Cleveland City Council Public Hearing on Ethics in Government - October 22, 2026

On October 22, 2026, the Cleveland City Council Operations Committee held a public hearing to discuss ethics in government, focusing on the distinction between helping constituents and bribery. The hearing featured expert testimony from four professors and included remarks from council members. No legislation was considered, and no votes were taken.

Discussion Items

• Opening Remarks (Councilman Chris Harsh, Chair): Harsh set the context by noting Cleveland's 28% poverty rate (over 100,000 people) and the ethical tension between alleviating suffering and avoiding political corruption. He referenced a recent promise by President Trump (Sept. 9, 2026) to give $5,000 to every American if the Republican Party wins, and Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno's pledge to draft legislation, as a national example raising the question: when is helping a bribe? He introduced four experts: Professor Rabinovich Fox (Case Western, history), Professor Kelly Coble (Baldwin Wallace, ethics), Professor Abigail Moncrief (CSU Law, law/policy), and Professor Jeremy Bendick-Keemer (Case Western, philosophy).
• Professor Rabinovich Fox – History of Corruption: She discussed how corruption is ingrained in U.S. government, from George Washington buying alcohol for votes (1758, $8,000 today) to the spoils system and Tammany Hall. The Pendleton Act (1883) reformed federal civil service, but local governments remained vulnerable. She argued that corruption can be curtailed through transparent, independent systems based on clear rules and public oversight.
• Professor Kelly Coble – Ethical Distinction (Helping vs. Buying Votes): Coble applied Kantian deontology to the gift card issue. He argued that helping constituents is not equivalent to buying votes, even if re-election is a motive. The key is a transparent process: in Cleveland, council members allocate funds, but the Department of Community Development contracts nonprofits to distribute cards. Problems from the June 2025 Auditor's letter (1,500 missing/incomplete eligibility forms, 88 cards to out-of-Cleveland addresses, and staff distributing cards) reflect process failures, not corruption. He suggested better communication and proportionate safeguards to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
• Professor Abigail Moncrief – Legal Perspectives: Moncrief (utilitarian) explained that federal and state laws (18 USC §597, Ohio Rev. Code §3599.01) prohibit exchanging money for votes, but enforcement is difficult because motivation (public policy vs. personal gain) is subjective. She noted that prosecuting bribery is rare, and recent presidential immunity expansions make it harder. She argued that food card programs are likely legal and that law departments often overreach to avoid the appearance of impropriety. She emphasized that all three branches must cooperate for law to be effective, and ultimately voters must decide.
• Professor Jeremy Bendick-Keemer – Ethics and Democratic Trust: He urged a focus on the public good and dignity of citizens. He argued that ethical discretion requires clear intention toward public good and raising citizens to a level where they can participate in governance. He warned that the current national climate of cynicism undermines trust, and recommended that council members tell the story of their work to build trust, including acknowledging systemic racism and historical injustices.
• Council President Blaine Griffin: He stressed that council members are closest to constituents and need discretionary dollars to address unique ward needs (e.g., speed tables, cameras, the Myers supermarket). He asked: "Who is government supposed to serve?" and questioned whether council-set rules are sufficient. Professors responded that government should serve everyone, with priority to those in need (utilitarian/Rawlsian views) and that rules need to be clear and trustworthy.
• Councilman Dean Palencick (14 terms): He highlighted the equity fund he created 26 years ago (now $1 million per ward) and regretted the lack of documentation. He noted skyrocketing constituent needs (roofs, hot water tanks, food) and criticized insufficient enforcement of existing laws (health, building codes). He agreed that most council members act ethically.
• Councilman Conwell: He argued that gift cards are no different from ribbon cuttings or championing projects—all are part of council members' jobs. He accused critics of dehumanizing African American communities, citing historical racism (e.g., Woodrow Wilson firing Black civil servants after the Pendleton Act). Professor Fox agreed Wilson was one of the worst presidents and acknowledged systemic racism.
• Councilwoman Stephanie House Jones: She read the Cleveland Charter's first power: "May define, prohibit, abate, suppress, and prevent all things detrimental to the health, morals, comfort, safety, convenience, and welfare of the inhabitants of the city." She argued that the law department misinterpreted the auditor's letter (which only said elected officials should not assist with distribution, not that they cannot attend events). She noted 2025 municipal voter turnout was 9-27% by ward (18% for mayor), refuting the idea that gift cards buy votes. She cited a $71,000 needed yearly for a single parent with one child, while the average household income is $56,000, calling $25 or $50 gift cards insufficient but necessary.
• Councilman Slife, Jones, Shaw, Starr: Slife urged distinguishing cynicism from corruption and asked about accountability. Shaw criticized the law department and noted that millions are given to billionaires while small gift cards are scrutinized. Starr requested a future hearing in Ward 5, where 71% of residents live near/in poverty and 52,000 households earn under $25,000. He objected to singling out any ward.

Key Outcomes

• Consensus: All participants agreed that food gift cards are a legitimate and ethical tool to help constituents, provided a transparent process is followed.
• Criticism of Law Department: Several council members expressed frustration that the law department overinterpreted the auditor's guidance, creating unnecessary barriers and misrepresenting the word "assist."
• Next Steps: Councilman Starr requested that a future operations committee hearing on ethics be held in Ward 5 to include community input. The chair (Harsh) agreed to consider the request.
• No formal votes or legislation were taken; the hearing was purely informational.