100-Year Retrospective of Cincinnati Government
In 2024 through 2025, CRI is focusing on a 100-Year Retrospective of Cincinnati Government. We will explore our history through professional, archival research, and compare what we learn from the lessons of the past with contemporary examinations of Cincinnati and other city governments, then engage citizens in live events and multi-media formats to discuss the ways that the lessons from the city’s history can influence wise future choices for better communities.
As this project releases research, studies, videos, and announces public discussions, you will be able to find all of it on this website.
A Historic Overview of Cincinnati Government
Slightly over one hundred years ago, Cincinnati was branded the worst governed city in the United States. The local Republican party machine run by Boss George Cox, then Rudolph Hynicka operated on rampant nepotism and kick-backs. Bribery and no-bid contracts were the rule. Judicial appointments and police jobs were doled out as political favors without concern for qualifications.
In 1922, after a decade of Hynicka rule (who ran Cincinnati from a New York saloon), a group led by Murray Seasongood, Charlie P. Taft, and other outraged and influential citizens proposed radical changes to city government that were adopted by an overwhelming 78% of voters.
Beginning in 1925, the system of nepotism and kick-backs was replaced with civil service reform, competitive bidding, and a professionally trained City Manager. City Council was reduced from 32 members to nine. Rather than being chosen by political parties, candidates for City Council gathered signatures to get onto a non-partisan ballot; and they were elected by a new system called ‘Proportional Representation’ – referred to today as ‘Rank Choice Voting’.
Proportional Representation (PR) resulted in a politically balanced City Council that included Republicans, Democrats, and representatives of a new, grassroots organization called ‘The Charter Committee’. Proportional Representation eventually opened the door to electing minorities, women, labor organizers, and other voices.
Within eight years, the combined effect of professional management and a far more accountable City Council resulted in Cincinnati being named the best governed city in the nation. However, private and political interests that were forced from power by the changes to the City Charter continually worked to reverse the 1924 reforms.
The 1st target was the PR method of electing City Council. After repeated attempts, aided by disinformation campaigns, PR ended in Cincinnati in 1957. Although PR was gone, the Council/Manager form of government remained intact for nearly another 40 years.
In the late 1980s, concerted efforts to “enhance” the power of the mayor while weakening City Council and the City Manager began to take root. Again, the proposed reversal of the 1924 reforms failed at the ballot multiple times – until the “stronger mayor” Charter Amendment was adopted in 1999, shifting much more power to the mayor.
Since 2001, various mayors have tested the limits of Cincinnati’s “stronger mayor” structure of municipal government. Pushing these limits to the extent that a 2015 study of municipal governments across the U.S. found that Cincinnati may have handed more power to its mayor than any city in the country.
Meanwhile, the decline of citizen engagement and participation in their local government has become increasingly dismal. During the “PR era”, voter turnout was routinely over 60%. This fell to 40% by the late 1980s, plummeting to barely 25% in the 2021 municipal election. The 2023 election resulted in complete one-party rule – nine City Council members and the Mayor all from the same national party.
So, where does Cincinnati municipal government stand in comparison to other cities 100 years after the adoption of its groundbreaking Charter reforms; and is there any connection between the roll-back of the 1924 reforms and a city embarrassed by three of its city councilmembers being sent to federal prison on unrelated corruption charges? These are great questions that the 100-Year Retrospective of Cincinnati Government plans to tackle and discuss with the public.
