Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration initially opposed Tanisha’s Law, which creates a wing of city government to respond to mental health emergency calls, when it was introduced in 2024. That contributed to a delay of more than a year before City Council unanimously passed a compromise version this month.
That was all in the past by last Saturday, when Bibb attended a celebratory gathering to sign the ordinance at Case Western Reserve University. There, he apologized to the family of the bill’s namesake, Tanisha Anderson, who died in 2014 after a struggle with Cleveland police officers during a mental health crisis.
“I’m sorry that the system failed you,” he said. “You have done a remarkable job of turning that pain into positive purpose, and so you have my commitment as your mayor to get this implementation right for the City of Cleveland.”
The first draft of the legislation called for a new standalone city department, which the administration opposed. But as support within council grew, the administration agreed to a new Bureau of Crisis Response within the Division of Emergency Medical Services.
Bibb alluded to that debate on Saturday.
“There was a lot of back and forth because we wanted to make sure we got this piece of legislation correct,” he said. “And I had to fight with my team, because sometimes they’re too bureaucratic in trying to get stuff done. I remember vividly telling my safety director that the residents of Cleveland don’t give a damn about the red tape or the bureaucracy. They just want to see results. Let’s get it done.”
Michael Anderson, Tanisha’s uncle and leader of the effort to get the bill written and passed, thanked Bibb for the apology. The family reached a $2.25 million settlement with the city in 2017.
He said he hoped someday to see Council Member Stephanie Howse-Jones, the bill’s primary champion in City Hall, “in that big house that the mayor lives in.”
As the applause and laughter died down, Bibb called out, “I got a little more time left!”
— Frank W. Lewis
GOP skips county executive race

Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne is on a media tour amid a turf fight with the sheriff and county prosecutor.
He doesn’t have to worry about a political turf war within the Democratic Party, at least as far as his reelection campaign is concerned. Ronayne is unopposed in the May 5 Democratic primary. No Republican stepped up to challenge him in the November general election, either.
So far, Ronayne has one opponent in November: Tariq Shabazz, a Navy veteran who has previously run for county exec, Congress and U.S. Senate. Shabazz is running as an independent.
Four GOP candidates have come up short trying to land the office of county executive since its creation in 2009. Republicans Matt Dolan, Jack Schron, Peter Corrigan and Lee Weingart lost to Democrats Ed FitzGerald, Armond Budish and Ronayne. Republicans have also lost ground on the 11-member County Council, seeing their three-seat minority shrink to a one-seat toehold.
Independents have until May 4 to file to run for the general election. Write-in candidates can file as late as Aug. 24.
Anyone looking to challenge Ronayne will have to go up against his fundraising. According to a recent unaudited filing with the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, the county executive started the year with more than $362,000 on hand.
Former Housing Court judge fights back

Former Cleveland Housing Court Judge W. Moná Scott is fighting back against a complaint filed against her by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Counsel.
The complaint accuses Scott, among other things, of ignoring “unambiguous laws” to deny landlords their rights, having improper communications with prosecutors and berating an attorney “for not prosecuting a defendant she wanted to punish.”
Scott offered a 38-page response this week filed by her attorneys from Montgomery Jonson, a firm specializing in defending judges against disciplinary charges. Much of the response challenges the charge that she employed tactics to delay landlords from carrying out evictions. The response also accuses the Disciplinary Counsel of depriving her of a fair hearing by not filing the complaint sooner.
The complaint is just the first step in what can become a long legal process that includes a trial-like hearing before the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct. As Weekly Chatter noted earlier, the taxpayers would likely have to cover her legal costs because the complaints against her arise from her time as a city employee.
— Mark Naymik

