On Jobs and Leadership

The election is about a week away now, folks. November 8th will determine the future direction of this City. It is in yours hands, as it should be.

I did want to touch base on a couple of items that have come to my attention.

First, being the latest mailer from Mayor Cervenik. He claims that he has helped retain or created about 3500 jobs in Euclid, and, then proceeds to list the various companies that have added jobs.

Jobs, growth, of course, are what this City desperately needs. Jobs, and, the tax revenue it brings are the very life blood of City Services all of you expect.

What the mailer does not tell, or explain is over what time period any of these retained or created jobs occurred: since he became Mayor in 2003? Or, was it in the last year? That is unknown.

If we do some math, the total new jobs listed come to 405. He also listed Bluestone Business Park (former Chase Brass site) as the home to 1000 jobs (when the economy recovers).

Folks, Bluestone Business Park is empty! Nothing is on it. The assumption that it will contain

1000 jobs is pure guess work by the Mayor. Certainly he has no idea when it will be filled, and/or how many jobs will come from it. But, the last check with the owner, Fogg indicated

that any interest so far comes from warehouse type firms, firms that will bring few jobs.

Also missing from the Mayor's piece is the loss of jobs Euclid has suffered over the years of his Administration. Topping that list is Park-Ohio which took about 400 jobs out of the City several years ago.

The point here is that under this Administration, Euclid is on a jobs tread mill: some businesses

have grown, or come to Euclid, others have shrunk or left the City. Too many times the small businesses interested in Euclid are ignored by the current Administration.

To move ahead, we must jump off this treadmill. To do that, not only must we work with our larger firms, which we do now, but, we must begin cultivating those interested in opening

up small businesses. To do that, we must better integrate the activities of the Chamber of Commerce with city efforts to attract and grow jobs.

As a mentioned in earlier blogs, a real strategy to "Buy Euclid" must be implemented for the retail sector, along with developing a "commercial/industrial" pool that encourages local industry

to purchase from Euclid or Northeast Ohio firms. This will truly create jobs and City tax revenue.

The OAPC Report

On October 17th, the Ohio Association of Police Chief issued their report on the conditions of

the Euclid Police Department. Broken down into 18 sections, it should be used as a blueprint to make sweeping changes in how the Department is run. Police Chief Steven Sarver of Newark, and, Police Chief Douglas Knight of Vandalia conducted the top to bottom review.

Any organization is a reflection of its core values and missions statement. In good organizations each employee understands and works toward the values of that statement. The Euclid Police Department current mission statement is confusing and too long, according to OACP. Even when a committee was appointed to review that statement, Chief Repicky ignored the new statement

Leadership communication flows from the core statement of values. Great communication is the hallmark of well functioning organizations. While policies and procedures of the Police Department show a willingness to communicate, it is not translating into real communication with staff. When asked by OACP if “critical information is communicated efficiently” only 4.08% respondents said yes. 57.1% said “no.” In another question, when asked if “your input is considered before important decisions are made” 0% said “yes” while 80.9% said “no.”

Lack of communication has done much to undermine the spirit and cohesiveness within the Euclid Police Department. This is clearly illustrated in the management-labor area. OACP states that “a healthy relationship between labor and management is non-existent at this time.” Part of the contract between the City and Fraternal Order of Police Local #18 calls for a Labor-Management Committee consisting of the Mayor (or designee) Police Chief, and members of the FOP. In well functioning organizations, such a committee should meet every three months or so. Frequent meetings creates open line of communication, and building mutual trust. Euclid’s last meeting was held over a year ago and amounted to little more than grip sessions. OACP recommends that for EPD to move forward, labor and management must be willing to sit face to face and discuss issues before they become problems.

Two cases in particular that has caused much friction within the department. First is the lack of performance reviews for 2010 to the present. Chief Repicky stated that given retirements and supervisory personnel, it would be unfair to give review. The second is the need for 4 police captains.

Chief Repicky (and the Mayor) believed that not filling the position was a budgetary matter. Members of the department believe that it a personal and vindictive move based on who would next be promoted. OACP believes that since no conversation about dropping to three captains occurred prior to the latest opening, there is some credibility to staff feelings. OAC feels until both of these matters are resolved, morale cannot be restored.

