Council reduction in 2009: A reapportionment train wreck?
There’s a mistake in the Charter Commission’s Final Report to City Council. It’s in the “possible language” associated with Recommendation 30, the Commission’s proposal to tie the size of City Council to a standard ward population of 25,000.
Recommendation 30’s “possible language” (on page 30 of the Report) reads:
§ 25 DIVIDING THE CITY INTO WARDS
The Council not later than April 1, 2009, shall redivide the City into wards based on the City’s population as of February 15, 2009 as determined by estimated population figures compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau as of that date. The number of wards shall be determined using a ratio of one ward for every 25,000 people based on the estimated population figure, provided however that if dividing 25,000 into the total estimated population figure results in an even number of wards, the total number of wards shall be increased by one. The wards so formed shall be as nearly equal in population as may be fair and equitable, composed of contiguous and compact territory, and bounded by natural boundaries or street lines. When any territory is annexed to the City the Council shall by ordinances declare it a part of the adjacent ward or wards.
If the Council fails or neglects to redivide the City into the required number of wards by April 1, 2009, the Mayor shall within 7 days thereafter submit to Council the plan for redividing the City into the required number of wards, which division plan of the Mayor shall become effective until the next decennial Federal census when the wards shall be reapportioned as provided in Section 25-1 using the above ratio and formula to determine the number of wards based on the City’s population at that time.
The members of Council to be elected under the terms herein shall be elected at the next regular Municipal election in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Charter of the City of Cleveland. The division of the City into wards existing at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall continue until changed as provided herein.
The language in bold type above — specifically calling for Council reduction and redistricting to take place in time for next year’s municipal election — isn’t what the Commission voted to recommend. In fact, the Commission voted down a proposal to incorporate references to 2009 in our recommendation. You can find it in the “Not Recommended” section of the Report, on page 71:
PROPOSAL #45 (Proposal #156):
Question: Should the City reapportion wards for the election in 2009?
Vote:
Yes: 6
No: 7
Undecided: 1
It appears that leaving the 2009 requirement in the Commission’s final recommendation was an honest editing mistake by City staffers, who were rushing to get the document finished by the Friday afternoon deadline. But it highlights a critical issue facing City Council as it decides by August 30 what to put on the November ballot.
Council President Sweeney, who originally proposed the 25,000-residents-per-ward approach, has said all along that he wants it to happen next year. Most Council members seem to agree; in fact, four of the six “yes” votes on Proposal 45 were cast by Councilmen Kelley, Coats and Johnson and Council Clerk Britt. (Councilwoman Cleveland was the “undecided”.) This also seems to be the editorial position of the Plain Dealer, which — I think it’s fair to say — is the main force driving Sweeney and his colleagues down the Reductionist path.
But there’s a big problem with this plan: No data.
To change the number of wards next year, Council must carry out a complete reapportionment process. To reapportion the city into new wards — seventeen, nineteen, fifteen, or whatever — Council must have reasonably accurate population data, i.e. data whose accuracy will withstand a potential court challenge. In a normal ten-year reapportionment, that data would come from the regular U.S. Decennial Census, which publishes its new population counts down to the block level within two years of doing its massive direct survey.
But in 2009, the last Decennial Census population figures will be seven years old, and the next round of figures will be three years away. During those seven post-Census years, Cleveland has undergone a bizarre population upheaval resulting in an estimated population loss of 10% or more, but with glaring unanswered questions about where those “lost” residents (especially those displaced by over 22,000 sheriff’s sales) could actually have gone.
Foreclosure-displaced residents, almost by definition, are either former homebuyers with lousy income and credit situations, or they’re lower-income tenants. Either way, as a group they share a low probability of “moving up” to the suburbs. So what’s happened to the who-knows-how-many of them who used to live in those 22,000 foreclosed Cleveland properties?
Are they homeless (here or elsewhere)? Have they moved in with relatives (here or elsewhere)? Are they living in places that don’t show up in population “update” methodologies, e.g. units where the utilities haven’t been turned on (or were never actually turned off)? Nobody has a clue. Probably nobody is going to have a clue until the 2010 Census results appear.
What we do know is that those sheriff’s sales have occurred disproportionately in a handful of East Side wards, and have disproportionately involved African-American residents.
So if City Council redistricts the city into seventeen wards next year without good, current population data, and the result is a major undercount of the people and neighborhoods most damaged by foreclosures, it’s no mystery which neighborhoods and people those will be.
Anybody here want the City to incur the cost of defending against a Voting Rights Act suit based on racial discrimination? How about the cost of losing?
So before City Council decides to ask the voters to approve the 25,000-resident-ward Charter revision this Fall, to take effect in 2009, they’d better determine whether there’s any way to get good, current 2008 population data by reapportionment time, early next year.
The majority of Charter Commission members were skeptical about this possibility, which is why we voted against including the 2009 requirement in our recommendation. We knew that the Census Bureau’s annual population estimate is irrelevant for reapportionment, since (aside from questions about its reliability) it provides only a citywide number, with no tract or block breakdowns. We had heard from Sweeney’s chosen consultant Robert Dykes that Council might be able to buy more detailed, updated population numbers from a commercial provider like Nielsen Claritas, but their updating techniques are proprietary (i.e. secret, probably not verifiable by the City) — and on the foreclosure-counting problem, Claritas could tell Dykes only that they hoped to have it solved by next year.
