This year, the Justice for All (JFA) Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association will present Professor Pamela Daiker-Middaugh with the JFA Volunteer of the Year Award.  The JFA Committee serves as the oversight committee to coordinate and support the CMBA’s pro bono and public service programs. It annually recognizes a volunteer for his/her outstanding service to the profession and community. Professor Daiker-Middaugh  is being recognized as this year’s JFA Volunteer of the Year Award, for her dedication as a volunteer for many of the CMBA’s pro bono and community programs, her leadership at the Bar, and for her invaluable assistance in encouraging volunteer service among law students and graduates.  The Award will be presented to Professor Daiker-Middaugh on Friday, June 13, at the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s seventh annual meeting and inaugural luncheon at the Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center.

Professor John Plecnik published an article entitled “Three reading rule explanation” in The News-Herald.  The text of the article is available below.

Three-reading rule explanation

The three-reading rule requires legislation to be “read” or considered three times prior to a vote.  The U.S. Senate and House, Ohio General Assembly, and Ohio municipalities all embrace some version of the rule.  However, the rule is far older than Ohio or even the United States.

The Canadian Parliament, which also follows the rule, traces its source back to 15^th and 16^th century England, when it became the usual practice for the House of Commons.  However, multiple-reading rules are older still.  In the Reforms of 403 B.C., the Athenian Assembly adopted a two-reading rule, whereby each ordinance was read, then posted in the marketplace, and then read a second time prior to a vote.  Athens learned about the dangers of rash legislation the hard way.  In 406 B.C. during the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian generals failed to rescue their drowning sailors from the Spartan navy.  Over Socrates’s objection, the Athenian Assembly immediately voted to execute their generals.  Of course, without their generals, the Athenians soon lost the war.  Realizing their mistake, the Athenians adopted their two-reading rule.

Today, the three-reading rule is oft-criticized as inefficient.  In emergencies, most versions of the rule allow waiver by super-majority vote.  Critics waive the rule in most cases.  In fact, a survey by the Northeast Ohio Media Group shows that many Cleveland suburbs waive the rule nearly 90% of the time.  Before my election, Willoughby Hills also waived the rule in most cases.

Why object to waiver?  It might be more efficient to have a dictator, king, tyrant or mayor make all of our decisions.  But government is not a business and efficiency is secondary to fairness.  The three-reading rule is an ancient right of the people to a deliberative process and to participate in all the workings of their legislature.

According to Jeremy Bentham, the rule has five purposes:  “1. Maturity in the deliberations, arising from the opportunities given to a great number of persons, of speaking upon different days, after they have profited by the information which discussion has elicited; 2. Opportunity afforded to the public, to make itself heard—and to the members, to consult enlightened persons out of doors; 3. Prevention of the effects of eloquence, by which an orator might obtain votes upon a sudden impulse; 4. Protection to the minority of the assembly, by securing to it different periods at which to state its opinions; 5. Opportunity for members absent during the first debate, to attend when they perceive that their presence may influence the fate of the bill.”

But what of delay?  In true emergencies, the three-reading rule should be waived.  In all other cases, Bentham replies, “terrible decrees of urgency, the decrees for closing the discussion, may well be remembered with dread:  they were formed for the subjugation of the minority—for the purpose of stifling arguments . . . .” 

But why would your council wish to stifle argument? 

Sometimes, in the words of Professor Lawrence Keller of Cleveland State University, it is simply “sloppy government.”  Some councils are too lazy for three readings.  Sometimes, however, there is a more sinister reason.

In Willoughby Hills, our first major legislation of the year was passing appropriations for road and sewer projects.  Three council members, myself included, insisted on following the three-reading rule. In response, another council member claimed the service superintendant told him—absent immediate action—a dangerous sinkhole could develop on SOM Center Road.  By the third reading, we learned there was no immediate danger of a sink hole.  Worse still, we learned that the same member who warned of a sinkhole voted on similar appropriations for years that were ultimately paid to a company named Landco.  Public records show that Landco was not only the member’s employer, but owned by his parents.  Had council voted immediately, in all likelihood, more city money would have been paid to Landco before these revelations.

Some may say things have changed since the dawn the democracy, and modern technology obviates the need for three readings.  But the internet is no substitute for deliberation or confronting your council members face-to-face.  The three-reading rule has stood the test of time for good reason.

The Charles R. Emrick Jr. – Calfee Halter & Griswold Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Enrichment, Milena Sterio, participated in the “Talking Foreign Policy” radio show on WCPN 90.3 on June 5. Professor Sterio has been a regular participant in this quarterly radio show, hosted by Interim Dean and Professor Michael Scharf of Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and dedicated to the discussion of current foreign policy issues.  This episode, entitled “Russian Roulette: Ripples from Ukraine,” focused on the crisis in Ukraine and the American-Russian relations as this crisis unfolds.  Other participants included Professor Paul Williams of American University Washington College of Law, and Dr. Shannon French, Director of Case Western’s Inamori Center for Ethics and Excellence.  This episode will be broadcast on WCPN 90.3 on Tuesday, June 10, at 9:00 p.m.

Clinical Professor of Law Doron Kalir presented on Friday, June 6, at the AALS Workshop on Sexual Orientation and Gender Issues, part of the 2014 Midyear Meeting in Washington, D.C. Professor Kalir presented his work-in-progress article, “Same-Sex Marriage & Jewish Law: Time for a New Paradigm?” Audience members included colleague Professor Matthew Green, as well as professors from Columbia, NYU, and Indiana Law Schools.   

Professor Milena Sterio spoke on the legality of unilateral humanitarian intervention in the context of Syria, at the Law and Society Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 29.  The title of Professor Sterio’s remarks was: “The (Il)legality of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention in Syria.”  Professor Sterio’s argument was that unilateral humanitarian intervention in internal conflicts, such as the one in Syria, should be “legalized” under a carefully developed normative framework.  Professor Sterio will be publishing a version of this paper with the Brooklyn Journal of International Law later this year.