Lack of a clear vision, poor communication and labor management mistrust creates an atmosphere where most officers enjoying being out of the Police Station and out on the street. As OACP reports, command staff confirms that “neither the Administration nor the police department establish annual written goals or specific and measurable objective by which to assess Euclid police performance. Further, the police department has no formal mechanism or periodic survey of citizens satisfaction to assess the degree to which the police and service philosophies conform to expectations of the community and city administration. One command officer described the current state of the EPD goals and objectives as “surviving and maintaining.” Another patrol supervisor, in a separate interview said, “We don’t know what we’re going, or what is expected of us.”

In many ways, the department is adrift, its effectiveness more the result of individual officers, rather than organization excellence. An example cited by OACP is in crime prevention. Euclid only one officer is trained in crime prevention techniques, and that the commitment to crime prevention has fallen off, according to a police supervisor. OACP recommends that ALL members of the Department share in crime prevention responsibilities. A good program of crime prevention addresses the community’s perception and misperception of crime in Euclid. Every few years, such programs must be evaluated for effectiveness and adjusted accordingly.

The focal point of all of these issues appears to be Chief Jim Repicky. The OACP report makes no ultimate value judgment of his leadership. Yet OACP reports, that the effectiveness of the lines of communication among the captains and Chief Repicky was poor. In his 3 years as Chief the command staff met together only 3 times, the Chief ultimately ending them all together. This means that critical information was not share uniformly among the chief and the captains. This ties in with the answers received from FOP members as to the three most important issues facing the department. Answers included poor leadership, trust, favoritism, personal agendas morale, no input. While not all the fault of Chief Repicky, the rejection of his leadership by his own staff was clear and overwhelming. He had no real choice but to step down.

One individual the OACP does not mention is Chief Repicky’s supervisor, Mayor Bill Cervenik. As the city safety director, he is ultimately responsible for what happens within the department. What can be gathered from OACP Report is that Mayor Cervenik failed to provide adequate supervision for Mr. Repicky. In the area of labor management, he very well could have intervened and insisted on frequent meetings between Police Management and the FOP. At the same time, Mr. Cervenik allowed members of the Department to speak to him directly, rather than through the Labor Management Council. Thus, he undermined is own chain of command, without providing feed back to the Chief to improve his performance.

For a Mayor that prides himself on keeping the safety forces strong, the OACP provides a devastating critique of his own management of the Euclid Police Department. It appears that Mr. Cervenik placed more value on his friendship with Chief Repicky, than on the well being of the EPD.

An Editorial on the PD Editorial

The Plain Dealer Endorsement

It surprising that the Plain Dealer endorsed Bill Cervenik for another term

What is disappointing are the numerous errors in their reporting and, their blatant disregard for the two challengers, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Mancuso.

First on the PD's error list is that Mr. Cervenik asked Police Chief Jim Repicky to step down. As of today, Mr. Repicky is still on the job, earning his salary as Chief of Police.

Second, Mr. Cervenik did not settle the Department of Justice voting rights case against Euclid.

In fact the City went to court and lost, and, the City Council settled the case. And, what the Plain Dealer forgot was that Mr. Cervenik supported fighting the Justice Department, stating in Scene Magazine that the DOJ "should be ashamed of themselves." for their prosecution of Euclid.

Third, Ms. Mancuso did not lead the attempted recall of Bill Cervenik in 2005. In fact that was

Mr. John Conway. By the way, in the fall election of 2005, after the recall election, Mr. Conway was elected to City Council with 57% of the vote.

But what should insult every thinking Euclid voter is the dismissive way the Plain Dealer treats

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Mancuso.

Mr. Johnson, for example, served the City admirably for many decades as Administrative and

Finance Director. The Plain Dealer calls Mr. Johnson's ideas "small bore." You can almost hear the editorial writers snickering over how clever they were. Insulting is more like it.

Ms. Mancuso's long service at Metro Health probably has done more to save lives of ALL residents in Northeast Ohio, especially for the poor and less fortunate than few others. To insinuate that somehow her housing plan is discriminatory shows that the Plain Dealer's claim of "Editorial Excellence" should more appropriately called "Editorial Laziness.

