And here is why that might be best for everyone; Columbus, Ohio could be a model city for others who would like to see the break-up of "Good 'ol Boy clubs in politics, because we have an opportunity here to stop the practice of "gifting" public offices to the closest friends of party bosses. In 2011, Franklin County Deputy Sheriff Scott was selected to succeed Sheriff Jim Karnes when he passed away while still in office and some might argue that when that happened it was the same thing; but if one were to look closer they would see that he eventually became the practical choice to do it because he was the only member of the department who stepped forward with a willingness to assume command and show a genuine interest in the top job. The chief deputy (Steve Martin) who had plans to retire was asked to step up and steady the ship until a more permanent sheriff could be found and he did, but only for a very short time; he made it very clear that he wasn't interested in staying in the position for any longer than he was needed, only until they could select someone younger who had the experience through years of service as well as knowledge of the office and who would be committed to be there for the long run. That was Deputy Scott. When the time came for the public to weigh in and make their decision it chose Sheriff Scott by an overwhelming margin over his opponent because they saw and they knew from what he was able to prove that he was indeed the right person for the top job. That didn't happen because he was hand picked by a few, but because his credentials and demonstration of leadership held up!

As a former deputy and a retired police chief I get that. The largest police department in the state of Ohio (Columbus Division of Police) has a history of naming police chiefs from within their department from among commanders and deputy chiefs because they are people who work their way up through ranks by doing the job every day for decades and they understand the mechanics and leadership of the job as well as the expectations of the community they serve. My own department functioned the same way for many years and in fact, its current chief is someone I hired as a young recruit but who didn't earn his way up until 9 years after I retired, so that decision was one I had nothing to with and it was made long after I was gone but was in keeping with what made sense.

But let me try to make sense of why it might be a good idea to stop the practice of appointing people to city councils and then elevating them to higher levels just because a small group of politicians like them better than someone who might also be able to perform the duties of any particular office. City leadership is something similar to what Sheriff Scott has being doing all along on the county level; the job of law enforcement is central to the safety and well-being of communities and the sheriff has demonstrated for a few years that he is capable of managing the largest sheriff's department in the state of Ohio, and in so doing he has earned a reputation for moving that agency in a forward direction that changes for the good what needs to be changed in regards to how things have been done in the past. He does that under the same budget constraints as any business or other political body; that is, he must find ways every day to stretch what money is available to spend to provide the services needed to keep us safe while keeping his organization running efficiently and evolving to meet community needs.

Columbus, Ohio is a good city, it is the fifteenth largest in America and one that has had a reputation for being admired by others around the country for decades for its diversity, job stability and overall environment. Our economy is good and line-by-line we stack up well with any other in the country for places to live, work and raise families. We did not become great solely because of the current mayor or our current city council; nearly all, if not all of these people came into prominence in a town that has flourished for years, and most of them got their start by being hand picked and gifted positions in public offices when they started out as politicians. But unlike law enforcement where training and proven on-the-job performance can separate those who are capable of doing such stressful work from those who aren't, there is no discernible reason to believe that bright minds from all walks of life cannot lead a city they love and care about, especially when they show the willingness and demonstrate the dedication to seek the post. Some of the best mayors in the country are in smaller towns and some of them have been farmers, store clerks, door-to-door sales people and common laborers and they began their public service careers with not much more going for them than strong desires and visions for what they felt was right. In some of their domains what mattered most was character and reputations, not what what was printed on sheepskins or where they hoped to leap from within the same four walls of city halls.

To say that I was shocked when the local Democratic party came together and endorsed one candidate over another within their own ranks, even several months before the voting public has much of a chance to hear from either candidate and what their visions for the city were would be untrue; in fact, I wasn't shocked at all because that is how politics is played in a system that has functioned this way for too long. What the Democratic party has accomplished by jumping the gun to lift their favorite candidate into a brighter public spotlight is what they have been doing for decades; appoint someone to city council with no input from the public, thus allow them to run as an incumbent for that office with more name recognition when the time comes for public decisions. And then after a modest tenure as a member of council hoist them up again to the next level. It is a game played well by many local, state and national political juggernauts and the one in Columbus has been well-oiled for a very long time. Since endorsing its favorite son to take the reins from the out-going mayor (Michael Coleman) their candidate has already topped a million dollars in campaign fund raising to spend on television commercials, yard signs and other means of making his name more familiar. That doesn't necessarily equate to the best person for the job, just the one who has the most money. It has long been understood in election after election that the one with the most money usually wins and that is something that leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of us who know we can do better and believe we have missed many opportunities to do better.

