[0:00] Good
morning. For those who I haven't met,
[0:03] I'm Richard Bane, Mayor Pepper Pike.
It's good to see you this morning.
[0:07] Thanks for coming out on a
uh little uh cloudy Saturday morning. Uh
[0:13] this is the third of three town halls
that were arranged for uh you to provide
[0:20] uh comments or ask questions
of the council members who are here this
[0:26] morning. uh and uh the rules of order
here because this matter's already been
[0:34] uh placed on the ballot uh the city
officials are uh not able to advocate uh
[0:42] up or down for this. So, uh please
understand it. There are times I know
[0:48] you might want a more robust type of
statement uh from uh the officials
[0:53] sitting up here, but we are uh
restricted because of the uh uh position
[1:00] of this already on the ballot. Your
questions and comments obviously are
[1:04] very welcome. if
uh
[1:09] uh unfortunately because it's on the
ballot uh the language is going to be
[1:14] the same, but we're still very
interested in what your questions and
[1:16] comments are. And don't let that
discourage you from uh expressing
[1:21] yourselves. Uh with that, uh this is
Tony Gentilli, Melanie Welman, Scott New
[1:29] uh they're the three councilmen here
this morning. Uh just as a matter of
[1:36] interest, who here has not been to one
of our first two uh town
[1:43] halls? Oh, quite a few actually. Okay.
Well, that's good to hear. That that is
[1:48] uh that's an interesting thing as we're
evaluating in the f for the future. How
[1:53] many of these, you know, do we continue
to have? Uh was it because it's on a
[1:57] Saturday as opposed to a a week night
that you're now able to be here? Did you
[2:02] just decide to defer until uh the
Saturday morning? Who just deferred? I
[2:09] deferred for Saturday. Saturday. I
couldn't make You preferred the
[2:12] Saturday. Okay. All right. That's very
uh good information to know. Uh I'm
[2:17] going to ask my wife to please hand me
my hearing aids.
[2:24] And uh Mr. Gentilli wants to say good
morning to you and then we'll kick off.
[2:28] We have a podium there. uh just take
your turn stepping up to the microphone
[2:32] and uh we'll get underway.
Thank you, mayor. Uh welcome to the
[2:38] third town hall meeting to inform Pepper
Pike residents about the upcoming ballot
[2:42] issue number 17 on May 6th,
2025 regarding revisions to the Pepper
[2:48] Pike charter. Please look at the handout
package you should have received when
[2:53] you arrived. It contains an executive
summary of the commission's
[2:57] recommendations, a listing of the
recommended changes on two pages, and
[3:01] the full commission report. If you
haven't already done so, please sign in
[3:05] sign the signin sheet. That's this is
voluntary and not required. Uh you don't
[3:11] have to sign it if you don't care to.
There's there is one copy at each table.
[3:16] As a reminder, uh, good governance
requires that any organization
[3:21] periodically review the rules by which
it operates. This is the reason that the
[3:25] charter review commission was
established. In this meeting, your
[3:29] elected officials hope that you will be
able to make comments about the proposed
[3:33] revisions to the charter and ask
questions about those proposed changes.
[3:37] The mayor and council at its last
meeting decided that the maximum that
[3:42] for the maximum number of residents to
be heard on both sides of the issue, we
[3:47] should limit the length of resident
comments to 5 minutes. If you have
[3:51] already spoken, please wait till the all
those who have want to speak have had
[3:56] the chance to do so and make their views
known or ask their questions. Comments
[4:01] will be timed and we will give a heads
up when you have spoken for four
[4:05] minutes. With that, with that, let's
hear from the residents.
[4:16] Hi, Peggy Blakesley.
Um, North Deer Creek Lane, 55 years on
[4:24] North Deer Creek Lane. I just have a
couple comments. First, I want to thank
[4:30] this is work.
[4:35] All right. First, I want to thank the
council and the mayor for choosing nine
[4:41] distinguished members from our city of
Pepper Pike to review this charter. And
[4:46] I also have just two questions. I want
to ask the mayor why he is so against
[4:52] this um new charter. And I also want to
say why there are some names on the list
[5:03] for voting no on the charter for people
that did not permit their name to be on
[5:08] the list. Um for instance, my good
friend Jean Seatin is pretty upset her
[5:14] name's on the list. She wasn't asked and
I'm not sure there's other members here
[5:19] names on the list with the same
situation. But anyway, I just would like
[5:23] to know why the mayor is so against all
the work that this committee put
[5:29] together and the council and yourself
chose the members and I would like to
[5:34] hear why you're so against it.
[5:44] Thank you, Peggy. I appreciate your
question very much.
[5:50] I'm going to try to say this in a
neutral way. Uh I can't advocate why my
[5:56] feelings may be what they are, but I can
explain. Gee, it's kind of hard in this
[6:02] situation. I'm trying to I'm honestly
trying to think how I can answer your
[6:07] question without appearing to be
advocating for the opposition to this.
[6:12] Uh
[6:16] you've stated that I'm against
it. I'm actually reluctant to even say
[6:22] that here when we're not on this
platform. I'm happy to share with you or
[6:27] anyone else in this room what my
feelings are about this. Uh so
[6:35] uh the there was a process that was
engaged in uh obviously uh by uh the
[6:42] council and the charter
commission.
[6:50] Uh the mayor uh did not have
an independent appointment to the
[6:58] commission. I think that's fair to say.
[7:03] Uh there were people who were voted
upon. I think that's fair to
[7:07] say. Um
[7:12] I I don't think I can in fairness and in
respect of the advice we've given our by
[7:16] our law director that we're not to
advocate here. And I think to express my
[7:21] feelings that I am either in favor or
against this on this platform, I just
[7:28] don't think I can do that, Peggy. And I
apologize. I'm not trying to avoid the
[7:32] question. I very much would like to
engage about my feelings regarding this.
[7:36] This is not the platform I can do it on.
And I and I apologize to everyone about
[7:41] that. But I think that's the way it is.
Um so thank you for your question. I I
[7:49] just do know that you've gone to
people's homes and asked for their vote
[7:52] no and have asked for money for your um
cause and I just was wondering why
[7:58] you're so against it. That's all. And I
completely understand your inquiry. I I
[8:03] really do. And uh I'm I'm not going to
sit here and dispute your uh reciting
[8:10] you know what outside of this form uh
what what is what I have maybe
[8:16] personally done or not but uh again I
just can't do it in this form because
[8:22] that's the rules and I'm just going to
have to be respectful of uh the advice
[8:26] of our law director. So I'm sorry. So
far as Miss Seatan, yes.
[8:32] Uh my understanding is that
uh I did not personally talk to Jean. I
[8:39] can I'm sorry. I did not personally
speak to Jean. Um my understanding is
[8:45] uh the people who have organized to uh
oppose this uh did speak to Jean. So, I
[8:52] don't know what information she's giving
you, but uh I
[8:56] believe I believe she did have a
conversation with someone. That's all.
[9:00] No, that's not correct. I just saw her
the other day and she Well, I I I I
[9:04] don't know. I did not I've never spoken
to Jean about this. Okay. So, I can't
[9:08] really comment on that. But if she's one
person that's very upset her name's on
[9:12] here, I'm just wondering if Well, that
that's something that uh either you and
[9:15] the people who promoted the name and
Jean Seat herself have to speak to.
[9:20] Uh, I believe that the person who spoke
to her had a high degree of confidence
[9:26] and that's all I I don't know anything
more about that. Okay. I'm just going by
[9:29] what she told me. All right. Thank you.
And Miss Mrs. Lacy, I just I want to I
[9:36] want to tell you I I do appreciate and
understand how you feel about us
[9:39] responding. It's been a challenge. which
I know in other forums at the
[9:43] walkability forum we had a different
um guidance from our same law director
[9:51] about how we could respond and it it
it's it's a challenge and interesting to
[9:56] me now that we can't but I that's what
we've been told. So is this law director
[10:01] on one of the sides or something? I no
the law director has no side. The law
[10:06] director simply provides legal advice.