The Plain Dealer says that Mr. Cervenik is not a showy, big-vision leader. I agree.

If he were, he would understand the very real challenges faced by the City:

Falling population (under 50 thousand)

Growing poverty (16% as of 2009 and climbing)

Empty commercial and retail space

Neighborhoods littered with empty homes

Declining Recreation programs

Decline in City Services

If he were a big vision leader, he would have realized decades ago the value of a lakefront marina, and Shore Cultural Centre for example instead of fighting tooth and nail against both.

The Plain Dealer fails to understand, that solid redevelopment plans will combat Euclid's clear decline.

Instead they talk about his sensible leadership, leadership that has brought to you:

City spending increases at roughly a million dollars each year during his 8 years in office, from roughly 32 million in 2002 to over a projected 40 million this year.

Borrowing 3 million dollars to balance the budget in 2004, and, imposing trash and lighting fees in 2009.

Mr. Cervenik did settle the court case with the Providence Baptist Church, informing City Council by e-mail. (BTW the Plain Dealer could not even name the church, just referring to it as "a black church),

As you might recall, the citizens of Euclid decided to put this rezoning on the ballot, and they rejected the plans of the church. That was in 2004. As of today, Providence Baptist Church

has built nothing at Hillandale. History proves that Euclid residents were right in questioning church plans.

In his role as Safety Director, he is responsible for the chaos that has engulfed the Euclid Police Department, as indicated by lawsuits, the FOP no confidence vote and the Sheriff' Department investigation.

But finally, it is curious that the in making their decision, the Plain Dealer ignored their own reporting on county corruption, and the connection to Bill Cervenik.

4/27/2008: The Plain Dealer ran an article on how politicians and their relatives filled dozens of

well paying jobs at the County Recorders office. Then county Recorder Pat O"Malley handled

the hiring for this agency, jobs were seldom posted and, O'Malley made the final decisions. The Plain Dealer profiled literally dozens of individuals that owed their jobs to political connections.

One of those jobs went to Tony Sustarsic, former Euclid Councilman at Large, son of former Council President Jerry Sustarsic. And, his reference was Mayor Bill Cervenik.

11/30/2008 The Plain Dealer investigation reveals how a well connected company,

1-888-Ohio Comp scooped up most of the Workers Compensation medical claims business in Cuyahoga County. This company's connections reached directly into (former) County Auditor

Farnk Russo's office. Mr. Russo and (former) County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora pressured

mayors to make the switch to 1-888-Ohio Comp. Mr. Russo's son Vince worked for the firm.

The owners of the firm were shown to have made substantial contributions to mayors and candidates for mayor throughout the county.

In Bill Cervenik's first campaign for Mayor in 2003, Tom Coyne, former Brook Park Mayor and

(then) consultant for Ohio Comp and the one of the principals owner of the firm, Sam Lucarelli, contributed $6000.00 to his tight campaign against Ed Gudenas. The following May, Cervenik switched the City to 1-888-Ohio Comp.

(For the full article, see the link below)

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/11/auditor_frank_russos_links_to.html

Mr. Cervenik seemed to be a willing part of the easy, sleazy way the county was formerly run.

The Plain Dealer chose to ignore all this, and chose to ignore the fact the Euclid voters have

clear and competent choices for Mayor, rather than 4 more years of the same old stuff.

The Endorsement Game

The Endorsement Game

President George Washington had a deep suspicion of what we call today political parties. He believed that political parties ("factions" as they were called then) injected themselves between

the citizen and government. This interfered with the direct connection between the citizen and the government. Each citizen had the intelligence to make up their own mind, Washington believed, without the prepackaged ideas produced by political parties. Washington believed parties created followers, not independent thinking citizens that democracy needs to thrive.

President Washington suspicions are spot on. How many times have we seen both political parties pedal a party line, and expect citizens to simply follow? And, how many times have

we seen endorsements based solely on inside party connections, rather than truly on the best candidate.

Above all, party loyalty to seems to trump over all. In party structures, incumbent office holders are the most valuable. Its power and influence for state and national races. Challengers from the same party are frowned upon because that creates upset and discord and wastes money. Parties believe they must save their resources to take on the other party.

