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.