All right. Uh, is there someone else?
[10:14] Yeah, I mean to the to the pod. You
didn't want to add more to something I
[10:20] know nothing about.
Uh, hi. Um, my name is Fred Wentz. Uh,
[10:24] Everact resident obviously because it'd
be weird to be here if I wasn't. Um, I
[10:28] think everyone agrees the chart is a
pretty important legal document and I
[10:30] think it's important to get it right.
So, I have just some specific questions
[10:33] about specific things in the document.
So, section one, names of boundaries.
[10:38] one sentence was deleted which prevents
a council from changing the boundaries
[10:41] of pepper pie because it wasn't
consistent with state law. It's pretty
[10:44] clear that language in there was not
consistent with state law and I would
[10:47] have wanted my commission to say the
intent is good. So what language could
[10:52] be put in that is consistent with state
law but instead they just deleted that
[10:56] without any discussion as to why it's in
there in the first place. Well um
[11:00] sections 31A 41A72 which is
qualifications mayor qualifications and
[11:05] vacancies. this there's no mention of
conflicts of interest. The conflict of
[11:09] interest can cause significant harm to
cities and residents in section 72 which
[11:13] is vacancies. There was a slight mention
and restriction on conflict of interest
[11:17] but that was removed by the new charter.
Section 328 president of council. You
[11:22] should have president of council if you
want a president of council. I don't
[11:24] care but I'm for that. However, the
powers of the president should be
[11:28] limited to items involving running the
council. The new charter states dot dot
[11:32] dot and I quote and shall have such
other powers and duties as established
[11:36] by ordinance. I'm actually not for
giving a member of council any kind of
[11:40] power they want by ordinance without a
vote of the voters. Power should be
[11:44] listed and limited by the charter is
protective of the residents. Uh section
[11:49] 39 and 48 which was removal. If council
members recommend removal of a member
[11:54] then those same members should not be
the final judge and jury. That's not
[11:57] impartial at all. There are Ohio revised
code laws to deal with this. Um, the
[12:01] council should have no ability beyond
the normal recall procedure to remove a
[12:05] mayor. The director of law mentioned
this very thing and recommended options
[12:08] for emergency impartial judicial hearing
and an immediate temporary restraining
[12:11] order against the mayor being the
superior method of handling an out of
[12:15] control mayor. Section 46 succession.
The mayor has no vote at council
[12:19] meetings. That makes sense. Sorry, Mr.
Mayor. I think he shouldn't vote at
[12:22] council meetings. That's my thought.
However, if something happens to the
[12:25] mayor, the president of council is
elevated to acting mayor while retaining
[12:29] the role of president counsel with a
vote in counsel. The charter should
[12:32] prevent any path for any length of time
that would allow one individual to
[12:36] directly control the executive branch,
the limited judicial powers, and the
[12:40] legislative branch. That's not a good
thing. General
[12:43] provisions, and I quote, "The city shall
have a law department, a finance
[12:47] department, a service department, a
police department, a city planning
[12:50] commission, and a civil service
commission. Provided, however, that the
[12:53] council may ordinate by ordinance
establish additional departments and
[12:57] commissions or divisions thereof and may
separate, divide, combine, or abolish
[13:01] any department, division, or commission.
Why would the council want the power to
[13:04] dissolve the police, fire, and service
department at any time? That shouldn't
[13:08] be in there. Sections 52 and 54, removal
of the mayor staff. Um, this is a little
[13:14] subjective. These sections allow the
council to arbitrarily remove me members
[13:18] of the administrative executive branch
without consulting the mayor at all.
[13:21] The subjective part is no matter how
many dotted line reports are drawn in an
[13:24] or chart, people work for and report to
the people that can let them go and the
[13:29] council can let them go. So this might
result might in all the mayor staff
[13:35] actually reporting to seven different
members of council having to do what
[13:38] seven different people telling to do
which could be different. This is a well
[13:41] doumented bad business practice.
City Planning Commission. Um, I don't
[13:46] have a lot of comments there, but all
the external guidance has the mayor,
[13:49] city manager, or other chief executive
officer of the government on the city
[13:53] planning commission. I couldn't find no
reason to remove them. Salaries and
[13:57] bonds section six. This section
restricts trip reimbursements to when
[14:01] they're in interest of the city. Makes
complete sense. However, it does not
[14:04] restrict other reimbursements to be
within the interest of the city. I think
[14:08] all reimbursements should be within the
interest of the city. I think it's just
[14:10] an error.
Uh and they had a schedule. In
[14:15] summary, a lot of coffee. I'm shaking.
Okay. In summary, charter is simply not
[14:20] near completion. I generally support
making revisions to a charter, but it's
[14:23] got to be complete. Four minutes in a
bad charter that's incomplete. I think
[14:28] it's worse than having no charter at
all. The commission itself during their
[14:31] last meeting listed those items that
need to be completed. The items in the
[14:34] list have dependencies on items in the
charter. the items in the list that
[14:38] aren't completed are dependent on the
have dependencies on the ones are
[14:41] actually in there. So, it's not complete
and I think that's that's a problem.
[14:45] Some critical examples are the zoning
board of appeals and the conflict of
[14:48] interest sections. The commission
clearly states those are not complete. I
[14:52] think it's been rushed and I think we
need another year with real two-way
[14:56] public communication engagement. Posting
on a website, sending out mailers is a
[15:00] start, but it's clearly called out by
the National Civic League as not being
[15:04] acceptable public engagement. It's got
to be two-way. The commission itself
[15:07] indicated there was very little public
engagement. Now, this might be a little
[15:12] administrative issue, but ordinance
202501 states and I quote that this
[15:17] ordinance is declared to be an emergency
measure necessary for the immediate
[15:20] preservation of public peace, health,
and safety of the city and its
[15:22] inhabitants. And in addition to for the
further reason that the ordinance must
[15:27] be immediately effective in order
necessary arrangements.
[15:31] What's the immediate
threat? That's
[15:35] Thank you. Thank you for coming this
morning. Um, as stated, we're being
[15:40] fairly limited in what we can talk about
in this in this forum, but I would be
[15:45] happy to talk on the phone or meet you
for coffee. I think any of us would, Mr.
[15:49] Gentilly would because I think some of
these things would be, you know, some of
[15:53] them are are more of a conversation,
some some of them are easier ones that
[15:57] we could talk about. So, just a thought.
No, that'd be great. I welcome it. Thank
[16:00] you. Thank you for your time. I agree.
[16:08] I'm uh Bill Melabro.
[16:20] I'm Bill Melop. I live at
31650 Trillium Trail. I've been a
[16:27] president of Pepper Pike for 43 years
and I've been on the uh planning
[16:33] commission for 12
years. I'm on the planning commission
[16:38] because Mayor Bane asked me to and u my
experience with the mayor is he's been
[16:45] uh very fair and even-handed all the
issues I've been involved with with the
[16:50] city.
Um he has dealt with some very
[16:56] significant
uh issues in the planning of the city
[17:01] including
[Music]
[17:03] um the u issue of uh a
proposed Panera restaurant on the circle
[17:12] and u he navigated that proposal to the
extent that city was not sued.
[17:22] uh for borrowing that and uh that piece
of land at the circle turned into Morgan
[17:30] Park which I think was a very a big boom
for the city. Um, another very uh large
[17:38] issue was um the proposal to turn the uh
u uh
[17:47] property of the
uh uh
[18:00] uh the 80 acres of the pool of property.