In the Euclid Mayor's race, you have this familiar pattern developing. The incumbent is endorsed because they are the incumbent. He is "our guy." Or, "we have always backed him."

And, this is true. Mayor Cervenik always had County party support, and, the support of

certain federal representatives.

You, as the citizen must ask yourself, HOW HAS THIS HELPED EUCLID?

Is the City better off after 8 years of this Administration? Are our neighborhoods safer? Are our rec programs better? Have major projects been completed?

Political parties at all levels have some democratic process to formally endorse candidates. The candidates actually interview for the endorsement. The a vote is held. This is far fairer to all party candidates and, is far more transparent.

At the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party level, NO EUCLID MAYORAL ENDORSEMENT WAS MADE. The vote tally had Mr. Cervenik with 10 votes, Ms. Mancuso with 9 and, Mr. Johnson with none.

What is even more interesting is the vote tally by the local Euclid Democratic Club.

The Results were:

Charlene Mancuso 15

Bill Cervenik 10

Jack Johnson 8

Christopher Lit. 2

Mancuso was the clear winner. But, more importantly, at both the county and local level, the leadership of Mr. Cervenik is rejected BY HIS OWN PARTY

He knows this, of course, so, he has simply called in the party loyalty card, which does not take into account the true condition of the City.

Endorsements are nice, and all politicians seek them. But, I have found over 10 years on City Council and, 5 campaigns that they have little bearing on the caliber of the candidate, or the condition of the community. Make sure you do your home work before voting.

After all, the real power is in your hands.

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.

The Summer Soltice Update

Finally summer has arrived, with Independence Day upon us. City Council is on recess for the summer. I wanted to take moment to update you on some of the past blog posts.
I hope you find these quick updates informative and helpful.

Trash and Lighting Fees

City Council chose to extend these fees for an additional year. My primary reason for voting "yes" on this matter are the cuts in State monies the City receives. The portion of the Local Government Fund, Estate Tax and Commercial Activities Tax Euclid receives will drastically decline in the just passed State of Ohio Budget. That means layoffs in Euclid without the fee extensions.

Finance Ad Hoc Committee

City Council and the Administration did take up my idea of forming an Independence Financial Review Committee. This Committee made up of business folks and citizens will review how the City raises money and, make recommendations on potential changes.

New Jail Postponed

Given several questions surrounding the organization of Euclid Police Department (more on this in an upcoming blog), the Ohio Police Chiefs Organization is currently reviewing all aspects of the Department. The operations of the current jail, and, the needs for a new one are again being reevaluated. With this project, it is now 6 years and counting.

Recycling

This program is simply not working. What we save on dumping fees, and, what we earn from the recyclables collected does not meet the City's costs of personnel and fuel. While the Federal Energy Efficiency Grant is covering the losses this year, if nothing changes, the City's General Fund is on the hook for these losses in 2012

Downtown Storefront Update

As was described in the Feb. 2011 post, the storefront projects at Lakeshore and Shore Center

in downtown Euclid had significant problems: poor workmanship, not following approved plans

violation of building codes. The Administration failed to catch these defects in a timely manner.

This placed your tax dollars (Federal Storefront Block Grants) at risk of being wasted.

After popular uproar over the quality of the project, the City did cite both plazas for numerous

code and building violations. As of today, the Shorecenter plaza has complied with most of the

issues raised by the City and, work has resumed. At Lakeshore Plaza, the issues are greater in number, and remain in dispute.

Meanwhile, City Council (Councilman Langman) passed tougher requirements for storefront

projects, including a better inspection process.

Great Lake Exposition Center

I'm sad to share with you that the Expo Center has closed. No real reason was given.

Our community is in the middle of some very challenging issues. More on those in the next week or so, but, in the meantime, enjoy the summer.

Dog Park Tales

What is a dog park? Its a fenced in public park where people and their dogs can play together. Dog parks are generally managed by City officials with the help of the park users. Perhaps the key element of a dog park is that it keeps dogs away from other park users such as joggers, and children and those afraid of dogs.

Sounds simple enough, but, this is Euclid, so it has turned into an almost 20 year project.

