Acting to head off a legal dispute that spilled over into Lucas County Common Pleas Court, Toledo City Council yesterday rolled back the calendar two weeks to allow Republican Rob Ludeman to act as president momentarily
Toledo City Council declares a
By neighborhood co... - Posted on September 5th, 2007
Tagged: News
• City Council
• Democrats
• Issue
• Legal
• Mayor
• Ohio
• President
• Republican
• Toledo
Good job City Council. This shows their commitment to doing things right and getting on with the important tasks of effectively running the City. Now its time for Czarlton to correct the dozens of serious mistakes he's made since he took office. I know this is a pipe dream, but just maybe Brian Schwarz will read this message and take it back to Czarlton. Hey Brian, even though you don't blog on this site anymore we know you are still watching. At least thats what you informed me a few days ago.
"This shows their commitment to doing things right and getting on with the important tasks of effectively running the City."
Please elaborate.
Because I think ousting a president who was duly elected for no apparant reason other than partizanism has nothing at all to any 'commitment to doing things right'.
Can you fill in the blanks? What exactly were the offenses that Ludeman did that earned his dismissal?? What did he do that was so wrong that they couldnt wait the 3 months that were left in his term??
I still believe that Redfern owes the people of Toledo an apology for trying to circumvent the rules of our government.
MikeyA
He came here to form a bloc to remove Ludeman and replace him with a Democrat.
I don't believe that was the case. From what they said, it was a meeting on party unity. Redfern said that Mark Sobczak took extensive notes of the meeting. If local matters like replacing Ludeman were discussed, then wouldn't Mark make these notes public to validate claims that the Sunshine Law was broken?
"Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern brought the councilmen together and told them to either elect a Democratic council president or stop bickering."
The journalist here does a poor job of qualifying this statement. Who told the jounalist this? Was it Madigan, Shultz, Redfern? Was it his opinion?
The way that this was handled was not good in terms of the impressions it leaves
You could say that about the aftermath as well.
I was at the Council meeting when Ludeman was elected Council President. It was big time game playing and Ludeman should have never been elected. Four political parties were at work that night. The "A" and "B" Team Democrats, the Republican Party and the Carty Party. As I recall Council voted several times and held several back room caucuses before Ludeman was finally elected. Czarlton rigged it. He got the four Republicans and three Democrats to vote for Ludeman. Each of the Democrats who voted for Ludeman were threatened by Czatlton in some way or were promised something. The only way Czarlton wants the Northwest Ohio Democratic Party unified is to have his foot across the necks of the so called "A" Team members. With this move with Ashford as President there is no more "B" Team. There is the Unified Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the Carty Party. We do not need the Carty Party. Its bad for Toledo and its bad for the region.
How did Redfern do that in your opinion mikey?
The fact that they had a do-over implies that it may have been illegal or at the very least inappropriate.
MikeyA
...article on the issue:
"Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern brought the councilmen together and told them to either elect a Democratic council president or stop bickering."
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NEWS16/70...
It appears that this was about more than just party unity. This statement appears to imply that Redfern was telling them how to handle the city of Toledo issues. And it's interesting that only city council members were included in this particular meeting on 'unity.' It didn't include any other elected officials from the area, thus contributing to the impression that something was 'not quite right.'
The way that this was handled was not good in terms of the impressions it leaves - regardless of the legality of the discussions.
That's a good analysis. One other question I had for anyone who'd like to chime in....if Carty is so bad and had to go (and I would agree), then why is it so wrong to get rid of one of his strongest supporters?
"Each of the Democrats who voted for Ludeman were threatened by Czatlton in some way or were promised something."
What were the Democrats that voted for Ludeman a year and a half ago bribed/threatened with?
---------
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt
Redfern is not a member of the Lucas County Democratic party.
He is a State member. He came here to form a bloc to remove Ludeman and replace him with a Democrat. Being that he has no vested interest in LC politics other than to get Democrats elected his motivation was only then to disrupt the city council balance of power. He did it by means that appear to have violated state law. For that he should apologize.
Had the LC Democratic party chairmen called the meeting I would not expect an apology because he has a vested interest into the issues of Lucas County and not just to get Democrats elected.
I would feel no different had it been a Republican State official butting his nose into local politics for little more than symbolic positions. And let's face it, it was symbolic because Ludeman was not trying to prevent anything that our Democrat mayor was trying to push through council.
This was state partisan politics interfering with the goings on of the local issues.
MikeyA
That would seem to be a separate issue from Redfern and the Sunshine Law, no?
Its not wrong. Politics is not about right or wrong. Its about who is in control and who isn't.
Don't know. Fortunately, I'm not in that circle of culprits.
The sunshine laws are to prevent politicians from circumventing open government. Redfern was the one who called the meeting of city council democrats with, it appears, an agenda.
So I would say they are one in the same.
In another thread I said if Redfern paid the $500 fine and apologized and then council redid the vote appropriately I'd be satisfied.
In this instance now city council redid it appropriately, no fine has been deemed needed yet, and I am still waiting for an apology. That was my point.
MikeyA
But hadn't the council tried (unsuccessfully) to get rid of Ludeman in the past? Was Redfern behind those efforts as well?
Well if you are implying that the law wasn't broke or at least that Redfern's actions weren't improper then I ask why did they have a redo?
Plus it doesn't matter if Redfern was involved in prior actions or not. He was involved with this one. He does not live in Toledo, other than getting fellow dems elected he has little to do with the local politics of the area.
MikeyA