There was a proposal to uh make a uh
[18:13] uh housing and commercial development
similar to
[18:19] um
Beachbrook Beach on the Beachbrook
[18:25] property, similar to
Pinerest. and he s successfully
[18:31] navigated that proposal and so the city
was not sued and um I think the result
[18:39] has been a good
outcome. The third significant city
[18:44] planning issue had to do with
the sisters
[18:50] u of
Ursulent uh proposing more housing on
[18:55] their property and um he it was a
non-conforming use and he successfully
[19:02] navigated the
um solution of that situation with very
[19:09] good outcome for the sisters and for the
[19:13] city to take away the mayor's power of
running the u uh city and planning
[19:20] commission and turning it over to the
council I think is a a very large error
[19:26] in the proposed change to the
charter.
[19:31] Um and
finally, city council members are
[19:36] part-time employees of the city. The
mayor is a full-time
[19:41] uh employee of the city and to have
these
[19:46] part-time people choose a president who
will be superior to the mayor is a a
[19:53] very bad idea and that's why I'm against
uh issue
[19:58] 17. Thank you very much.
Thank you,
[20:03] sir. Well,
[20:16] Good morning. My name's Daryl Constant.
And my it may be a mood point because
[20:23] charters
may vary drastically from township to
[20:28] township, city to city, but I'm curious
if um since we have not updated ours
[20:33] since ' 66, um have other neighboring
townships, Shagrin Falls, Merlin Hills,
[20:40] others updated theirs in more recent
years to any of the issues that are
[20:45] similar to what is on our proposed
charter and have we talked to them? What
[20:50] have we learned from them about their
experiences with that? Thank you.
[21:00] Um, again, ma'am, I think that uh we
can't really advocate, so I don't want
[21:04] to risk that, but uh either of us or the
mayor would be happy to discuss that
[21:10] with you uh if you want to give us a
call. Our numbers are on the uh website.
[21:16] And I would just also direct you to the
executive summary that was um that's on
[21:21] the website where they discuss some of
those issues, but also happy to discuss
[21:26] it, but it they do discuss other cities
and other charters.
[21:35] Hi, just a uh uh a fact check on uh one
thing that you said. Uh the
[21:44] uh there has not we can confirm for you
there was not a comprehensive
[21:51] uh uh review of the entire charter by a
formal body. That that is accurate. Uh
[21:58] there have been uh charter changes to
the pepper pipe charter uh since it was
[22:05] adopted in ' 66. The last one I believe
was by the city council. Well, I know it
[22:11] was within the last uh uh 14 years
because uh I was there for it and it was
[22:16] a uh charter change that uh occurred
regarding zoning. Okay. So, thank you.
[22:22] Anyone
[22:28] else? Uh
Greg Greg Sords, 3199 Pine Tree
[22:35] Road. Good morning. I'm a blueco collar
worker and a union leader. I've spent my
[22:40] career showing up, doing the work, and
standing up when something isn't right.
[22:44] A few years ago, I helped bring a union
into the city of Solen service
[22:47] department because I was tired of seeing
decisions made behind closed doors
[22:51] without input, without clarity, and
without respect for the people doing the
[22:55] work. And when I look at this charter
repeal, I see the same pattern playing
[22:59] out here in Pepper Pike. Decisions made
quietly, behind the scenes, and without
[23:03] honest
explanation. Like many of you, I was
[23:06] told to just read the charter. So, I
did. But if I had only read the charter,
[23:10] I would have missed a lot. Of course,
their message is just read the charter
[23:14] because the contents are confusing, hard
to follow, and you don't ever see the
[23:18] bigger picture. You don't see the rush
process. You don't see the last minute
[23:22] edits, the broken promises, or the
decisions made behind closed doors.
[23:26] Thankfully, our residents are a group of
smart and engaged people. Folks had to
[23:30] connect the dots themselves, asking
questions, sharing what they found, and
[23:35] digging through records and meetings
just to figure out what was really going
[23:38] on. And here's what I learned beyond
simply reading the charter. One, town
[23:43] halls were promised and even labeled
town hall month last November, but they
[23:47] never happened. The charter commission
was rushed, never held public debate,
[23:51] and didn't engage the community before
finalizing its work.
[23:54] Two, council rushed this onto a May
ballot, not to help residents, but to
[23:59] help themselves. Mr. Gentil Gentilli
admitted November would interfere with
[24:04] council campaigns and then canceled the
town halls altogether. May 2024 turnout
[24:09] was just 24%. While the November general
election was 78%. They picked a time
[24:14] when fewer people would vote. Three,
council placed this on a ballot in late
[24:19] January, giving residents just 10 weeks
to understand a full repeal and rewrite
[24:23] of the city's founding document. Most
people didn't even know it was
[24:27] happening. And while we were scrambling
to catch up, council was still making
[24:31] major edits just days before finalizing
the charter. That's not how you earn
[24:35] trust, that's how you lose
it. Four, even after all the public push
[24:40] back, council refused to slow down.
People sent letters. They asked
[24:43] questions. They came to meetings. And
what did they get? Cut off,
[24:47] mid-sentence, dismissed, or ignored.
That's not leadership. That's damage
[24:51] control. Five. There is still not a real
answer to the question, why now? Our
[24:56] city is thriving. Services are strong.
People are engaged. And yet, we're being
[25:00] asked to rush through a complete repeal
and rewrite of the city's foundation
[25:04] with no clear explanation of what's
broken or why this couldn't wait for a
[25:08] more thoughtful process. Because it's
old isn't a reason, it's a distraction.
[25:13] When people ask why now and council
can't give a straight answer, we have
[25:17] every right to be skeptical. These
aren't rumors, they're facts. And just
[25:21] reading the charter wouldn't tell you
any of them. People in this community
[25:24] had to ask questions, compare notes, dig
through meetings and mailers, and
[25:28] explain it to each other because council
wouldn't. So today, I'm asking you to
[25:32] vote no on this charter repeal. Not just
because of what's in the document, but
[25:37] because of how it was brought to us. As
a union leader, I've always believed in
[25:41] showing up, speaking out, and standing
together when leadership stops listening
[25:45] to the people they're supposed to serve.
That's what this movement is about.
[25:49] Let's send a clear message. Pepper Pike
deserves better. Vote
[25:57] [Applause]
no. Um, just to on a high level, I think
[26:03] there were quite a number of factually
incorrect statements. Um, and I'm sure
[26:07] those weren't intentional, but probably
pro provided you were provided bad
[26:11] information. I would encourage you to
find the executive summary, which is
[26:15] hard to find on the website. We're
continuing to work to see if we can have
[26:19] it moved to put it put in a more
prominent place, but for right now, I
[26:23] would encourage you to look at the
Charter Review Commission's
[26:27] um explanation for a lot of these
things. Also, I would encourage you to
[26:31] reach out to members of council who
would be happy to discuss these issues.
[26:36] Um, kind of get down to the facts and
not, you know, hypothesis. So, I think
[26:42] that would be a a way to move forward.
Thanks.
[26:49] Does anyone else wish to come?
[27:00] Good morning. Good morning. My name is
Bruce Constant.
[27:05] You stop. Is there one? It's on, I
think. Just get a little closer maybe.
[27:09] Thank you. My name is Bruce Constant and
I'm a new resident here in Pepper
[27:15] Pike. I
think you'll help. He's tall.
[27:23] Was taller. Okay.
Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm a new
[27:27] resident been here just got about three
years and I'm guilty. I have not
[27:33] attended this meeting or any of the
meetings about it, but I've been reading
[27:36] reading a little bit about it and so
forth about it. Talked to a few
[27:40] neighbors, but I don't know a lot of
neighbors. I'd love to meet anybody or
[27:43] whatever about it. To know your
neighbors is to know your neighborhood.
[27:47] Um, with that being
said, I guess my general understanding
[27:53] of this here and what I'm seeing and
what I'm hearing is that public
[27:58] information about such an issue as
changing your charter, which affects
[28:03] every part of your governance. And the
public deserves not an opportunity to
[28:12] have small meetings in consideration or
committee or anything to go do the study
[28:17] come back and then make decisions to do
it and then it's going to come to a
[28:21] ballot and that's where we get the
chance to exercise the decision.
