Toledo City Council being nonpartisan...if only this was true...

Liberal Dem over at Politics in Mudville highlights some of the Toledo City Council action that the Toledo Blade didn't cover. Yes, some people are not interested in the Betty tries to take a jab at Frank proposal, yet...this part of the article to me was extremely newsworthy:

Ms. Shultz said she was concerned that one councilman could manage a campaign against one of his or her colleagues. She said council is supposed to be a nonpartisan body.

Let's turn to Miriam-Webster for just a moment...nonpartisan - not partisan; free from party affiliation, bias, or designation...


Granted Ms. Schultz is now a Republican, but there was a time when she was a Democrat and on Toledo City Council. Many situations can be found where it would be seriously questioned as to Toledo City Council being "nonpartisan, however, one that I think is especially worth a walk down memory lane was reported on my birthday, March 20th in 1997 in the Toledo Blade by Roberta de Boer:

It involves Toledo City Council denying a special use permit for an assited living center against the advice of the law department.

But council plunged ahead anyway, denying the permit 9-3. The vote split straight down party lines; all the Democrats voted against it.

There are those who say the tally came about because one of the Family Tree's more vocal neighborhood opponents is a well-known Democratic operative, Domenic Montalto. A veteran party strategic heavyweight, Mr. Montalto was once described in a Blade editorial as the Democrats' ``dirty tricks'' man.

As for his role in the protest, says Mr. Montalto:

``Hey, I'm always doing this kind of stuff for other people. I figure I can do it for myself. Did I go to city council? Heck yes. Why not? I have a perfect right to.''

Mr. Montalto's name crops up more than any other in city council transcripts of committee meetings where opponents spoke.

``It was the most blatant example of politics rearing its ugly head. If you take politics out as a justification, I can't fathom any other explanation as to why all the Democrats unanimously denied the permit,'' says Councilman Zmuda.

But Democratic councilmen who were contacted dismiss Mr. Montalto's involvement. Instead, they point to the larger issues of group homes in residential settings.

``Why is no one accountable for how many of these [homes] there are, where they are, and how they affect the value of the properties surrounding them?'' says Councilman Betty Shultz.


This vote came knowing that Gary Taylor,the law department's real estate expert, told Council:

``I think it would be difficult to [legally] defend a denial of the special-use permit in this case. I feel that the Federal Fair Housing Act - the law that I have researched and reviewed in this matter - would find a denial of a special-use permit would be a violation.''

Another moment of irony comes just a short time after that, in April of 1997 as reported in the Toledo Blade by Jeffrey Cohan:

Toledo council voted along party lines last night to transfer member Betty Shultz from her District 5 seat to a vacant at-large spot.

But the switch, approved on an 8-2 vote of the Democratic-controlled council, could trigger changes in how vacant council seats are filled.

Council's lone Republicans, Gene Zmuda and Rob Ludeman, voted against the switch and called for a review of the city charter provision that gives the council discretion to make appointments to vacant positions.

The two Republicans argued that in filling vacant council seats, the city should have to refer to the results of the most recent election. The highest vote-getter among the losers should get first crack at the vacancy. If that person doesn't want or can't take the job, the next highest vote-getter should get the opportunity, and so on, they say.

Ironic how almost ten years later some of the same problems arise again, however one really does wonder how much could be accomplished if Toledo City Council was truly non-partisan...

As something else to ponder...part of a Blade Editorial written in response to Betty Shultz being appointed to the at large seat on April 22, 1997:

Ours is officially a nonpartisan council, so technically it shouldn't matter whether a Democrat replaces a Republican or vice versa, but it does.

The public, which elected a member of one or another party, should get what it voted for.

What the charter commission should look into is not permitting appointments to local offices without an election. And if that means leaving a post vacant until the next primary, or the next general election, so be it. No one should be able to enact laws or spend the people's tax dollars without having been chosen by the people.

Appointing people to elective office is antithetical to democracy.