Voters should reject ballot issue to abolish wards

The proposal to abolish ward representation in Middletown should be rejected by voters next week. The way it was placed on the ballot was questionable at best and we share concerns about whether some sections of the city would be adequately represented on City Council.

On Tuesday, Nov. 3, voters will consider Issue 26, which would:

• Amend the city’s charter to eliminate ward representation on City Council, undoing the charter change that voters first approved in 1990.

• Change the size and composition of City Council. Currently, its seven members include an at-large mayor, two at-large members and four ward representatives. Issue 26 would reduce the size of council to the mayor and four at-large members.

We agree with some of the ideas that Issue 26 supporters and the charter review commission (that originally proposed the measure) stated as the reason to put this on the ballot — that is, Middletown needs its best minds running for public office and guiding City Hall as the city tries to reverse its economic decline. However, we don’t believe that supporters have made a convincing case that ward representation has impeded Middletown’s progress.

We also do not approve of the way that Issue 26 (Issue 18 in Warren County) made its way onto the ballot. Frankly, it smelled to high heaven.

If you recall, City Council voted narrowly not to place this recommendation from the charter review commission on the Nov. 3 ballot, while approving several others. Council’s rejection of the recommendation prompted a citizen referendum drive which failed when the Butler County Board of Elections determined that petitions lacked enough valid signatures.

That should have been the end of the story.

Despite the failed petitions, council agreed to bring the recommendation back to the table in August after city Law Director Les Landen explained that he had consulted with outside legal counsel who agreed that council could still place the question on the Nov. 3 ballot. But council had already rejected that idea in its earlier vote, right? Wrong.

Another council vote was called for and council member David Schiavone changed his earlier vote, allowing the issue to go on the ballot. It was an about-face for Schiavone — whose nearly 16 years on council have been as the 4th Ward’s representative — who earlier had defended the ward system.

It’s no wonder that critics of Issue 26 — who say its passage will deny parts of town representation — are distrustful of City Hall and believe a not-so-hidden agenda is at work.

The question should have been dead after the petition effort fell short. Yet city officials took extraordinary steps to find a way to revive it and to coax council into another vote, and Schiavone’s reversal was all it took to place it on the ballot. The maneuver was wrong and has cast a cloud of suspicion over this important debate. It is reason enough for voters to reject Issue 26.

Council members who placed the question on the ballot glibly say that they merely want the public to have the opportunity to consider it, and have avoided a serious discussion on the merits of the ward system. Meanwhile, supporters of Issue 26 have said:

• A smaller council will be more efficient and less prone to divisiveness.

• The city isn’t so large that ward representation is needed.

• Eliminating wards will allow voters to choose the best candidates from across the entire city, and the city needs to elect the best possible candidates in order to move the city forward.

Opponents of Issue 26 contend that its passage:

• Would likely result in a council made up of the city’s more affluent citizens, possibly all from the same ward. Critics point to pre-ward councils made up of members who lived in the same part of town. It’s generally believed that the more affluent 3rd Ward — which generally has a high voter turnout — will come to dominate the post-ward council.

• Would prevent potential candidates with limited resources from running because at-large campaigns are more expensive than ward campaigns.

• Would disenfranchise voters in some sections of Middletown.

The loudest voices in opposition to Issue 26 are from the 2nd Ward, which contains the highest concentration of African-Americans in the city. Twenty years ago, distrust and rancor over past grievances prompted 2nd Ward residents to lobby for ward representation — culminating in the 1990 charter change that put ward elections in place — and now 2nd Ward leaders are fighting to preserve wards and to keep a seat at the council table.

Ironically, the 2nd Ward’s penchant for offering weak candidates in recent years is probably the best argument for abolishing ward elections. Since the 2004 death of the 2nd Ward’s first representative, Robert “Sonny” Hill, his successors have not been able to fill his shoes and have largely been ineffectual. Unfortunately, this year’s 2nd Ward candidates aren’t likely to change that pattern.

The attempt to streamline council and jettison the ward system is also likely rooted in some of the fierce arguments and embarrassing YouTube moments that made City Council a laughing stock in Southwest Ohio a few years ago. However, the current council has demonstrated that seven members — including four ward representatives — can work together effectively and make progress on important issues, as this year’s revamping of the Section 8 housing program demonstrates.