[28:25] Obviously with that type of input you're
going to have people in your community
[28:29] are saying yes no right away with what
you're d driving or my understanding is
[28:35] now is that you got a lot of people
that's giving false information
[28:38] information not enough understanding and
so forth. So those are considerations. I
[28:43] guess this when I hear and I've attended
God through my whole career, a lot of
[28:48] town hall meetings, city council
meetings and so forth or whatever
[28:52] township town hall meetings and so forth
and I've been on your side and I've been
[28:56] on this side in terms of my position
with those. One thing I I do say is that
[29:02] right now what I'm hearing is that this
is in a process very close to us. Well,
[29:08] if it's going to vote on May 6th, a
decision is going to be made. This is in
[29:12] a process at this point
that people have to get a dialogue with
[29:20] this public
officials to get a good me open meeting
[29:26] that everybody hears. Not that I'm I'll
meet with you about this and we can
[29:31] discuss this in more detail.
There's a lot of stuff in here that even
[29:37] discuss in public
detail that you can do that's could be a
[29:40] whole night meeting with me if it would
be because I don't understand a lot of
[29:43] it. The second thing is is that I get
very much
[29:47] concerned when I'm deferred to I can't
say this or I can't give too much
[29:54] information on it because the legal end
of my job or my position structured me.
[30:01] That's dangerous. That's very dangerous.
And what I'm concerned about is that's
[30:05] what I'm hearing.
I
[30:08] think no, we need to have an ability to
have why. Mayor, I haven't met you or
[30:17] anything. Why if there if you do have an
opposition that you can say I'm against
[30:23] it because this is wrong for my people
that elected me. This is right because
[30:28] here my position is this. Every one of
you that's elected by all of us who
[30:34] voted is saying
that I read this and I understand it but
[30:40] it's complicated. This is a big issue.
Regardless of what all of our neighbors
[30:45] cities or whatever is doing this Pepper
Pike things are different here what we
[30:50] want it to be as far as future. Yes, I'm
include myself as we because hell I
[30:55] bought property here. I'm interested in
interaction. I'm interested in a whole
[30:59] lot of issues that going forward,
especially in our international and
[31:03] national formats.
I'm done. I think another minute I'll
[31:08] say this close. I'm interested in this
climate that is a country that we're
[31:15] dealing with that issues that going to
be affecting my grandkids who also live
[31:19] in this area, my family and so forth is
coming forward and I need to know that
[31:22] the governor has checking balances on
each part of his governance. So that's
[31:28] not a closed room I'll meet with you or
whatever type of situation. That's a
[31:32] situation that more public meetings and
understanding need to be brought forth
[31:36] as some kind of structure. Thank you for
hearing me.
[31:43] Thank you sir for the comments and let
me just clarify because uh your uh
[31:48] comments did bring up an issue that uh I
can't comment on the
[31:53] uh the reason that you know we are
sitting here restricted and I mentioned
[31:58] that the law director had advised it
just so that everyone's
[32:03] clear if this town hall had occurred
prior to the placement on the ballot
[32:11] We could have had the exchange perhaps
you wanted to have, but because it's on
[32:15] the ballot now, that is the re that it
was voted on to be on the ballot in
[32:20] January. That is what is imposing this
uh break on uh these council members
[32:27] being able to uh and myself being able
to respond uh maybe more forthrightly to
[32:33] some of your questions or comments.
So that that is just so you know uh the
[32:38] reason why there is that uh governor on
uh the expanse of any response we can
[32:45] give to you.
doesn't make much sense.
[32:51] So, and just as a clarification, it's
it's been a point of frustration, I
[32:55] think, for all of us. Um, this is a
different reading, a a broader reading
[33:00] of that uh of of that provision, I guess
I would say. And this is not how we
[33:06] operated um when we had the walkability
vote, which was after it was put on the
[33:12] ballot. So, it's it's been a a real
frustration for us. and um getting
[33:17] information out I think is paramount. I
I personally am frustrated by that. Um
[33:23] even even like as I mentioned even the
ability to find things on the website.
[33:26] So I think we have to continue to see if
we can improve that.
[33:37] I Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. I I just want to
explain
[33:41] that at the beginning of this process,
we were told on council that we would
[33:47] have these town hall meetings prior to
the council voting on what went on the
[33:52] ballot. We had an opportunity to do that
in council, but five of my colleagues
[33:57] decided they didn't want that to
happen. I was disappointed by that. I'm
[34:02] hoping that the next time we have a
charter review, we can improve it. I I
[34:08] hope and I know my colleagues I council
are sick and tired of hearing me talk
[34:12] about the National Civic League, but I
think it's worthwhile to take a look at
[34:17] what that organization has studied in
charter reviews in many many cities
[34:22] around the country. There are a lot of
good practices in there and I think uh
[34:28] the city of Pepper Pike could benefit
from many of
[34:31] those. But it's been the process that
has frustrated me and u I think that's
[34:38] something to take into consideration. I
think the the commission they worked
[34:42] very hard. Uh they did good work and I I
I don't want to in any way say anything
[34:50] negative about that but I think the
process needed to be improved.
[34:57] And just to clarify again because I I
respectfully that this was not the
[35:02] process we had during the walkability
when
[35:05] nobody had any question about when our
town halls were. It was after it was on
[35:09] the ballot. It was never a problem
according to our law director. I know
[35:13] you never had any objection to that at
that point. And um we have we have
[35:19] aligned ourselves and Mr. Gentiley has
confirmed that with the National Civic
[35:23] League. Um, so that's that's
[35:31] Yes, sir. for
[35:41] good morning. Do you hear me? Okay.
Am I working out? I don't know.
[35:52] It'll be fine. Push it a little closer.
Testing one. Okay.
[35:58] All right. My name is Bert Randall. I I
live at 3450 Lander Road. I've been in
[36:04] the city for 47 years. Uh I don't think
this is a complicated situation.
[36:11] Actually, my experience is this. I've
been here 47 years. Everything, as far
[36:17] as I'm concerned, everything's been
hunky dory. I got no I have no
[36:20] complaints about anything. Our rubbish
is good. Our police is service is good.
[36:27] The streets are good. Everything seems
to work okay for me. Uh I'm looking at
[36:34] this charter uh
situation. It looks very
[36:40] complicated. Uh there's a lot of changes
that would be made and I feel there
[36:46] would be a lot of unintended
consequences.
[36:50] So, I'm against it. Uh I I don't think
it's broke. I don't think our present
[36:57] system is broke, our charter. And if it
ain't broke, I don't think it needs to
[37:01] be
fixed. It's a simple situation. To me,
[37:05] it looks like a simple decision. I'm
going to vote no. Thank you. Thank you.
[37:18] I was not going to speak,
but it's first of all, what's your name?
[37:25] Your name, please. My name is David
Sake. I'm I'm on Gates Mills
[37:30] Boulevard. I'm I'm really thoroughly
disappointed in this forum.
[37:36] Um, I understand the the leg legality or
supposed
[37:42] legality, but um, this seems to me that
it's just been a a forum for people to
[37:48] rally on one side or the other. It's not
I mean, I could have stayed home, watch
[37:54] cartoons.
Um, so that's that's number one. It's
[38:00] very disappointing.
Um, the other thing is I know in my
[38:06] personal
life maybe maybe if if it's not broke,
[38:10] don't fix it. So I guess I shouldn't
have looked at uh legal papers over the
[38:16] years and updated those. Um, and I know
I don't have anything that dates back to
[38:22] 1960 or '66 whenever this was formed,
but it seems like it would be a good
[38:27] it's good practices to look at legal
documents and update them when and where
[38:34] it's needed. I mean, my life has changed
over the last 34 years that I've been in
[38:39] this this city, and I know I've updated
my my own personal uh legal papers more
[38:46] than once. Um, and I would think that it
would be the same thing for the
[38:53] city. So, um, it's just disappointing.
