ownership of its future by committing to achieving excellence in all endeavors. He played a difficult hand throughout the process with grace and intelligence and loyalty. What place if any Garson finds for the younger and energetic Griffin will send a clear signal about the substance and style of the Garson administration.

• • •

Michael Jackson, president of the Shaker Heights Dems, did a fine job of running the meeting on a timed agenda. He also deserves kudos for his quiet suggestion to Garson at meeting’s close that the party rank and file want reform and that if Garson seeks to extract a commitment from them to work hard through November, he should offer a reciprocal formal commitment to serious reform.

• • •

One of the brightest lights on the local Democratic landscape this past year has been Michael Ruff’s work with local political parties all across the county. Ruff was director of regional field operations for the Cuyahoga region for the state party. Party executive director Doug Kelly seems to have grossly under-appreciated Ruff’s effectiveness in healing much intra-party discord and tamping down simmering turf battles by reminding folks to keep their eyes on the greater good.

Terri Hamilton Brown wasted no time in outracing the competition for Ruff’s services. He debuted as her campaign manager this past Monday. His countywide contacts are sure to be an important boost to Brown’s field operations.

The kickoff itself was a successful affair, as more than 125 people walked through the door at Massima de Milano’s on West 25 Street, many with checks in hand. Brown, who has never run for political office, has assembled a top-drawer political team that has Burges & Burges for political strategy and the veteran Tom Andrzejewski as media adviser and spokesman.

• • •

A tidbit for the loyal reader who has continued to the end:

Shaker mayor Earl Leiken introduced Garson last night and said that Garson had never run for office. Not exactly. Garson was on the countywide ballot only last November. He came in 28th of 29 candidates for one of 15 seats on the charter review commission. Issue 5 did not win passage and thus the commission was not established.

Psst: Wanna Be Party Chair?

Local Democrats have operated for the last 40+ years with a focus on
1970s issues, a 1950s outlook, and a 1930s ideology. The party leadership
has been provincial, ham-handed, and shortsighted. Conceited but
lacking in self-respect or ambition, they have been content to win
electoral victories based on overwhelming numerical advantage.
Essentially they claimed success that was due largely to demographics.
Since their professional horizons stopped at the county line, it
didn’t occur to them to grow or consolidate their enormous potential political power statewide. Had not their leaders run into legal trouble and public disgrace, there is no telling how long the party’s sorry state would have continued.

A changing of the guard is now underway in the Cuyahoga Democratic
Party, driven by that external force known as a U.S. prosecutor. The
federal investigation appears focused on the public misfeasance of
elected officials, but the public is right to make no distinction
between a party chief and a public official. Both are positions of
public trust. In fact, the public officials known as precinct
committee persons elect the party chiefs in Ohio. Leading Democrats
have finally come to grips with the fact that the head of the party
should not simultaneously be an elected official.

So who will be the new party chair? It’s a pretty thankless job,
apparently, because no one is seeking it openly. The job pays zero if
you are honest. No salaries, no perks. Just thousands of demands from
people who want jobs, favors, endorsements, assistance, advice,
direction, encouragement. You have to raise your budget while enduring slurs, assaults, and subversion, usually but not always coming from the other side. You are kind of like the Daddy of a humongous family with
legions of always hungry and perpetually ill behaved children. Your job is to organize this crew around noble political objectives and win victories that make your community a better place to live. Good luck with that!

So who are the candidates? Well in this corner is a brilliant labor
lawyer who fights by any ethical means necessary to achieve justice
for his injured clients. He’s wealthy and he’s earned it. His friends
see him as compassionate. He raises money for political causes and he
donates money to a variety of candidates, some even outside his party
who hold views contrary to his own. He doesn’t suffer foolishness, which means he has little patience for retail politics. He’s sixty but looks older. You wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t kiss his own grandchildren. Don’t expect him to be patient with questions from the party faithful, who may work 12 hours at the polls in November rain. Nuance is not his thing.

In the other corner is another brilliant trial lawyer. He’s expert in election law, has a passion for public policy, is open and refreshing,and is so transparently candid in a 21st century kind of way that in the smoky atmosphere of county politics people can’t figure out that he too says what he means. He’s 46, looks younger and probably rolls in the grass with his kids. He comes from a family of respected and honored public servants; his father and grandfather served roughly half a century between them as county trial judges. He was honored with fellow team members as Ohio Democrat of 2009.

