Learn more about our questionnaire
All questions were open-ended.I applaud the progress Cleveland has made on enhancing data transparency, but I also have an extremely aggressive definition of “government transparency, accountability, and public participation” that demands not only more from our existing institutional efforts but also a commitment to fostering grassroots efforts that while may not originate from inside city government are still certainly encouraged and empowered.
Comprehensive data is not just about the technical ability to produce a data catalog but also must include a consideration about both data literacy and access for residents. One of the reasons I decided to run for political office is because I have a problem with the ways electeds often try to shame voters for not getting involved because I think it wrongly shifts the blame to the residents while ignoring the behavior of those in power.
The Open Data Portal is a tremendous accomplishment, but having talked to thousands of Ward 7 residents many speak to both not having the time to dive into all the resources available and feeling overwhelmed about all the various conclusions that one could derive from what is shared. I would argue there is another level of outreach and engagement that is required to help achieve the Open Data Portal’s first primary reason to “increase transparency & trust in City operations.” If that is an outcome we are in pursuit of, then we cannot view the ability to create and share an Open Data Portal as the only step towards improving government transparency, accountability, and public participation.
Cleveland’s voter turnout in 2024 was 47%, as compared to Ohio’s overall which was over 70%. If we use this citizen participation metric as a measurement of trust in city government, then we are severely failing as public servants, and it arguably has nothing to do with our ability to produce data catalogs. Or to quote a line from the book Democratizing Inequalities, which includes a focus on Cleveland: “Is our society more open and democratic? Or is elite rule reorganized to accommodate greater openness and participation without disruptioning hierarchies and power relations?”
Yes, both as a resident and as a candidate.
I enjoy being able to incorporate the resources into various talking points with the residents as we further discuss the advocacy they hope to see from their next city council. These conversations with residents have also led to discoveries within the Open Data Catalog that I didn’t even know existed. A few datasets that I’ve been able to pay more attention to during the campaign:
Lead Safe Certificate Explorer
Part of my campaign platform includes a commitment to reenvisioning Cleveland’s infrastructure according to promoting public health, and that includes lead-free communities. While Cleveland has the most kids with high lead levels as compared to similar cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Akron, the highest rates in the new Ward 7 community are in the Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood.
However, as many residents have shared with me over the course of the campaign, the Lead Safe Certificates only tell one part of the overall lead poisoning story. In fact, there have been instances where a child has tested positive for lead, even in a home with a lead-safe certificate which is a problem that must be addressed immediately. While the purpose of the Open Data Portal is primarily to provide access to and interaction with government data, and not necessarily to ensure compliance, it serves as an important example of why we must not confuse outputs, which are the immediate results of an effort, with outcomes, which are the broader changes that result from those efforts.
Workforce Program Enrollments - Greater Cleveland Works
Strong labor and workforce development is a core piece of my Flexible Development priority. I have approached this commitment from two angles.The first of which is focused on ensuring I am aware of the available workforce development programs that exist – who their contacts are, how their programs work, etc. – so that I can properly connect residents to these opportunities. And the other focus is on whether residents are actually participating and benefiting from these existing programs.
This dataset gives me a glimpse into one measure of how Ward 7 residents demonstrate their interest and compatibility with this particular area of programming. This has led to some fantastic conversations with Ward Stakeholders, advocates, Block Clubs, and residents about collaborative efforts to support targeted outreach and information sessions for residents in the most need of workforce development opportunities. What this particular dataset also reveals is information about those who exit the program, or who arguably may have viewed the program as ineffective or incompatible—a metric that if relevant then I certainly want to explore immediate solutions to increase participation and success.
Mayoral Appointments to Boards & Commissions
This is a dataset I did not know existed until recently though feels slightly incomplete in terms of providing information about the particular Appointee. Without information on whether the Appointee is employed and with whom, whether they have any active contracts with the city, or even information about their local political campaign contributions, I would argue this list of Appointees again provides only a glimpse into what residents cite wanting to learn more about, which is who gets access to power in the city of Cleveland.
Again, open, standardized data in digital format should be viewed as the minimum because open and transparent data should also be evaluated according to how – not just whether – the city responds to public records requests and cooperates with Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Open, standardized data in digital format is only one factor and assumes everyone has the same experience when it comes to reading and analyzing complex datasets. For me, it is about access to government information, as opposed to data sets, that I would specifically like to see more of, and so this criticism gets more at Cleveland’s culture with transparency, accountability, and conflict than anything technical.
There are well-documented delays regarding the city’s history of responding to public records requests. Investigative reporting and even court rulings report residents waiting months, sometimes hundreds of days, for basic information. This undermines transparency, accountability, and public participation because timely access to a response from the government is as important as the data. A stronger commitment to prompt responses, proactive disclosure of commonly requested records, and an open culture of information-sharing is needed if Cleveland wants to build trust with residents and meet its obligations under the public records law.
If government officials feel less inclined to interact with questions from residents because they simply direct them to the Open Data Portal, then this tool is no longer helpful but actually harmful to government-resident relations. Data cannot replace relationships and interactions, even if some of those interactions are quite negative for the elected official. We cannot hide behind complex datasets while ignoring our duty to meet every resident where they are at.
