Y’town is on the precipice

EDITOR'S NOTE — This story has been edited to correct one of McNally's pleas that was mislabeled by prosecutors.

The criminally tarnished mayor of Youngstown, John A. McNally, says he won’t participate in the ongoing discussions surrounding the proposed amendments to the Youngstown Home Rule Charter.

McNally’s decision is the proper one given that he lacks the moral authority to express an opinion on how the city can best be governed legitimately. After all, he has the distinction of being the only serving officeholder in the Mahoning Valley who bears a conviction of four misdemeanor charges, including attempted disclosure of confidential information.

In return for agreeing to a plea bargain with state prosecutors in the Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal enterprise trial, the mayor not only held on to his public position, but he is allowed to run for re-election next year.

This mockery of justice has emboldened him. The day of his tap-on-the-wrist sentencing, he announced his intention to seek a second four-year term in 2017.

It’s worth remembering that the Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy was about McNally (when he was a Mahoning County commissioner) and other county officeholders kowtowing to a rich and powerful Mahoning Valley businessman, Anthony M. Cafaro Sr.

McNally’s arrogance in holding on to the reins of power in City Hall should not be rewarded. His opinion as to what’s in the best interest of the city of Youngstown and its residents is worth a hill of beans. Next year, voters should express their displeasure at being represented by an officeholder with a criminal record by giving him the boot.

Meanwhile, there’s work to be done to make city government more efficient and transparent – given the changes now taking place in the aging urban community.

The population is dropping like stone, and by the time the national census in 2020 rolls around, the number of residents will in all likelihood be below 60,000.

That means the tax base will continue to shrink, undermining government’s ability to provide the basic services to its residents.

Thus, drastic action must be taken to transform the way City Hall operates.

The charter review commission, which is in the midst of compiling a list of recommended changes, must take bold action.

Four years ago, 17 proposed amendments were submitted to city council by the review commission at the time, but only four were embraced and placed on the ballot.

The ones that were not adopted would have directly affected the mayor and council.

For instance, one of the most important in terms of dealing with the reality that is Youngstown would have designated city council members as part-time public servants required to work at least 32 hours a week.

Their pay would have been based on the average “full-time” salary – 40 hours – of Youngstown’s residents.

The committee determined that the average salary was $25,902 a year. Therefore, members of council would have been paid $20,721 a year, compared with the $27,817.24 they now earn. Lawmakers also receive full benefits.

The president of council, who now makes $28,117.24, plus benefits, would have had to settle for $21,966.

As for benefits, the proposed amendment stated that if a lawmaker was able to receive them through other sources, such as retirement, employment or a spouse, those benefits would take precedence over those provided by the city (read that the taxpayers).

As for the mayor, the 2012 charter review committee sought to abolish the two-term limit, and also create the elected position of vice mayor.

The vice mayor would become mayor if the position is vacated. Currently, the president of council succeeds the mayor.

Another significant amendment had to do with the way elections are conducted in the city. Currently, the Democratic and Republican parties hold primaries and the nominees then face off in the general election. However, with the predominance of Democrats in the city, the Republican Party is virtually nonexistent.

Given the fact that the Democratic mayor of Youngstown, McNally, has a criminal record, the charter review commission should take the moral high ground and discuss what can and should be done to make his tenure as short-lived as possible.

A nonpartisan mayoral election would address a concern that’s already being voiced in some quarters: McNally will be assured a second term if more than one person challenges him for the Democratic nomination next year.

A nonpartisan primary, on the other hand, would result in the top two vote-getters being on the November general election ballot.

Mahoning County Democratic Party Chairman David Betras has long railed against nonpartisan elections, but in the case of Youngstown, his opposition to such a change would be muted, at best.

Why? Because Betras has made it publicly clear that McNally should not be serving as mayor.

Shortly after McNally pleaded guilty, the Democratic chairman called for his immediate resignation. He wasn’t alone in arguing that a criminal conviction was an automatic disqualification for public office.

The Vindicator’s Editorial Board has long argued that elected officials who violate the public’s trust are undeserving of holding on to the office. It is an affront to honest, law-abiding citizens to be represented by individuals with criminal records.

Just because McNally was given a pass by the state prosecutors and the judge in the Oakhill case, Janet Burnside of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, does not mean the people of Youngstown should have his criminal record rammed down their throats.

A nonpartisan election would give the voters of the city a clear choice – not only for the office of mayor, but city council.

The charter review commission should give serious consideration to submitting the non-partisan election amendment to council. That would force lawmakers to take a public stand on government corruption.

CORRECTION

In coverage of Youngstown Mayor John A. McNally’s trial results, The Vindicator described one of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty as “attempted unlawful influence of a public official” and then referred to that charge as “attempted bribery.”

Neither “attempted unlawful influence of a public official” nor “attempted bribery” is correct. The mayor pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, which in nonlegal phrasing is attempted disclosure of confidential information.

Misidentifying the mayor’s crime arose from an apparent clerical error in one of the many counts of McNally’s indictment: Count 63. The indictment’s heading for Count 63 called the crime “public official or employee’s unlawful influence,” which would be akin to bribery as popularly understood.

But the indictment’s heading for Count 63 was mistaken. The actual language of the indictment quoted from a state law that bars public officials or employees from disclosing confidential information.

At McNally’s guilty-plea hearing, the court granted the prosecutor’s recommendation to amend Count 63 of the indictment to make it an attempted disclosure of confidential information instead of a completed disclosure of confidential information.

But no one addressed the mistaken heading of Count 63 – ”unlawful influence”– as it appeared in the indictment. Because of that heading, The Vindicator described the mayor’s conviction as pleading guilty to “attempted unlawful influence.”

He did not. McNally pleaded guilty to attempted disclosure of confidential information.