In the end, the Commission majority could not justify calling for reapportionment in 2009 unless Council, though its own investigation, could come up with a better solution to the population data problem than we could.
As of today, Council, which is in Summer recess, has 24 days before it must vote to put proposals on the November ballot. I understand that they plan to address this in two special “committee of the whole” meetings. I also understand that they’re hellbent on putting the Commission/Sweeney plan on the ballot, effective next year…
… I was going to add “data or no data”, but I won’t, because I don’t know for sure that it would be fair. Who knows? Maybe as I sit here writing, Council leadership is arranging to interview Claritas and other potential data providers. Maybe they’re reaching out to experts like CSU’s Mark Salling for help in evaluating their options. Maybe they’re even looking at what it would take for the City to conduct its own population census. Maybe they plan to report back to their colleagues on what they’ve learned about how reapportionment could work next year, before they ask for a vote on whether to attempt it.
That’s what I’d be doing right now, if I was Marty Sweeney and I wanted to ask voters to let me redistrict the city next year, just to get the whole ordeal behind me and the PD off my back.
I sincerely hope that’s what’s going on. But I doubt it. I’m afraid it’s much more likely that Council, against the advice of the Charter Commission majority, is about to calmly steer the the City straight into a completely predictable train wreck.
In the words of my favorite train wreck song:
“Trouble with you is the trouble with me, We got two good eyes but we still don’t see…”
August 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
This half-assed or half-hearted work appears to be the work of part-timers, which is what councilpeople are around here, because they hold other jobs. Why do they get the equivalent of another person’s full-time pay if in fact they’re part-timers? Shouldn’t a part-time job get part-time pay, something along the lines of a few thousand bucks a month? This is public service, after all, not a career path. And, shouldn’t they be paying for their own health-insurance benefits and have their own retirement plans? They’re not really full-time government employees.
Likewise, shoud people like Jane Campbell be sitting on a board like RTA’s and marking time until she is more fully vested in PERS. As an elected person, what was she doing in PERS anyway? We should consider all elected officials entrepreneurs, self-employed, corsairs, buccaneers, profiteers. Get them off the public defined-benefit plans and off the health-insurance plans.
And what kind of monkey business was it that Governor Strickland just pulled with Bob Spada and the other guy? Where’s the break in service, where is the avoidance of the conflicts of interests?
August 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Perhaps something could be worked out with the folks over at the Levin School of Urban Affairs. I’m sure there are plenty of people capable and possibly even interested in getting to a solid number. It would be something cool if several different groups around the city could come together to gather the needed data all for the sake of the city. It’s a matter of the city wanting the help and someone leading the charge.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Bill you make a very compelling argument that the data for a reduction of council seats will not be perfect. Nevertheless, the more compelling argument is that a reduction is necessary and overdue evidenced by the 13 to 1 vote in favor of a reduction in accordance with Sweeny’s proposal. Cleveland can’t afford to sacrifice the good while waiting for the perfect.
I also think you outline many reasonable methods for calculating residents for purposes of apportionment. Many smarter than I will be able to crunch numbers using one of the methods you suggested or perhaps a hybrid of them. It may be true that none of the methods will be as thorough (or free) as the 2010 Census, but that shouldn’t stop progress towards reducing a bloated city council. Councilman Cummins report demonstrates just how far out of touch Cleveland is concerning representation compared with peer cities across the nation and why we ought not wait another five years. Let’s move forward with the reduction next year in the fairest way possible. We can readjust if necessary for the 2013 election when updated Census numbers are available.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:19 am
The data isn’t “not perfect” — it’s nonexistent, at least in any sense that a court (or a sensible policymaker) is likely to find convincing. There are no real numbers to crunch. There are only projections and estimates, built on nine-year-old data that’s essentially prehistoric.
As an indication of the city’s total population, projections and estimates are highly debatable but still have their uses. As a basis for drawing detailed ward lines — lines which would be legally required to place approximately 25,000 people in each new ward, within a legally acceptable error margin of less than 5% — they just don’t help.
If Council doesn’t deal with this fact now, the city is going to pay later. That reality is a lot more compelling than Councilman Cummins’ charts, which “proved” only what everyone already knew — that Cleveland’s ward council system is fairly unique, and some people don’t like it.
Incidentally, if you talk to the Commission members you will soon discover that the 13 to 1 vote did not mean a majority considered reduction “necessary and overdue”. A lot of those votes, including mine, simply meant: “We can live with Sweeney’s plan if it makes this issue go away.”
The reason people keep bringing up Brian’s testimony is that it was the only real attempt, in the Commission’s entire six months of discussions, to make a substantive, affirmative case for a smaller Council. His presentation was not especially “compelling” to most of the Commission, but it was an earnest effort.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Tim, not to argue with your basic point, but I’m only aware of a couple of Council Members who hold other jobs — Kevin Kelley is still practicing law and Nina Turner still teaches Tri-C classes. Out of curiosity, who else are you talking about?