It's very disappointing that that we
[38:59] shouldn't know what you think and what
you think and why, you know, not just
[39:04] the fact that you're you're against it
and you're for it, whether that's
[39:09] reality or not. I'm just using that as
an example. Uh, but I want to know why.
[39:14] and for me to take extra time to meet
with you, that's that's all
[39:20] fine, but um shouldn't be necessary.
This is the reason I came here was to
[39:26] find out more details coming from the
people up there. And uh it it seems to
[39:33] me that if it happened before on the
walkability, it should be able to happen
[39:37] now. and whatever uh you was looked up
by the um uh legality. I it I I would
[39:46] assume that it would have been looked up
before. So um
[39:51] just this has just been a forum for for
people that are for it or against it. Um
[39:57] and as opposed to finding out more more
reasons, concrete reasons other than
[40:03] something put out on a a piece of paper.
So,
[40:11] [Applause]
I agree with David. Why Why is the law
[40:17] director
putting these restrictions to to all of
[40:22] you?
Peggy, first I you're going to have to
[40:26] wait because other people
we just respectfully ask you not to just
[40:31] call out from the audience.
Gibson, is there anyone else since Miss
[40:37] Blakesley's already been to the
microphone? Is there anyone else first?
[40:41] You've already been I I just don't
understand what
[40:48] Good morning. My name is Vera Barta
Savage 29600 Shaker Boulevard. Um, the
[40:54] Pepper Pie Council has shown time and
again that their decisions are driven by
[40:59] more by personal power and internal
agendas than by the will or input of the
[41:04] residents that are supposed to who
they're supposed to
[41:09] represent. This proposed charter is not
only not about progress, it's about
[41:14] control. The council states that this is
about future governments in Pepper Pike,
[41:20] but truthfully, I'm concerned about
today and the near future. I am not
[41:25] fear-mongering, as the council sometimes
says. The facts speak for
[41:30] themselves. Um, I attend many council
meetings more than I would want to. I
[41:36] know firsthand what how this council
ticks. I have a few two examples in the
[41:43] recent future that have affected
residents that you know that are really
[41:49] concerning. They're very small, but this
is how the council works. The first one
[41:53] is during a council meeting, our coun
city council abstained from voting on a
[41:59] resident who has dedicated over 40 years
on the planning commission just because
[42:04] they didn't like the vote uh the mayor's
nomination. The majority of the council
[42:09] obviously coordinate co coordinated
their absentee um abstains in private
[42:15] which goes against the sunshine laws
that require city business to be
[42:19] discussed in public. The council even
refused to talk about the nominee that
[42:24] Mayor Bane brought to vote. This wasn't
about qualifications. It was a political
[42:30] power move. Only after Mayor Bane's
urging did one council member change
[42:35] their abstain vote so the resident could
serve. This is sad and disrespectful to
[42:40] a resident that has given over four
decades of his time.
[42:45] So, my second example is um the city
council recently re reversed a five-year
[42:51] ordinance on digital signs after denying
a request from the Garfield Memorial
[42:56] Church, a historical institution that
has been in Pepper Pike since the 1800s.
[43:03] Despite this denial, the council changed
the rules for existing signs at
[43:07] Landerwood shopping plaza, allowing
stricter control over um advertising
[43:13] display. Also, if the current Lander
Landerwood sign is destroyed again,
[43:19] which has happened um already twice when
a bus hit it, the new rules would
[43:24] severely limit its placement. Uh this is
really really concerning. these small
[43:31] little things. These actions by this
council make one thing clear. If this
[43:36] charter is passed, it will open the door
to a lev level of government overreach
[43:41] which we have not yet seen in Pepper
Pike. This process for uh charter
[43:46] replacement has been rushed as residents
have attested to. The language is
[43:50] unclear as in the red line that others
have talked about today. and the power
[43:57] it grants without a doubt as described
in my couple samples um provide provided
[44:03] here is overreaching. The only correct
vote for issue 17 is no and I advise
[44:09] everyone to vote no on issue 17. Thank
you.
[44:13] [Applause]
Um I my response is not going to be
[44:17] regarding the charter um issue 17
anything like that. So but I do feel
[44:23] like I need to respond. There were a
couple statements made about um council
[44:28] violating sunshine laws and some sort of
power move related to an appointment.
[44:33] There was also statements um about
council I don't know hypothesis
[44:38] conspiracy theory um about uh the sign
ordinance. I can assure everybody that
[44:44] all of these things were talked about in
public meeting on multiple occasions. Um
[44:50] there was robust discussion and this was
part of the work of council. If anybody
[44:54] ever wants to discuss the sign
ordinance, I know that's not really very
[44:58] interesting to most people, but I'm
happy to discuss that here. I'm happy to
[45:04] discuss that on the phone. I'm happy to
meet you or you can come to one of our
[45:07] meetings and I'm happy to talk about
either that or our appointments. Um, you
[45:12] know, and I encourage you to reach out.
But I I just I just don't want to hear
[45:16] false things said about console um or
allegations kind of leveled at console
[45:22] or really anybody without any sort of
proof. It's it's it's just disheartening
[45:26] and it's a sign of the times. But
thanks.
[45:31] I don't I don't feel that when you are
in council and everybody abstains at the
[45:39] same time that is not a coincidence.
There was discussion before. The only
[45:45] reason was because Mayor Bane brought
Dr. James Taylor for a nomination. That
[45:52] is totally clear. I mean, it is not that
you
[45:57] um how can you say that although and no
one would discuss it? No one discussed
[46:03] it. You would not even give eye contact
to the mayor and he asked. He was
[46:08] leaning over. No discussion. This man
gave 40 years of his life and he's done
[46:14] a very good job. As a resident, I was
appalled and also the sign ordinance. I
[46:20] contacted the church and told them that
I felt that they were disrespectful to
[46:25] the church has been here since the
1800s. They have not, you know, you have
[46:31] not given them a chance. That sign would
not even it's across the street from a
[46:35] bank. There's nothing that is a problem.
So anyway, um you know this this bit
[46:42] about you know that I'm giving
conspiracy theories is totally wrong.
[46:51] [Applause]
Thank you. Is uh anyone else wish to
[46:56] speak this morning?
[47:11] Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Good morning.
Good morning. I'm Mark Hennessy. I'm a
[47:17] 37year resident of Pepper Pike. U let me
begin with my conclusion.
[47:24] My conclusion is that I urge a no vote
on the charter amendment because uh it
[47:30] reflects a flawed uh charter review
process. Uh it dra it drastically
[47:37] reduces council power at the mayor's
expense and has and potentially
[47:41] undermines the high level of services
that we are now enjoying from the uh
[47:47] city of Pepper Pike. Uh, and just a word
about the high level of services with
[47:51] which I, as a resident, am delighted. I
mean, the police and the fire
[47:57] department, they're doing a great job.
They're keeping us safe. They're
[48:00] respectful. Uh, we got no lawsuits about
them. Thanks to the law director,
[48:05] probably all good there. The service
department, wonderful. They're
[48:09] dependable. They pick up uh refues. They
they plow the streets. Uh, all per all
[48:16] wonderful services. uh you know
admirable services uh probably better
[48:21] than any other communities in the area.
Um the city is developing an
[48:26] architecturally appropriate way.
Uh financially the city's in good shape.
