Voters should have their say on sheriff and county law disputes.

Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne and County Council shamefully have not been able to get their ducks in a row to craft charter amendments for the Nov. 3 ballot to resolve long-simmering disputes over how the county chooses a sheriff and handles legal matters. But that doesn’t mean those issues are dead. In fact, it shouldn’t mean they’re dead. Voters deserve to have their say on these two disputes, and there’s still time to draft what -- most productively -- would be multiple-option ballot measures on both issues.Sept. 4 at 4 p.m. is what County Prosecutor Mike O’Malley told our editorial board is his understanding to be the deadline to submit proposed county charter amendments to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections for placement on November’s countywide ballot.That allows Ronayne and County Council several weeks from this Friday to get creative and draft multiple-choice options to resolve the sheriff and legal disputes. The exact wrong approach would be to provide the voters with no way to weigh in on these knotty matters -- which is where things stand now.Perhaps, in a victory of hope over experience, County Council could reach consensus by Sept. 4 on single proposed charter amendments -- but more likely not. So why not offer all the options, and let voters decide?For instance, on the sheriff, should the charter be changed to elect a sheriff? Or should it be changed to give the County Executive the authority to hire and fire the sheriff like the powers a mayor has with a police chief?Or, why not give voters all possible options on the ballot?The incumbent sheriff is Harold Pretel, whose current term began in January 2025 and will expire at the end of 2028. Partisan (albeit, intra-Democratic) bickering over the sheriff’s autonomy, or its lack, had prompted a proposal from County Councilman Marty Sweeney to elect the sheriff. But he withdrew it without a vote after saying he lacked the necessary eight County Council votes to place such a charter amendment on November’s ballot.There is one consideration that some believe should factor into any debate on how Cuyahoga County’s sheriff is selected: Race.Both Ronayne and Council President Dale Miller have voiced concerns, cleveland.com reports, about whether the county’s voters would be likely to elect a candidate of color to the sheriff’s office, were such a candidate to seek it on the ballot. Pretel, the current appointed sheriff, is Latino, while his two predecessors as appointed sheriffs both were Black.According to Census data, almost 30% of Cuyahoga County’s residents are Black. Yet only after more than 200-plus years of Ohio statehood did Cuyahoga County gain its first Black sheriff, when, in 2015, then-County Executive Armond Budish appointed Clifford Pinkney, who served util mid-2019.Yet again, this is a reason to offer voters all options, rather than to keep the sheriff’s issue off the ballot, denying voters their say.Then there’s the dispute over the respective powers and duties of O’Malley’s office as elected county prosecutor and those of the Cuyahoga County Department of Law. The latter answers to elected County Executive Ronayne and is headed by Director of Law Richard D. Manoloff, a lawyer formerly associated with Squire Patton Boggs. Ronayne appointed Manoloff in 2023.On both the sheriff’s selection and the jurisdictional boundaries between Ronayne’s Law Department and O‘Malley’s office, if an all-faction consensus can’t be reached – agreed, never easy in Greater Cleveland politics – then County Council should submit to voters well-thought-out proposals to resolve each set of conflicts, with the aim being to deliver the highest level of public services consistent with wise budgeting.That suggests, as the ideal, charter amendments reflecting a range of multiple (and nuanced) options for choosing a sheriff. Plus, if the pertinent parties can’t reach an agreement on their own, a ballot question with a similar spectrum of jurisdictional options for boundaries between the county Law Department and the prosecuting attorney’s office.The key goal in amending the Cuyahoga County charter -- first adopted by voters in 2009 -- must be to assure managerial competence while rooting out duplication and overlap in a county with 57 cities and villages, two townships, and 13 municipal courts.The whole point of a Cuyahoga County charter was for accountability in delivering public services to residents at a fair cost. That should be the pivot on which any proposed charter amendments turn.About our editorials: Editorials express the view of the editorial board of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer -- the senior leadership and editorial-writing staff. As is traditional, editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the news organization.MORE BY EDITORIAL BOARD CLEVELAND.COM AND THE PLAIN DEALERHave something to say about this topic?* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this editorial to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com