What having the most money has proven sometimes is that it is easier to buy ones way into office than proving they are the best for the job. Of course it doesn't mean that we won't be fine regardless of who wins this race for mayor, and in fact I will gladly concede that we will be regardless. But what I hope everyone considers is that breaking cycles is necessary sometimes because if we don't believe that then we are destined to slam the doors of new thinking, and when we do that we lock out the possibility of finding new roads that might be better for us all. In other words, business as usual works, but can we be better?

We can find out, because we have the opportunity here to change the way politicians hand one another these powerful positions by not allowing them to have their way. Where is it written and who can prove that a candidate for mayor whose best credentials in one election after another is already being a member of City Hall?  Can someone outside of that rotating system possibly do a better job?

Perhaps someone who holds a position from a county-wide level who has demonstrated that he means what he says when it comes to the mission of his office could do it. Yes, Columbus is already in pretty good shape as large cities go and any of the four announced candidates for the office of mayor may be capable of keeping it so; after all, it is our history. However; I am tired of the cycle of hand-picking our leaders just because a few of the most powerful people in local political parties make that decision for all of us. Hand-picking the leader of a law enforcement agency is not the same as picking an individual to run a city. When the local Democratic party which I have supported all of my life prematurely threw its weight and its money at one candidate over another as it did, it raised a red flag that I hope everyone saw. I have lived in Columbus all my life (62 years) and I have been to city council meetings here and I have seen the process. Sheriff Scott has lived here too and it should be admirable that he has shown a willingness to say to his own party who has held control of local government for years that there might be a better way to accomplish things. That took guts.

Many cops have gone from that area of public service to becoming office holders in other fields of government but I don't have any recollection of career politicians like mayors or council members trying to take on the responsibility of being cops, let alone being one that leads an agency of around one thousand employees like Sheriff Scott does that is responsible for a budget that is in the tens of millions of dollars. If community safety is the concern we all believe it is then shouldn't we consider that area of a candidates resume? I mean after all, it is where most of our tax dollars is spent, in fact, nearly three fourths (around 70%) of the budget for the city of Columbus goes to public safety! Who can best understand that and make those dollars be most effective than someone whose entire career (more than 30 years) is directly related to that task?

As a former police chief who had to constantly battle a city council for the funds to operate my agency I can swear I only had one member of that entire group who fully understood what was needed to keep our town safe, and he was a retired police captain. The five other council men and women who held the purse strings over my budget argued incessantly with the police department over how best to protect our citizens. All of them were untrained and inexperienced in public safety matters but the town's safety was in their hands. Those debates were usually a balance between money for things like parks and recreation versus adequate police services. Often times public safety took a back seat to whatever else was on a council members personal agenda and it was clear to anyone who was paying attention that the bigger issue was that we were caught up in what seemed like an unbreakable cycle; one that resembled one of those "good 'ol boys clubs" that kept shuffling friends of friends in and out of offices inside our City Hall. They almost generally did things their way and they all got what they wanted out of that system of leadership, and they got it at the expense of what was truly best for all of the people. Everyone benefits from safer communities but not everyone saw their quality of life expand from all of the pet projects that came to fruition that they paid for in our town.

Many will argue that one of the most beloved and most effective mayors in the history of Columbus was a man named Maynard E.  (Jack) Sensenbrenner. He wasn't a career politician when he came to the local Democratic party with plans to become the mayor of the city. When he showed up in 1954 he was unknown to the movers and shakers within the party and they refused to endorse him or his ideas, and it wasn't until a runoff  in the primary election in the spring (without that endorsement) that he was selected by the voters to run in the fall of that year as the democratic nominee. It made national headlines when this former Fuller Brush salesman proved his detractors wrong and he accomplished that without a large campaign coffer and virtually no support from within the party he represented.  He went on to serve a total of twelve years as the leader of our city and he is to this day remembered and revered by those who knew him, and  who worked with him, or just benefited from what he was able to accomplish. Sensenbrenner was a Democrat who took on a system and showed everyone it was time someone was willing to. I see the similarity here again.

So maybe we should end the decades-long cycle of a few deal makers who have been deciding for the rest of us behind closed doors who gets to shuffle forward, because the bosses and decision makers within the local Democratic party might be wrong again. It is more than sixty years since Columbus voters smeared egg in their faces by proving that those they serve might know as much or more than they do about who or what could be best for us all; sixty years of progress yes, and it started with a set of fresh ideas from a man the Democratic party tried to ignore; someone who only showed up wanting to make a a difference in how the selection process of a few would be decided by changing it to better serve us all.

Sensenbrenner was an outsider as far as the party bosses were concerned; not one of their own. What I have written here is not as much of an endorsement of one candidate over another as it is a statement of facts. Why else would a small body of deciders choose to endorse one office seeker within their own party over another before the rest of us have ample opportunities to know what their visions might be? Something to think about isn't it?  Because if the candidate they have prematurely chosen before the rest of us even has a chance to weigh in does win this election we will never know if a better way forward was possible.