I am against mass surveillance programs, which includes Spotshotter, for a long list of reasons, including that these programs have yet to prove themselves effective and are a serious threat to residents’ civil liberties. While ARPA funds and not general operating funds were used for Cleveland’s pilot program, my commitment to civil liberties and fiscal responsibility means I will fight to stop attempts to renew the city’s contract with Spotshotter or enter into any new contracts with mass surveillance technology.
It is imperative that we don’t fool ourselves into thinking it’s technology that will make us safer, especially if we are simultaneously unwilling to address the root causes of crime. If housing, healthcare, food, and opportunity aren’t available for residents, then an expensive digital monitor has no impact on improving safety in our communities. Residents want us operating according to how we can prevent crime and suffering rather than simply respond to it. The use of unproven surveillance technologies like ShotSpotter, which have failed to demonstrate meaningful impact on public safety and instead divert resources away from proven community investments while posing serious threats to civil liberties.
I believe the more an administration spends on mass surveillance programs the less likely they are to invest in a Cleveland Police Department that is first and foremost in compliance with the consent decree while also being appropriately staffed, with protected pensions.
I do not support the use of facial recognition technology. Given that the city has already suffered several cyberattacks in recent years, I believe our government should be prioritizing strong data security infrastructure rather than expanding surveillance, which is part of my Accessible City Services campaign priority. Breaches of biometric databases are particularly dangerous because they are irreversible because unlike a password you cannot change your face once it has been compromised. Any breaches in city infrastructure are permanent and erode trust in government.
I also believe that any requests for private security footage should be subject to subpoenas or similar court supervision. This ensures that the protection of individual liberties is not left to discretionary enforcement, but is safeguarded through due process and judicial oversight. I have concerns about the different ways our city may define “encouraged” and “required” when referring to the process of sharing footage from security video cameras. Residents and small business owners have shared stories about willingly sharing footage with law enforcement, but this isn’t something that I believe the government should play a role in “encouraging” and certainly not “requiring.”
Something I believe to be a more effective use of energy and resources than facial recognition technology is deliberate, proactive outreach with the local corner shops, gas stations, and convenience stores in the ward to discuss how they can promote safety and improve relations with residents. These conversations often start with how stores may inadvertently contribute to crime and lead to practical solutions like better lighting, litter cleanup, and harm reduction measures, as well as discussions on product offerings that reflect community needs. Many of these shops are run by immigrant and refugee families who receive limited support and are often the scapegoat for public safety issues and are vilified by the administration. I don’t believe we can vilify our way to public safety, and so having these conversations with these small business owners as the councilperson, in collaboration with law enforcement, leads to much more productive solutions that ideally help heal tensions between corner stores and residents.
Yes, I firmly believe that every resident should have access to reliable high-speed internet. The City of Cleveland has made efforts to address this important issue by working with DigitalC to offer a more cost effective internet option for residents. And while I think this is an important way to address this issue, I’m eager to see upcoming reports on DigitalC’s efforts to expand their reach. Last year, DigitalC failed to meet their goal set out by the city resulting in a $1 million loss in funds from City Council, however as of April this year they seem to be on track, and so I will be paying close attention to the upcoming report.
The important part here is not the focus on the failure of DigitalC last year to meet its goals, but how we can improve our ability to connect every resident to affordable, reliable, high-speed internet. City council plays a key role in ensuring the government’s contracts with various partners result in an effective use of taxpayer dollars and necessary improvements for the residents. Having knocked on over 5,000 doors, I can play a constructive role in outreach here, which includes ensuring residents have information about DigitalC’s program. But on council, I intend to monitor the effectiveness of these programs very closely, as it is the residents who suffer when local governments fail to provide necessary oversight.
The best way for me to answer this question pertains to my Accessible City Services campaign priority, which is that residents want to see their hard-earned tax dollars translate into well-run services for all.
Thousands of Ward 7 residents describe everyday challenges that they experience in Cleveland, and many have successfully identified that certain problems exist because our city has a tendency to operate in fragmented silos. So many times during this campaign I have encountered someone who is working on something that another person I met at an earlier event is also trying to work on, but neither knew of each other.
As a compliance professional with much experience in audit-related activities, I regularly engage with stakeholders about spotting gaps, streamlining processes, and strengthening coordination across departments. I plan to bring this experience to city hall to promote more accountability that will assist departments in working together more effectively to deliver better services for residents.
My first campaign commitment is Accessibility for Residents, and while this commitment certainly includes supporting and celebrating governmental tools like the Open Data Portal, it also includes enhancing and strengthening Cleveland’s public comment. I consider public comment a reflection of how our city views conflict, including negative feedback. While receiving negative feedback is not fun, it is part of the role as the residents’ representative, and therefore must be respected.
During advocacy for a ceasefire resolution for Palestine, instead of listening to their residents Cleveland City Council decided to limit public participation by adding additional restrictions to public comment such as changing the methods for comment selection, blocking off the first few rows in council chambers, and increasing police presence. I’m running for city council to be a strong voice for the residents of Ward 7, and what City Council chose to do then was to silence the voices of advocates and constituents who were utilizing their democratic right to give testimony in front of their elected leaders.
I have spoken often on this campaign about how I want to encourage healthy disagreement on City Council and that means both between the council members as well as those who give public comment. There is no government transparency or accountability when those in the government actively seek to silence the voices that they serve.
Yes, I would also welcome working with Open Cleveland, a talented group of local advocates who have immense experience in data transparency, to help democratize campaign data in local elections.