[48:33] I mean we have these reachout activities
by the city uh that help to build
[48:40] community spirit within the city. I mean
we have taste of pepper pike and movies
[48:44] and all that is by itself small but
helps helps to build the community
[48:49] spirit and that's all
good and uh so the way I look at it is
[48:55] when it comes to charter
amendments resident satisfaction with
[49:00] pepper bike service is important because
it means that any proposed material
[49:06] changes in the in the charter have a
high burden of persuasion and very high
[49:11] burden of persuasion. They must
convincingly demonstrate that the
[49:16] proposed changes that are being made do
not present a significant risk of
[49:22] undermining the city services that we
are now
[49:27] enjoying. And I don't think this
proposed charter amendment uh overcomes
[49:32] that burden. It would drastically change
the balance of power between the mayor
[49:37] and the council. It would reduce the
mayor's authority. while at the same
[49:41] time increasing council's
authority. That should be no surprise
[49:46] because council has pursued this project
by setting up the uh charter review
[49:52] process, handpicking the members of the
charter review commission. Yeah, the
[49:57] mayor had one vote out of eight.
um and members of the council playing a
[50:03] prominent role uh in the discussions of
the charter review commission in direct
[50:08] violation of the city citic league guide
or charter review commissions. Uh with
[50:15] this with the realignment of the balance
of power the continuation of the high
[50:20] level of city services that we have come
to expect would be uncertain and at risk
[50:26] under the pro proposed charter
amendments. Let me give you five
[50:30] examples of why that's why that's the
case.
[50:33] One, the proposed charter would reduce
the mayor's crucial role at council
[50:38] meetings. He no longer would preside uh
and therefore couldn't set the agenda.
[50:42] There would be a new position in charge.
Council president elected by council,
[50:46] not by the voters uh who would preside.
Number two, the proposed charter would
[50:53] authorize council to remove the mayor
from office uh under removable cause,
[50:58] which is a definition which has some
very
[51:01] vague standards and some of them and and
could therefore be
[51:06] abused. Number three, that the proposed
charter would authorize council to fire
[51:12] the lock director and the treasurer
without the mayor's consent, but the
[51:16] mayor could not do that without the
council's consent. That makes little
[51:22] sense.
Four, the proposed charter would require
[51:28] consent of council for the mayor to
appoint the heads of the fire, police,
[51:31] and service departments. All those
departments are running perfectly now. I
[51:36] mean, as I as I see it from the
standpoint of a resident receiving those
[51:41] services. And then the fifth, the
amendment pertains to the city planning
[51:46] commission. Four minutes. I got Okay, I
only have one minute left.
[51:51] Okay. Um
uh this planning commissioner deals with
[51:56] matters like design, alteration, public
structures, zoning ordinance, appeals,
[52:01] that sort of thing. The proposed charter
provides for a takeover of control of
[52:06] the city planning commission by council
uh and removal of the mayor from that
[52:11] role.
Uh the planning commission as far as I
[52:16] can see seems to be working fine. Uh the
city is developing steadily and
[52:20] architecturally develop a way with a
proposed radical change in the
[52:24] commission. There's no assurance that
will continue to perform at that high
[52:28] level. Uh and the and the basis in
insufficient basis for recommending the
[52:34] change. So in some and we have maybe 30
seconds
[52:39] remaining the cumulative impact of these
proposed changes is that the mayor's
[52:44] authority would be materially diminished
and so would his ability to manage the
[52:49] city city affairs with corresponding
uncertainty regarding future perplex
[52:54] services to its residents. Thank you
very
[52:59] [Applause]
much more speakers this morning.
[53:12] I hope none to speak today um because I
don't like public speaking at all. My
[53:17] name is Stephanie Jarrett and I live on
Chattam Road, 2875 Chattam Road and I
[53:23] was a member of the Charter Review
Commission. Um, which means and for you
[53:29] folks who came here to get information,
this is I I'm so sorry. I mean, I I'm
[53:33] not responsible for this this process,
but I'm so sorry. I wish I could take an
[53:39] hour and stand up here and tell you what
the provisions truly say and why we
[53:43] decided on them. and you don't like
them, vote against them. That's why we
[53:48] vote. But I really wish you just had the
factual information. Um, we weren't
[53:52] responsible for the process. We were we
applied to be on this position on this
[53:57] commission. I applied because some
people encouraged me to do so. Um, I
[54:02] thought it would be a really good civic
and intellectual exercise for a city
[54:06] that I really love and care about. And
it was. I didn't know any I knew I knew
[54:11] I had only met no I only had met two
other people on out of the nine people
[54:16] and I met some really terrific people
and we worked really hard on it and we
[54:19] made recommendations that we thought
would be good for the city and then they
[54:22] went to council and beyond that I mean I
I just can't you know the process is
[54:29] frustrating. You came to hear what it
says and you're not hearing it. Um and
[54:35] it's frustrating because it's true. I
went I went to the
[54:39] walkability town halls and there was so
much information, the mayor and the law
[54:44] director describing, you know, how it
would work and why it was a good thing.
[54:48] And um it was already on the ballot then
and those were very informative and the
[54:53] word everybody likes to use robust. And
now the law director gives the advice
[54:57] that because this is on the ballot,
nobody can say anything. Nobody can give
[55:01] an opinion. Nobody can tell you what
it's about without it being biased. It's
[55:05] just really frustrating. So, just from
that standpoint, I'm not responsible for
[55:09] that, but I apologize. Um, for the
gentleman who said everybody's telling
[55:14] you to to read the
charter, that's it's hard. It's hard to
[55:19] read that red line that was mailed to
everyone. I would encourage you to read
[55:22] our report. Um, you may not agree with
everything in it, but at least really
[55:26] does explain, it's not that long, why we
made the decisions we made. The report
[55:31] has been buried on the city website, but
if you go to ww.perpikecharter.com,
[55:35] pepperpikecharter.com. It's It's readily
available with one click. And so take a
[55:40] look at that. And if any and I know
everybody's saying, "Well, I don't want
[55:43] to have to go talk to somebody else."
But if anybody has questions, I'd be
[55:46] happy to try to answer them. Um, just a
couple things that were said. I I can't
[55:51] go through everything in five minutes,
but someone said we didn't address
[55:55] conflicts of interest. We got input from
the public. A lot of we didn't get a ton
[56:00] of input, but there were several that
said, "Let's talk about conflicts of
[56:04] interest in the charter." The law
director told us that's not appropriate.
[56:09] Conflicts of interest are covered by
Ohio law, so it shouldn't be in the
[56:13] charter. So, you know, that was not
incomplete. That was not something that
[56:16] we neglected to do. And if you read our
report, it will say why we didn't
[56:20] include that in the charter.
Um, let's see. President of council.
[56:27] Folks, this is something that about
85% of the chartered cities in Kaga
[56:32] County have a president of council. It's
not some crazy thing. And yes, they are
[56:38] not. The person who becomes president of
council is elected by us. We've elected
[56:42] them as a council person. We don't vote.
We want this one to be the president of
[56:46] council. Council chooses their own
president. That's just the way it's done
[56:50] everywhere. So, you know, we don't make
that decision. But it's not an unusual
[56:56] thing to have a president of council. Um
council has told us they'd operate more
[57:01] efficiently and they think that the
meetings would run better because they
[57:05] could collaborate with the mayor on the
agenda. And so I don't to have a
[57:10] president of council run a council
meeting. That seems logical to me. Um
[57:15] separation of powers is you've got the
legislative branch and the executive
[57:20] branch.
Um, so many other things. Uh, gosh, on
[57:26] the removal of the law director and the
finance director,
[57:30] um, we re our our charter is silent on
how they're removed. Several other
[57:35] charters we looked at had the law
director and the finance director being
[57:40] removed the same way they are chosen by
the mayor's nomination and council's
[57:45] approval. So, we thought that made some
sense. Um, some a lot's been made saying
[57:52] you can remove the finance director and
the law director without due process or
[57:56] without um grounds for removal. Of
course, they are employees. For you,
[58:01] those of you who have businesses, you
don't need grounds for removal or a due
[58:06] process
to dismiss an employee. Um, and in
[58:11] reality, these provisions are never
going to kick in. If there is a problem,
[58:15] a mayor has a problem with a financer or
a law director to whom they do still
[58:19] report, you're going to see a
resignation so that there's no laundry
[58:24] aired and there's no legal risk. So,
thanks very much. I'm sorry. Thank you.
