Harsh is still Harsh on PB
Harsh is still Harsh on PB
But like, different now lol idfk ok fr fr tho? dude's mad wildin
So, Kris Harsh was on Cuyahoga Today, the official podcast of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party. The person who made the album art for the episode might’ve misspelled his name (a typo? call that Kris Harash-ment), but the rest of the show was just an opportunity for Kris to spout his theories and opinions, albeit with an air and sophistication of a man in a white collar. Let’s talk about it.
As Kevin Kelley’s successor, there’s only so much that you can expect can come from Kris Harsh — but he’s very much exceeded our expectations. This episode of Cuyahoga Today was aired as a preview of what the upcoming debate at the Little Theater at Public Auditorium (500 Lakeside Ave., downtown Cleveland) will be, when Kris Harsh will fight Molly Martin, the Campaign Manager of PB CLE.
This bout is scheduled for one fall, and we’re talking Issue 38
So if you’re not in the know, as it were, there’s a charter amendment coming on up for Clevelanders called Issue 38, which is also known as the “people’s budget” or “participatory budgeting.” We’re not gonna get into what that’s all about here — you can read what we’ve written about it below — but this is the backdrop, nonetheless.
Issue 38 has been hotly contested from all the way back when it was a wee-little suggestion for Cleveland City Council to use ARPA money in a creative way, to now when it’s a full-grown charter amendment — they grow up so fast.
You can read the proposed amendment on the PB CLE website.
tl;dr, Cleveland’s eternally-photogenic Mayor Justin Bibb endorsed it but changed his mind, Council hated it, then the salt-of-the-earth PB CLE people took a pause from their normal everyday lives to grab some duct tape and elbow grease and do some organizing, tried to compromise, and now we’re here. With an upcoming charter amendment for all of the good, honest folk of Cleveland to vote on — or hopefully vote on, the Council hates it when people get a say.
Kris has been one of the more … vocal … members of Council about Issue 38. You can read his (s)hit piece on Cleveland.com or on the Cleveland City Council website, because apparently the government can do politics sometimes — only in the Great State of OH. We have some opinions about his hit piece. You can check ‘em out below.
Alright, we’ll cut right to the quick
We’re gonna go timestamp-by-timestamp through this podcast, review Kris’ opinions, and tell you why we think he’s full of shit.
“And who’s gonna control this $14.2 million?”
Kris replied,
“It’s actually entirely controlled by a 10-member board and an 11th person who works for the mayor. It would be the job of the mayor and City Council to appoint these 10 people, but then they have carte-blanche control over all $14 million. They’re supposed to take input from the residents, but it actually isn’t really even required in the charter language.”
That’s not accurate; this is a gross misrepresentation of the actual language.
From Section 204-2 of the proposed amendment,
“Each year after the adoption of this Amendment, the City will allocate funds to the People’s Budget Fund for the funding of a combination of capital and programmatic expenses selected by City residents, as well as to fund the administrative costs for the implementation of the People’s Budget.”
With a plain reading, residents control the capital and programmatic expenses allocated to the fund for spending on projects.
Section 204-5 then tells us that “spending through the People’s Budget Fund must comply with all applicable state and federal laws” (subsection B) and that “the funds in the People’s Budget Fund allocated to administrative costs shall be $500,000. Thereafter the amount allocated to administrative costs shall increase two percent (2%) each year” (subsection C). Subsection D then tells us that administrative costs can include, but aren’t limited to staffing and
“Community engagement, elections operations, and related: administrative costs determined by the Committee, including those related to community education and engagement, get-out-the-vote, process evaluation, and elections operations such as printing ballots, renting space, maintaining a website, and using digital platforms for voting.”
This clearly eliminates the idea that the committee can just spend however much they want on whatever they want and even places a hard cap on the use of funds outside of the projects for the purpose of supporting the PB process.
We then discover in Section 204-6 that “People’s Budget funds will be used for both capital expenses and time-bound programmatic expenses” (subsection B) and that “People’s Budget funds not utilized in a calendar year will remain in the People’s Budget Fund for use of the People’s Budget process in subsequent years” (subsection G), with a carve-out for future reallocation in addition to within-year obligations.