Here is the tale:

In the early 1990's then Councilman Ed Gudenas and, Councilwoman Fay Miller had several community meetings where the residents of the City expressed a desire for a community dog park. Nothing came of it as the research needed to move forward was never done.

Then, in 2002, the Dog Park idea was brought to City Council again, this time by Councilmen
McTighe and Gruber. A formal resolution passed by City Council on Nov 4, 2002 encouraged the Administration to develop such a park. In the followup news story in the Euclid Sun Journal (1/23/03), a resident from Upper Valley Drive that frequently visited the Eastlake Dog Park, stated, "Its not only socializing for the dogs, but it's socializing for the owners. Its the best thing in the world for the owners and their pets." The City Recreation Department did begin preliminary planning, and, Council members McTighe, Gruber and Miller did pledge to form a citizens planning committee. Again, nothing came of it.


Skip ahead to 2008. Several residents had asked me about building a dog park. While not wanting to step on Councilman's Gruber's project, I thought I would see if we could get this project finally done. At about the same time, our Recreation Department said that a set of tennis courts at Memorial Park would be torn down. I thought to myself, "lets convert the tennis courts into a dog park." Its something Cleveland did at Clark Fields in Tremont with great success. The Memorial Park idea offers the benefit of central location, and low cost (as the fencing for the tennis courts is perfect for a dog park.) Sounds simple, right? But, this is Euclid!

I proposed the idea to Kathy Will, Recreation Director. She then relayed the idea to Mayor Cervenik. In the mean time, I started a petition drive to gather signature to see how much support was out there. We gathered in about 200 signatures in about 3 weeks.

Now, 2008 turns into 2009. Its decided instead of moving ahead with the tennis court idea, that
a public committee be formed to explore the idea. The Recreation Department coordinates the
search for citizens to join the committee.

The Dog Park Committee is established. AnneMarie Finch of the Recreation Department is designated as the Administration's Representative.

Dog Park Committee History: Between 2009 and 2010, the Dog Park committee visits dog parks in South Euclid and Eastlake, holds numerous meetings on pros and cons for the park,
rules of such a park, City liability and, location. The Committee (of which I was a Council Representative) looked at several locations, including Hillandale Park, Hero Park, the police mini station area, Sportsman Park (on St. Clair) Sims Park and Memorial Park. The committee also had several discussions on raising money for the park, including forming a non profit organization for fundraising and care of the park. In fact, the Sun Journal Article of 2/19/2009 on the Dog Park, states that the City was seeking donations to build the park. Final recommendation of the Dog Park Committee was Memorial Park, at the site of the former putt-putt course. This would provide easy access for the dog owners, and, keep the dogs away from other park users.

But, hold on: City Council decides that it would be best for Memorial Park if a Master Planning Committee was formed to look at the entire park. Some of the goals of this committee included:
increasing usage of the park, create better signage and landscaping and, improve and add new facilities for the park. The Park Committee meets for the first time in Novemember of 2009.

The City Council is to vote on the final Master plan Monday, May 16,2011. The plan is a good one and, the committee should be congratulated on their work. The only question, of course, is,
how to fund this plan, but, that is for another post.

As for the Dog Park? It is not included in this final Master Plan document. No real reason was
given, only that "it did not fit" into "their" plan. So, after years of talk, resolutions, committees and ideas, we are at virtually the same sport as we were 20 years ago.

What lessons can we draw from this tale?

First, we should not value the input of one citizen group over another. The work of the Dog Park committee should have been incorporated into the Master Plan. At the very least, an alternative
location should have been presented. Instead, that work was thrown away.

Second, this is another example of Euclid being unable to move forward on any sort of project:
or almost 20 years, the citizens of Euclid have asked for a Dog Park with nothing to show for it.
This is similar to far more "important" issues like the Lakefront, or Shore, Euclid Ave, or new jail, etc: a failure to act and make decisions.

What a sad Euclid tale, indeed!

*******************************************************************************

E 200th Street Stroll

Saturday, June 4th 10am to 2 pm

Lots of Fun for Everyone

Need more info? Contact Sherrie @ 216-481-9044, or e-mail sherriezagorc@att.net