[58:29] Thank
[Applause]
[58:35] you, Miles.
[58:46] Don't start the clock yet, Tony.
[58:51] Scott, I'm going to move over to here if
you want to re adjust the camera on your
[58:56] You don't have to. Don't. No, no, don't
have to. Don't have to. Please respect
[59:01] my time.
[59:05] Don't need the camera over here. I'm
just saying that if you want to. My name
[59:09] is Manny Nath, a resident of Pepper Pike
for 39
[59:15] years. I'm a professional auditor in
regards to my career in Hitachi. I wrote
[59:21] the quality I I wrote the quality
manuals.
[59:25] And let me stop with that. In regards to
that I'm going to say to you right now
[59:32] is the big thing that just came out. You
can't hear me, right? Council, you can't
[59:37] hear council. You can't hear councel
because the mayor
[59:44] controls the website. What they're
trying to say to you nicely is that you
[59:50] can't hear the data that they want to
give you. Okay? because he totally
[59:56] universally was discussed in the last
council meeting autocratically he is the
[1:00:02] only one that controls that venue. So
all the information that they want to
[1:00:08] give you all the information that they
want to give you can't hear. That's
[1:00:14] what's the problem. Okay, that's one of
the problems on here. Okay. So, all of
[1:00:19] the things that they wanted to say to
you, okay, are controlled by one branch
[1:00:24] of government. Okay. And with that, uh,
let me get back on topic and I'm going
[1:00:29] to ask hopefully you people will grant
it on here. We've got another hour on
[1:00:34] here. The the first presentation, uh,
one residents came up and he spoke for
[1:00:40] like 15 20 minutes. Okay. I've been
going to council meetings since 19 uh
[1:00:47] I'm sorry since
2019. Every council meeting. Every
[1:00:52] council meeting either in person or
remotely. Okay. I've got the data here
[1:00:59] to answer the questions that you have
posed. You can decide if you want to
[1:01:03] hear them, which was the function of
this meeting, or you could decide, okay,
[1:01:08] and I commend the no vote side in
regards to they finally got your
[1:01:13] attention to come to a council meeting.
Okay. To come to hear the information.
[1:01:19] Congratulations to you. Thank you very
much. Okay. The question is, do you want
[1:01:24] to spend the time and hear what the
information is? One of the comments that
[1:01:29] was made, you know, is that okay, this
is uh the vote, it was just said the
[1:01:36] vote was was not fair in regards to
here's the vote
[1:01:40] tally specifically
from the city's office from uh Sheila.
[1:01:47] Uh a lot of you don't know who Sheila
is, but she's the clerk of of council.
[1:01:51] And and with that, these are the nine
people that are on there. Mayor Bane's
[1:01:56] number one vote was each person was
given nine votes and with that so a
[1:02:03] person can get a total of 72 votes on
here. Mayor Bane's number one person was
[1:02:09] Gary Hoffman. He gave nine points to
that person. The number two person that
[1:02:13] he had on here was Howard Botchnik. He
gave seven points to that person. The
[1:02:18] next person was uh Matt Visella. He gave
six points to that person. Okay. And
[1:02:25] then it goes down to Scott Bilski. He
gave five points to that person. Okay.
[1:02:29] Everybody could have gotten if if
everybody gave everyone a nine. If the
[1:02:34] if the council and the mayor gave nine
people, you know, the nine votes on
[1:02:39] here, the mass you can get was 72. Okay.
So with that, the top person Dagmarfells
[1:02:46] got 40 votes. Okay. That's, you know,
less than half. Four minutes. Okay.
[1:02:52] That's less than half. So the question
is going to be in a minute is whether or
[1:02:56] not you want to hear the data. I can
tell you that the the question is look
[1:03:02] at objective
[1:03:05] evidence. Here's a 15page report on the
objective evidence that you're asking
[1:03:10] for today. Okay? You can give me a
minute and I'll give you just a quick
[1:03:14] overview of what's happened and why it's
happened and why this commission has
[1:03:21] recommended what they have. It's not
that they've worked hard and it's not
[1:03:26] that they spent uh this time in they
were very talented commission. the
[1:03:30] person that was the the the head of the
commission, he's done two other at least
[1:03:36] two other charter
reviews. And with that, we have three
[1:03:43] lawyers on the commission, people
from the school board and so forth out
[1:03:48] here, they did what you didn't have the
time to do. And I understand that before
[1:03:54] I retired, I didn't have the time. Five
minutes. Okay. So with that you can ask
[1:03:59] you if you want to hear the data that
you're asking for I have it here and I
[1:04:03] can show it to you you know present it
you know quickly for you and just give
[1:04:07] me the same amount of time that
was given to the other people and I
[1:04:12] would say vote yes rely on the data that
these people Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very
[1:04:18] much on that. Okay. So I can give you
the data. Question is do you want it?
[1:04:26] You want it?
You don't want it. We have no
[1:04:29] disrespect.
Okay.
[1:04:38] So, you just heard the answer. They
don't want the data.
[1:04:48] Is there anybody who hasn't spoken who
wants to speak?
[1:04:53] Sir, we need to have everybody's you can
come up again later.
[1:05:02] My name is uh Bruce Rinker. I'm at 30949
Pineree Road. Uh I spoke at the first
[1:05:07] meeting. I didn't at the second. And u I
want to give you a little understanding
[1:05:12] of my background, but I'm going to be
voting no. And there are two primary
[1:05:17] reasons.
one, I think the process could have been
[1:05:21] handled much better than it was by
council. And then second, while it's
[1:05:28] important to do upgrades, and I think
there were a lot of points in this
[1:05:32] charter that one could characterize as
being upgrades, u some as
[1:05:37] meritorious, but there are also
provisions in here that clearly shift
[1:05:44] from the executive branch to the
legislative branch powers to the council
[1:05:49] that it does not currently
have. As for the process, uh there's
[1:05:54] been a lot of discussion about
walkability and comparing this process
[1:05:58] with
that. My recollection is that a few
[1:06:02] years ago, Mayor Bane came up with an
approach for putting a trail in Gates
[1:06:07] Mills Boulevard. What did council do
then? Council put on the brakes. Council
[1:06:13] was insistent that it get full and broad
public input on that whole process. And
[1:06:20] ultimately there were four different
surveys, communitywide surveys. The
[1:06:25] fourth survey was a referendum vote,
non-binding, but advisory to tell the
[1:06:31] council we want it or we don't want it.
It took all that time and that effort
[1:06:37] and I think anyone can say whatever
their view about it, it was a process
[1:06:42] that required full civic
engagement. This one, Mr. Gentill's
[1:06:49] alarm clock was set for May 6, 2025 at
the very beginning of the process of
[1:06:56] charter review. Council legislated how
the charter review process would be
[1:07:01] conducted, put a deadline for the
commission, and the commission worked
[1:07:05] hard steadily to meet that deadline
between the end of July to the middle of
[1:07:11] December. Council in three successive
meetings move the matter to the ballot.
[1:07:19] And that's a problem. That would have
been the point. That was the pivot point
[1:07:23] where a council instead of pointing to
the commission could have said, "All
[1:07:28] right, this is the draft now. Residents,
take a look at it. Let's get together.
[1:07:35] Let's figure it all out." There was
never any outside consultant. This was
[1:07:41] hard work from people, but the specific
provisions are many.
