Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The evolutionary nature of municipal
government is often projected through the changing of its structural
elements. The conflict that arises between defenders of the current
system and those who wish to modify it to meet perceived deficiencies
is part of the on-going American political struggle between efficiency
and equity. For the researcher, one question of interest is whether or
not significant change has resulted in the adoption of a new, modified,
governmental form and, if so, what specific types of changes have and
have not occurred.
This paper is from a study of the Cincinnati, Ohio, council-manager
government in transition. Voters in Cincinnati, Ohio, adopted a
stronger mayor governmental form in May, 1999, which took effect in
December of 2001. Empirically analyzing the motivations and
expectations of elites (those actively involved both for and against
the change) enables a determination to be made as to whether the change
to stronger mayor has significantly altered the way municipal
government is perceived to now operate. A series of quantitative and
qualitative questions were asked of ‘elites,’ both before the change to
stronger mayor and after the change. This enabled an empirical
comparison to be made between the way mayoral, council, and city
manager roles and relationships have and have not been perceived to
have changed as a result of the adoption of the new governmental form.
Elites interviewed included leaders of the city’s three political
parties, current and former public officials, legislative aides, and
political activists all of whom were engaged in either supporting or
opposing the stronger mayor ballot initiative. Findings indicated that
significant perceptual change did occur, particularly in regard to the
mayor’s power and roles at city hall, council’s relationship with the
mayor and city manager, the city manager’s policy role, and a change
from a generally negative to a cautiously positive perception of
relationships between council members themselves. Despite arguments by
supporters that stronger mayor would enhance efficiency and equity,
that has not happened. This study also found that a major impact upon
the perceptions of elites was the result of the impact of term limits
which, although adopted several years prior, only recently began to
have a major impact on the political process. This study contributes
principally to the literature of municipal government in two ways. It
is empirical, and more work based upon qualitative examinations are
needed in the literature to provide measures and to permit comparisons
to be made. Further, this research provides support for the argument of
those who believe that a convergence is taking place between the strong
mayor and council-manager forms of municipal government.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The Agreement is hailed as groundbreaking and a blueprint for other communities. The Collaborative Agreement is a joint agreement between the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, the Cincinnati Police Department, the Black United Front, the American Civil Liberties Union and the citizens of Cincinnati aimed at improving police-community relations by implementing publicly negotiated policing policies. The question that must be asked is to what extent should the Collaborative Agreement be seen as a blueprint for other communities in similar situations? This assessment will attempt to evaluate the negotiation process that took place. First, a framework will be built through which the Collaborative Agreement can be examined based on the public dispute resolution literature. Then the history of Cincinnati will be explained and a description will be developed of the events that took place surrounding the riots of 2001. The Collaborative Agreement will then be analyzed in order to determine if, and to what extent, it should be seen as a public negotiation model for other communities experiencing tense policy-community relations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Legal historians writing on the Progressive Era have typically located the popular anger at the judiciary in a backlash against “Lochner-style” decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. I argue, however, that the primary source of Americans’ anger at the courts was problems in the administration of justice. Long delays in trials, the belief that corrupted and partisan trials rendered unfair verdicts, and the perception that rulings based on “technicalities” thwarted “real justice,” undermined respect for the rule of law and even led to justifications for extrajudicial violence and lynching. Thus, I argue that Progressive Era Americans’ concepts of law and justice were rooted not in controversial appellate court decisions, but in the effectiveness of town and city judicial systems, where people were most likely to encounter the legal system and develop foundational understandings of justice. Indeed, William Howard Taft’s lifelong commitment judicial reform emerged from his experience with the Cincinnati judicial system as a young lawyer. In 1884, rioters in Cincinnati burned down a courthouse after a corrupted jury returned a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder in a notorious homicide case. To forestall such acts of violence, he believed, judicial administration had to be made more efficient and fair. The judicial reform movement, led by Taft, Roscoe Pound, and founders of the American Judicature Society, resonated throughout the country during the Progressive Era, culminating in state judicial reforms and the 1925 “Judges Bill.” The popularity of these reforms reflected Americans’ desire to improve justice in their own communities.

Publication Type: Poster
Abstract: This research examines response to neighborhood change in Price Hill and Westwood, two urban neighborhoods in Cincinnati. Both neighborhoods are predominately white and working-class and are often portrayed as receiving neighborhoods for an “overconcentration” of subsidized housing recipients after HOPE VI-funded housing project demolitions. Community organizations were active in both neighborhoods, each with stated goals to stabilize the neighborhoods.

Prior literature demonstrates that residents of neighborhoods experiencing perceived change often express concerns about neighborhood decline. A mixed methodological approach was used to examine the two neighborhood cases. Interviews were conducted with individuals from neighborhood organizations to determine if trends in the literature were present in these cases. Neighborhood level quantitative data were collected from a variety of sources spanning from 1994 to 2004 to test whether the perceptions about neighborhood decline were correct. Data sources include: census data, Part 1 crime data, and subsidized housing data. GIS mapping was utilized to visually depict demographic characteristics.

Census data show the neighborhoods did become increasingly diverse, with increases in African-Americans and decreases in non-Hispanic whites. As popularly perceived, the level of subsidized housing did increase, yet the most noticeable income changes were seen in modest increases in the level of middle-income residents. Crime levels rose, yet this increases pre-dated public housing teardowns, a correlation often asserted by interviewees. Census data indicate that property values and the amount of middle-income residents rose during the decade, suggesting that modest levels of gentrification, rather than deterioration, may be occurring in the neighborhoods.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper analyzes location as crucial to homophobia and heterosexual privilege through looking at the representational and discursive webs surrounding lesbian-parented families in contemporary Cincinnati, Ohio. Grounded in feminist and queer literary and film theory, I contrast essays, memoir, and television about West Coast queer families with two of my own experiences as a lesbian parent in Cincinnati. I argue that, and show how, Cincinnati remains extremely homophobic not (just) legally and politically, but through a localized discursive terrain that renders a pro-l/g/b/t equality difficult for locals to envision, much less sustain.