From the section headings, we learn that the “People’s Budget process” refers to all of Section 204-6, which includes
“an opportunity [for “all City residents who are ages 13 and over”] to offer ideas, turn ideas into proposals, and vote on proposals they want to see implemented through the People’s Budget,”
where “implementation starts after residents vote” (subsection A). This is affirmed in referential language in 204-6(D), which reads “Since residents themselves approve this spending, ….” The existence of this language establishes and affirms the central concept and ultimate tenet of PB that it is residents voting on public spending.
And this is all plain and clear evidence of language establishing resident involvement in the process and control over project funding through their votes on proposals.
What Kris could be misreading is Section 204-3(F), which says that “the [People’s Budget Steering Committee] will oversee the PB Fund.” But Section 204-7 states
“The City must make all efforts to interpret the Amendment in a manner that will fully implement all sections of this Amendment.”
It is therefore logically impossible to implement all of the sections and subsections we just covered in a way that would allow you to construe 204-3(F) in a way that allows for Kris’ response to be true in the fullest and most complete of senses.
Calling this “carte-blanche” reveals one of two realities. Kris either doesn’t know what carte blanche means (and who’s to blame him, sometimes you use fun words to sound smart), or he’s painting Issue 38 with crap because he’ll lose a monecrim of power.
And then the host offers some (personal?) bias.
Matt Diemer, who is the host of Cuyahoga Today, asks,
“So, okay, just because I’m gonna add 2 and 2 together — if City Council is appointing their buddies, for the most part, to be in control of $14.2 million, it seems as though this is an extension of the City Council member and how they want to spend that money.”
Kris rejects the idea that this is the only view of PB, characterizing it as “cynical,” but he stops short of offering a full-throated endorsement of the “idealistic” version. He does, however, let us into his brain once again:
“The sort of idealistic idea is that these 10 people would have a broad interest in getting more voter participation and listening to ideas from the community. It’s not technically required in the charter, which is odd, but the idea is that they would set up a voting process for people to pick projects and then they would implement those projects after the vote.”
This is how I believe the sentences were said; however, because it was spoken, there are two ways to transcribe this quote.
The first is where “it’s not technically required in the charter, which is odd” is actually part of the first sentence about the “broad interest” of the committee members.
It would be unconstitutional to encapture ideological dispositions as part of any criteria for appointment to a public office (regardless of what the law would classify committee members as). Once Issue 38 passes and PB becomes charter law for the City of Cleveland, we believe it would be exceptional and unconstitutional to require, as a qualification for service on the committee, any ideological disposition.
As an ethical substitute, Section 204-4(B) provides demographic preferences aimed at “represent[ing] the diversity of Cleveland regarding age, gender, race, geography, LGBTQ+ status, and socioeconomic status” and requires that the mayor and Council “prioritize the participation of residents under the age of thirty (3), and members of historically marginalized communities.” If you want ideological dispositions that are favorable for PB, then the only reasonable qualification is that you’re a bona fide resident of this city and have a desire to serve on the committee.
If you take the second alternative — that “it’s not technically required in the charter, which is odd” precedes “but the idea …” — then this issue gets even more absurd.
Section 204-4(D) requires that the committee will create a Code of Regulations to govern itself and provides that it “must include regulations such as whether the Committee will have officers and how they will be selected, and a process for decision making.” Decision-making includes Section 204-6(A-D) which collectively allow the committee to create a voting system and apportion eligible total funding towards neighborhoods or clusters of neighborhoods based on “poverty data and information about historical and present-day social inequities,” with considerations for equity and a prohibition against intra-neighborhood gerrymandering.
So if he’d taken the time to read it, he would’ve known that Section 204-6 directly refutes his terrible opinions — especially 204-6(A) which says that
“voting will occur through a system developed by the Committee. Implementation starts after residents vote.”
“We have to make cuts somewhere.”
Kris then talked about Chicago’s use of PB on a ward level and how they use discretionary ward-level funding, instead of having the funding taken as a percentage of the general fund and, more significantly, as a requirement of their charter.
After a monologue, which you can watch for yourself, Kris gives a list of areas that he claims PB supporters are uncomfortable with saying should be defunded.