The choice only seems clear. The candidate first described — Stuart Garson — doesn’t want the job but is willing to serve because party leaders have importuned him. He knows strong leadership is needed to avoid disaster in this fall’s elections. He wants to put any talk of openness and transparency and reform and communication and party reorganization aside until after the next election cycle or two. His will be a top-down, command and control administration. That’s the way it’s always been in the Party, so why change? Get busy and grind out victories at the polls.

The second candidate — Mark Griffin — wants the job but won't exactly say so, because he is willing to stand aside because if senior party leaders actually have command of their troops, it would be detrimental to the party to have a division over party leadership. His manner and style would clearly be effective in helping the party distance itself from its scandal-ridden image. And he is clearly more appealing to the scores of newly-elected and energetic precinct committee people, but they have yet to be
consulted, courted, or even welcomed into the leadership in any coherent, healthy or affirming manner. And, without a champion to lead them, they may not be organized in time to have any impact before the party chair vote looming on June 16.

Tonight, both the reluctant candidate and the reticent non-candidate
are expected to be at what promises to be a lively evening at the
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Community Building, 3450 Lee Road in Shaker Heights. The fun will start at 7pm. Come early for a ringside seat. Expect jabs, some crosses, perhaps a few uppercuts, and certainly a few haymakers. But be prepared to duck, because most punches are likely to be thrown from the audience.

PART II: New Day [not the Bedford Court clerk] on Horizon for Dems as Election of New Party Chair Nears

I promised a follow up to yesterday’s report on the efforts by Cuyahoga Democrats for Principled Leadership to encourage/support/nudge/shove/drag the county Democratic Party towards a 21st century, Obama-era stance of openness, modernity, and inclusiveness.

Specifically, I indicated I would be reporting on the westside CDPL forum held last night. I am going to do so succinctly, because an analysis of where the Party sits suggests a situation so explosive that more time is demanded. I will endeavor to do that over the weekend. So if you come back Monday I promise something for you to think about around the Memorial Day grill or the muni fireworks, assuming money woes haven’t caused your community to cancel them.

So, without my notes, and thus apologies to any community omitted, here goes: About 65 Democrats showed up at Rocky River Civic Center. No city had a large contingent, but almost every westside municipality was represented, including Rocky River, Parma, Bay Village, Westlake, Old Brooklyn, Cleveland Ward 16, Strongsville, North Olmsted, and Broadview Heights. East Cleveland and Shaker Heights were also in the house. Most attendees raised their hands when asked how many were newly elected precinct committee people.

All likely candidates for Party Chair were invited to attend and offer remarks. Only Mark Griffin accepted. A letter from John Ryan, a senior aide to Senator Sherrod Brown, D-OH to co-convener Jan Roller was read, indicating that Ryan could not attend, and was deferring any interest in becoming party chair and endorsing Stuart Garson for the position.

Griffin declined to say specifically, “I want to be Party Chair.” Instead he repeated his remarks from the previous evening, saying that he was “a candidate for change,” that Stuart Garson was a fine fellow who had the votes, that the Party needed major changes, and that he wanted to play a significant role in bringing about that change.

Griffin did say that he was interested in being a vice chair or some other major position of leadership. He emphasized that he did not want to be divisive candidate in any way that would hinder the Party in the critically important fall county and statewide elections.

Translation: Griffin wants the job but sees that the Party hierarchy prefers Garson. So he is willing to support and work with Garson for the good of the Party.

This wasn’t good enough for those in attendance. Some were clearly ready to throw their support behind Griffin’s reserved candidacy, but most wanted the standard “I’m running and I’m here to ask for your support.”

But disenchantment for Griffin’s nuanced non-declarative statement of readiness was mild compared to the anger directed towards party brass and presumed designee Garson. Few in the meeting had ever heard of him, almost everyone who spoke expressed concern about the high-handed manner of his anointment as preferred candidate, and the feeling was virtually unanimous that the Party has performed abysmally in failing to communicate with the newly elected committeepersons about process, scheduling, responsibilities, or anything else.

When Chuck Germana of Parma rose to put in a kind word for Garson, he began by acknowledging that he too, was “disappointed that he is not here”. But when he tried to suggest that Garson would be a concerned and effective party chair, Germana was practically hooted into silence, one woman angrily proclaiming that “if Garson gave a damn about what we thought, his butt would be here tonight!”

Long story short, the precinct committee members present wanted answers that no one present could provide, and by the end of the evening people were talking about strategies that could be employed to make their displeasure known, and perhaps to change what some may have only recently thought would be a pre-ordained conclusion.

Come back Monday! Have a great weekend!!