On Leadership and Vision for Mayor of Euclid

As the fall campaign deepens, the qualities of each of the Mayoral candidates are revealed.

The next mayor of Euclid absolutely must show both vision and leadership on the issues facing the City.

Recently, each of the candidate discussed the Shore Cultural Centre in an edition of the Euclid Observer. Each were asked about the City's financial support of the Centre, and, continuing

of the Coral Management Contract of the Centre. (See post "Shore'd Up, by Coral for my thoughts on Shore)

Their answers reveal much about their general vision and leadership qualities they would bring to office.

Bill Cervenik

Bill Cervenik is now an enthusiastic supporter of both Shore, and the Coral management contract. As he freely acknowledged, for about 18 of his 20 year public service he could see no value of Shore. In fact he was involved with ideas and plans to end Shore as an Arts and Culture Center: The 1990's Tops Supermarket plan, various condo plans for Shore, and, Senior Housing.

Asset, or burden? Demolish it or invest in it? Mr. Cervenik could not really decide, being unable to demolish the building or commit funds to fix it. In other words, the Shore issue was

allowed to drift so long it almost became unsalvageable.

His recent support for Shore is welcomed, of course. But, for his point that backing Coral proves he listens to good ideas. Well, the Coral management idea was originally mine; I then took to Council President Holzheimer-Gail and to the Economic Development Director. I can tell you that Mr. Cervenik was hostile to the entire idea. In both news stories and internal City e-mails, it was entirely negative. Only by teaming up with the Council President, and the Shore supporters, did the private management idea have any chance to succeed.

This shows the fatal flaw in Mr. Cervenik's leadership style: He judges ideas not on the merits, but, on who proposes them. This "us vs them" attitude has set Euclid back decades now.

Jack Johnson:

While not saying it directly, clearly Mr. Johnson hints that Shore should be closed. He states

that he supports Arts and Culture, just not necessarily there. He is puzzled and confused as to what actually takes place at Shore. He also claims that the CEO of Coral Company stated that

in hiring a development director, the building would be self-sufficient. All of this shows a total

lack of understanding of the Coral Strategic plan, a plan that Mr. Johnson should know very well

having sat through practically all the debates before City Council adoption.

What is also disappointing is that his answers show that he has not followed the developments at

Shore closely at all. He seems totally unfamiliar with the mission statement as developed by the Coral Co. and, adopted by the City: "To provide dynamic and high quality arts, cultural and lifelong learning experiences that build community, enhance quality of life and strengthen Euclid." The fall catalog provides countless examples of new arts related classes.

Even if you believe that Shore has no value, and, should be closed, what Mr. Johnson proposes

really offers the community no solution at all. He wants to put it on the ballot.

Shore's projected loss this year is about 120K. The pools lose about 150K per year, and the Orr Arena about 50K per year. Are these items also to go on the ballot? If not, why not? After all,

the vast majority of residents have not been to the pools, or the ice arena for decades, if ever. Out of all of these, only Shore really has a chance to become virtually self sufficient, and, is the only one that consistently draws people into downtown Euclid.

For someone professing to bring fresh ideas, the ballot idea is way beyond old and stale. Is Euclid to hold a special election to decide this matter? That will potentially cost the City thousands of dollars. The bottom line is that if he wants to get rid of Shore, do it! Don't hide behind a ballot initiative.

Charlene Mancuso:

Charlene Mancuso has shown clear commitment to Shore as an arts and cultural centre from the very beginning of her time on Council. Her answers show none of the "mush" Mr. Cervenik or Mr. Johnson have shown over the years. She states that Shore is an asset of the City's and, should be managed as such. Coral has done that. Clear vision, decisive response, reasoned approach.

Christopher Litwinonwicz

I was unable to really tell what his plans are for Shore. This shows a chaotic approach that can not serve the community well.

To summarize, Mr. Cevenik took decades to see the value of Shore. That is time wasted. Mr. Johnson seems to want Shore closed, is not aware of the progress at Shore and, wants to hide behind the old idea of a ballot initiative. Mr. Litwinowicz is incoherent. Ms. Mancuso's stance on Shore shows vision and leadership.

Euclid is desperate for both in the Mayor's office.

Councilman Langman is Glad to be Back

Why that title? Two reasons: first, because I have neglected the blog for far to long. Most of the summer was spent on working on my campaign literature and, the Euclid Post. Second, because

as it turns out I am running unopposed so will be back on City Council for the next term.

I find myself with mixed emotions about this. Happy to continue working for the citizens of Euclid, sort of glad to see what it is like to run unopposed, but, troubled that there are so many races in Euclid that are unopposed.

This is now two election cycles in a row where only 2 out of 9 council races are actually competitive. This is a bad pattern developing. As the City Council moves into the four year staggered term era, you can very possibly have some elections years where no council race is contested. That means that in the future, someone may gain a seat on City council by simply filling out some paper work and turning that into the Board of Elections. This is a disaster for our democratic process. It is a disaster for Euclid. We face very serious problems, very serious challenges. We will need the very best in leadership and ideas to meet those. The only way to get that in your public officials is to have spirited and contested races where the candidate with the best package of ideas should win.

City Council Resumes:

Tues, Sept 6, saw the first meeting of City Council. A 5 hour marathon. After ten years, folks, I still don't know how a meeting can last that long. I will only touch on one matter here for now as it relates to Council elections. The Federal Department of Justice is again reviewing information

related to the set up of City Council. As you might recall, the Department of Justice began a long
investigation into the City of Euclid back in 2002. Specifically, they wanted to determine if the method of electing City Council members violated the Federal Voting Rights act. After a federal trial, it was found that our former system of 4 wards and 4 at large council seats violated that act. The City was then divided into 8 wards.

The City's Charter calls for the adjustment of ward boundaries after every ten year federal census. This is to ensure that each ward contains about the same amount of residents. City Council passed changes to the ward boundaries in June. In short, these changes require the shifting of several streets from one ward to another. Several wards, saw no changes at all.

Yet, the City has been informed that the Department of Justice wants to review the entire process. At best, the DOJ will review, and, do nothing. At worst, they could file a motion with the federal court to block the fall council elections. It seems as if the DOJ feels that it must monitor the City for years and years to come.

The Fall Mayoral Election.

The method of electing City Councils has drastically changed in the ten years I have served.

Back in 2001, the Euclid citizen could vote for 6 council candidates in any election (Council President, 4 at large council members, and your specific ward council person). Now you can only vote for two. Many of you have no choice at all in electing a council representative. After this election, you will no longer be able to throw all the "bums" out in any one election. The Council elections will now be staggered: only 4 slots open every two years.

The result of all of this will make City Council elections less important. At the same time, it elevates the importance of the Mayoral election. As the Mayor is the only full time elected official, leadership and vision in this position is absolutely vital if Euclid is to flourish.

During my ten years of service on the City Council, I have served with both Mayor Oyaski and

Mayor Cervenik. Very different individuals, but, the direction of the City has remained very much the same. In fact, the City has followed the same course for at the very least the past

16 years.

As you decide who should lead the City going forward, you must first decide if you think the City is on the right track.

I don't believe that the City is on the right track. This is why I ran for City Council to begin with. While Euclid has made some progress, we are simply not moving fast enough, or, pushing the right initiatives that can truly make Euclid the community we all want to see.

Keep this in mind as the fall campaign season unfolds. I will be updating the Blog at least once a week (more often, I hope) to explain why I believe real change at the top is needed and, who can really deliver.