“So in order to take $14 million out of that budget, we have to figure out where we’re taking it from. And this is something the PB supporters really don’t like to talk about; they always just say, ‘well, that’s Council’s job to figure it out.’ When we say, ‘ok, well you know, the largest expense in the General Fund is Police. Should we take it away from that?’ And they say, ‘oh, we didn’t say take it away from the police.’ And we’re like, ‘ok, well, it’s more than the entire Department of Aging’s entire budget. Should we take away from that?’ And they say, ‘well, we didn’t say that.’ And we say, ‘well ok, it’s also more than the entire Building and Housing Department. Should we slash Building and Housing?’ And they say, ‘oh, we didn’t say that.’ They want us to make these cuts, but every time we put out a way to make the cut, they say, ‘oh well we’re not saying to do that.’”
We’re not PB CLE and if you want their take, you’ll have to ask them, but here’s what we would say if he asked us.
Cut the Police budget if you want. They’re overfunded, and the City of Cleveland has lost all trust in its ability to oversee its police. That’s what Issue 24 was for.
Cut the Department of Aging’s budget if you want. You should probably merge with the County’s before cutting it, but by all means, act however you see prudent.
Cut the Building and Housing Department’s budget too if you want. You’re the City Council. It’s your decision. Do as you see fit.
This isn’t an issue of what PB supporters think should be cut within the City. If you think that you’re best able to manage City funds, then why all the commotion with having to budget for PB? You’ve been very clear about City Council’s priority in stewarding our public money. This isn’t our job; it’s yours.
But Kris doesn’t care about how the 2% is decided. He’s fear mongering, trying to signal to groups that if PB CLE passes, he will make it hurt them. Council is the one who decides where it comes from. Why would Council choose to cut public services before director and officer compensation? Why can’t they consolidate the swamp of director positions they have? What about cutting back tax abatements for commercial property? Why does he want us to do his job for him?
HE IS TRYING TO PLAY CLEVELAND VOTERS FOR FOOLS
Kris then tells us,
“One of the problems with taking 2% of the General Fund away is that you incredibly hamper — there’s 38 bargaining units in City Hall. And, take EMS. They come to the table, and they want to negotiate raises for their members. If the City sits across the table and says, ‘Seriously? We’ve lost 2% of our General Fund for the last 3 years,’ that destroys their bargaining position. They don’t have the ability to claim, to ask for more money for their members if the City is continually losing money to this PB fund.”
This is an interesting way to flip the script (lie) and make PB into an anti-union, anti-labor, and anti-worker policy — which apparently works seeing as the unions are against it. An alternative strategy would be to end the unlimited spending into stadiums to the benefit of privately-owned franchises; to digitize government processes and eliminate or reduce glutinous manager, director, and officer-level positions; and to introduce targeted taxes, fees, and fines against businesses and high-wealth individuals who exploit the City of Cleveland and its affinity for preferential tax treatment.
Or here’s a novel idea: Invest in the City’s critical infrastructure and facilitate residential full employment to grow our total tax base and make up the difference in nominal funding. Not all solutions here need to be reductions in spending.
Sometimes the best way to have more pie is to just bake more pie.
Simple as.
And now for some fightin’ words.
Kris goes,
“They then went out, and they got this on the ballot, to be frank, by paying. They spent over $3 per signature; they spent $20,000.”
Matt interjects with,
“Wow, that’s big.”
And Kris continues,
“They spent $20,000 to get 6,400 ballot signatures. That’s over $3 per signature. They talk all the time about their grassroots campaign, and yes, there are volunteers — there’s volunteers on every project. But they ultimately spent over $3 per signature, and that’s how they qualified for the ballot.”
You have to wonder with statements like this what Kris means to say. As a factual matter, you can take expenses and divide them across anything — votes or signatures alike. And in a colloquial setting, you can certainly make these statements.
But where do you think that money went? Is it unethical to pay people for their time and effort canvassing? You can’t simultaneously take a pro-labor and pro-union approach to then turn around and imply that certain people doing certain activities shouldn’t be paid. That’s clearly anti-labor and anti-worker.
