If weasels could talk, they might sound a lot like the lame excuses from the defenders of Issue 5.

The 2001 Charter Amendment to change the hiring and firing of police brass was flawed from the start. It violated the police contract by stripping union protection from three assistant chiefs.

The people who sold Issue 5 to voters knew it was wrong. So they promised it would not be used until the hole was fixed. But the politicians on Cincinnati City Council couldn't wait. They're wasting tax dollars to defend it and blame the cops.

In the backward weasel logic of City Hall, they even say the police contract violates Issue 5. They know it's the other way around.

Ross Love, leader of the Issue 5 campaign and Cincinnati Action Now, was asked at a May 23 State Employee Relations Board hearing if he knew Issue 5 was in conflict with the FOP contract.

"I was very aware," he replied. "Because I was involved in the development of the advertising that was run in the campaign, the way we talked about it publicly, we were very clear that the inclusion of the assistant police chiefs could only occur if there was a change that permitted that in the FOP contract."

But the union refused to make those key changes in negotiations last December.

That makes sense. The point of Issue 5 was to recruit top cops nationally. Who will apply to be one of only three assistant chiefs who can be fired "at will," anytime council needs a scalp to throw to protesters?

But when asked to approve the new contract, council blocked the raises and demanded arbitration.

So far, that has cost $30,000 in legal fees, $150,000 in delayed raises, a big loss of police trust and a hair-singeing rebuke from the arbitrator, who said job protection is "extremely important so that an employee is not caught up in political struggles."

The Issue 5 gang says, "It's the will of the people."

Never mind that council trashed "the will of the people'' by voting for gay rights.

Never mind that Issue 5 won by a paper-thin majority.

Never mind that after two years of ritual sacrifices to appease race protesters, most voters are having third thoughts about putting police under political control with Issue 5.

And never mind the law.

Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution prohibits "retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts."

The Ohio Supreme Court told the city in 1991 that union contracts "prevail over conflicting laws, including municipal home rule charters."

A city solicitor told council last December, "Laws cannot be enacted that would conflict with or eliminate existing contractual obligations."

Yet seven council members insist Issue 5 should be defended to the last lawyer.

Councilman Pat DeWine has been leading the charge. In the same hearing in Columbus, he testified that he didn't know Issue 5 violated the police contract.

But Love testified, "We were told ... (that) a union contract supersedes the charter."

If the defenders of Issue 5 really care so much about voters, they should put it on the ballot again. My guess is that flawed Issue 5 would be burned toast - but that's "the will of the people."