Of course, that’s the charitable interpretation. The insidious version is that he’s implying that PB CLE bought signatures, which is illegal. And even if this strategic ambiguity is just some “clever” political rhetoric, it takes some next-level malignancy to propagate mal-information about the civic processes. If not malignancy, then a negligence so profound it has its own orbit.
Here’s a fun game. How much did Kris pay per vote?
Well, from his 2021 pre-gen report, his campaign committee spent $10,601. And from his post-gen report, he spent $7,773.94. That’s a total $18,374.94 for that election alone. And he only got 2,781 votes in his favor. So from this back-of-the-envelope math, he spent $6.61 per vote.
That’s at least twice as much as he claims PB CLE spent per ballot signature. If there was a point he was making here, it’s clear that it wasn’t a very good one.
“Let he who ran a successful political campaign on $0 talk shit about other political movements who spend money in order to succeed.” —Jesus, probably
“I think that they’ve picked an issue that has no teeth, and it’s destined for failure.”
Well that’s an interesting idea there, Kris, because if you really thought that that was the case, then what’s the purpose of opposing this? And being so public about it?
And why is Council President Blaine Griffin also so open in his opposition?
Why was there an emergency ordinance, sponsored by Blaine, to “provide the public information about, and to support or oppose passage of, proposed tax levies, bond issues, and other ballot issues.” And why was that pulled from consideration? Could it have been that Blaine overstepped his bounds and sponsored an ordinance that would permit the City Council to engage in activity that’s illegal under OH law?
And what about OH State Senator Jerry Cirino’s new bill that literally just makes PB null and void? If this had no teeth, then why would this be necessary, especially when, in the opinion of Ohio Legislative Service Commission attorney Alyssa Bethel, “a court would need to determine whether the bill’s prohibition is related to [the OH General Assembly’s “authority to limit a municipal corporation’s authority to tax, assess, borrow money, incur debt, and loan its credit”], or falls under home rule authority.”
Why would we test the limits of OH’s constitution for something that’s toothless?
We think you doth protest too much
And finally, how do you tell a 12 year-old apart from a 13 year-old, and other profound questions
Kris says,
“I mean […] they’re gonna set up a city-wide election process for 13 year olds. And I don’t know how they’re going to (A) ensure that only Cleveland residents vote, (B) ensure that people don’t vote multiple times, and (C) how do you tell the difference between a 12 year old and 13 year old? They don’t carry ID. And they’re not using the Board of Elections. They can’t go through the BOE; the BOE doesn’t have files for people under the age of 18. They just can’t administer this election.”
Oh where to begin.
First of all, if Kris can’t figure out how we can tell residents from non-residents, he needs to find a new career path.
Second of all, we’re worried that Kris doesn’t know what a birth certificate or age verification is. Age verifications happen all the time for neighborhood softball — in your own neighborhood, if you’ll believe that. If you’re telling me that a community organization has the ability to require a birth certificate to verify a child’s age but the City of Cleveland can’t somehow figure out a similar system, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. And if you tell me we wouldn’t have a way to know if people voted multiple times, then I’ll tell you that spreadsheets exist.
“They’ve gotta figure out how to police that election when they don’t have state authority to even ask for ID. If you go to vote at the PB election, they can’t say, ‘show me your ID.’ They have no authority to do that; the state didn’t give them that authority.“
Where in the ORC does it say that you need permission from the state to require ID for anything? And where does it say that a municipal corporation can’t require ID as part of its conduct of civic processes?
What’s missing here, apart from the ID thing which is laughable, is that when Issue 38 is adopted and becomes charter law for the City of Cleveland, the committee that will be appointed to carry out the PB process will be part of the city. Participation in PB will be participation in local government. It’s dishonest, idiotic, and downright braindead to say that the City can’t do these things. And it’s even more foolish to pretend in these conversations that PB will be anything but an extension of the City of Cleveland. That’s the whole damn point.
We’re firm believers that anyone is capable of anything, given the right support. So to put our money where our mouth is, if Kris reaches out publicly, we’d be happy to help him through the process of auditing a high school AP Government class.
Vote for Issue 38.
Subscribe now for biweekly OH hot takes from the left. Visit our website for more info at neoleft.org. Keep up with our social media antics on Twitter and TikTok.