[1:07:48] It is almost impossible for anybody to
understand
[1:07:52] those. I'm an attorney that I retired at
the beginning of the year. I worked for
[1:07:59] 30 years in municipal and governmental
land use planning and zoning matters. I
[1:08:05] represented private clients and
represented agencies and governments,
[1:08:10] both sides of the fence. I was a
councilman in Mayfield Village for five
[1:08:15] years, two as a president and I was
mayor for 23 years and I'm currently one
[1:08:21] of the commissioners on the Cleveland
metrop parks. I look at all of these
[1:08:27] details and they give me pause. As I
said, I think a number of these are
[1:08:31] meritorious, but they're worth having
everybody understand them before having
[1:08:37] to vote upon them. The biggest problem I
have deals with article 5. That's the
[1:08:43] administration. That's the executive
branch of this
[1:08:47] government. Council currently does not
have the powers that this charter will
[1:08:51] give it. It can fire the law director,
fire the finance director without cause.
[1:08:58] That should be the mayor's job, the
chief executive, not seven council
[1:09:02] people getting together without the
mayor's involvement in making that
[1:09:07] decision.
They have the right to define every
[1:09:11] single individual job in the
administration. And finally, they remove
[1:09:16] the mayor from the planning commission,
which is an integral executive function.
[1:09:22] And there's no rationale given other
than what we see in the minutes, an
[1:09:26] evident mistrust of th this mayor and a
desire to have council be more objective
[1:09:33] than it believes the mayor can be for an
administrative position.
[1:09:38] Time out. Vote no. And let's start it
over again. Some of these definitely
[1:09:44] deserve better discussion and I think
ultimately could be voted up. Some of
[1:09:49] these should not be. Please vote no.
Let's try to do
[1:09:55] [Applause]
[1:10:01] better. Anybody else who hasn't spoken?
[1:10:23] Wait, wait to start the timer here until
I get this
[1:10:27] free. Okay, good morning. I have good
news and bad news. Uh, the good news is
[1:10:33] I did not prepare a speech. The bad news
is I did not prepare a speech. So, let's
[1:10:40] see how this goes. Um, I got a one
question first. What is your name? Oh,
[1:10:44] thank you. That I do that every single
time. Thank you so much. William
[1:10:47] Thompson, uh, 30500 Providence. Um, I
got start off with a question here. Um,
[1:10:53] where are the other four council
members?
[1:10:56] I think this is kind of important.
Probably should have been done when they
[1:10:59] could be here. Um, sidewalks. You
probably know me from the sidewalk
[1:11:04] conversation. I remember that. In fact,
sidewalks is what sucked me into the
[1:11:07] local politics here. I remember going to
the third one and thinking, "How come
[1:11:12] they're not speaking as we're talking?"
But then I remember, oh, what happened
[1:11:17] up front was the city engineer. That's
who talked. The city engineer came up
[1:11:21] and gave a very clear presentation from
the city engineers perspective. So yes,
[1:11:27] there was there was input, but it was
not from the mayor and it was not from
[1:11:30] council. They sat there and listened.
Okay, I saw those town halls as us
[1:11:35] talking to each other. And I'm going to
say something else. Who knows what a
[1:11:39] sidewalk
is? A lot of hands should be going up.
[1:11:43] Okay, that's not really complicated
question if you want them or not. You
[1:11:49] know what they are. Who's ever read the
city charter prior to
[1:11:54] this? see a lot of hands probably down.
You might have, but you know, good for
[1:11:59] you. It's a extremely different
situation. So, it's really not fair to
[1:12:04] compare the sidewalks to do you want
sidewalks or not. A fairly simple
[1:12:08] proposition to hey, I think we should
change a a math how our city is run. Not
[1:12:14] the same thing at all. Um, see, I'm not
doing too bad. U council president.
[1:12:21] Yes, 85% of the cities have a council of
president, but number one, so like that
[1:12:28] does not mean it's better for Pepper
Pike. And what the omission is to a good
[1:12:33] number of them, guess who picks the
council
[1:12:37] president? The city. You vote for that
person. In a good number of those, I
[1:12:42] have yet to hear that mentioned. It's
true.
[1:12:46] Um, I also hear the mayor about the
mayor picking people for the planning
[1:12:51] commission. Okay, I'll just say it. I I
wanted to vote for Jill Stein. Fine,
[1:12:56] like it or not. But I wanted to vote for
Jill Stein. You know why I
[1:13:01] didn't? There's no way in God's green
earth she's going to win cuz I get one
[1:13:07] vote. So, I have to pick from two people
that I don't like. So, I picked the
[1:13:14] person that was the most acceptable for
what I wanted to do cuz I I was not
[1:13:19] going to get who I wanted. So, think
about that. When somebody has one vote
[1:13:24] out of eight, they're likely to pick the
most. Except it doesn't mean it's
[1:13:29] necessarily an endorsement. Or maybe it
was, but it does not necessarily mean
[1:13:33] that it was. Um, how we doing on time?
49 seconds. Minute. Thank you. I'm
[1:13:39] sorry. Minute 55. Great. Thank you. I'm
doing all
[1:13:43] right. And in in some Asian I I started
talking to people doortodoor and 30
[1:13:50] people in a row I said started talking
about the charter issue. The first thing
[1:13:54] they said
was
[1:13:57] what? You know the issue to change the
change the charter on the ballot? Uh I I
[1:14:03] heard something about a charter like
uhoh. That's a major major problem that
[1:14:09] I think we've spoken to a few times
today as far as people are just not even
[1:14:14] aware that the change to how our city is
run is even up for even up for debate
[1:14:20] and discussion. And then oh my goodness,
you get out this I'm not a lawyer. I
[1:14:25] read the red line more times than I to.
Thank you.
[1:14:30] Um I'm just going to echo Mr. Rinker's
comments that way, way too much, way too
[1:14:38] fast. Are there probably some things
that could be corrected or fixed? Of
[1:14:42] course, but not like this. This is way
too much way too quickly. And you know
[1:14:48] what? The city is doing awesome. 93%
property values in the last decade. They
[1:14:53] looked national average is 50. We're
doing really, really well. I kind of
[1:14:58] don't want to mess with that how our
city is run. So that's it. Thank you.
[1:15:01] You vote no.
[1:15:06] Am I going to be last? Anyone else? I
threatened to sing last time. Let's see
[1:15:09] if I do it. Anyone else who hasn't
spoken?
[1:15:14] Oh, yeah. Yes,
[1:15:19] that's a bad idea.
I promise you all this will not be five
[1:15:24] minutes. It's my birthday and I have to
go home with grandkids and
[1:15:29] [Applause]
Thank you. I'm 19 now.
[1:15:35] Plus, I want to just just say
this. I'm, as I mentioned, I'm a new
[1:15:41] resident. And being a new resident and
hoping and seeing I I moved here because
[1:15:46] boy, Pepper Pike got a great reputation.
Who wouldn't want to move to Pepper
[1:15:49] Pike? Who would not actually? And so
forth. And so, boy, they're doing some
[1:15:53] things right over there, B. I'm can't
wait to move in, get my new home, do the
[1:15:56] things I'm going to do, the things, my
future, and so forth, whatever. I'm very
[1:16:00] very pleased to be able to do that. Very
pleased. And you got here because you're
[1:16:05] interested in get being better. Not just
good, but being better. And that's what
[1:16:09] counts. I say my concern tonight or
right today. My concern right now is
[1:16:16] that and I'm not turning my back on you
because I do think these are public
[1:16:21] servants and thank you. Thank you all of
you. Thank you. who serve on committees
[1:16:29] who are appointed by council or acted by
council people whatever to hey we need
[1:16:34] some help we're serving on this board
can't get done by just these people up
[1:16:37] here and it can't be understood by just
the attorney or by the mayor and so
[1:16:41] forth what I'm hearing though what
scares me is what I've been seeing
[1:16:46] before is everybody draws the line in
the sand saying that we can't get past
[1:16:52] that that stops trying to get not good
but be better. And what I'm seeing here
[1:16:58] right now and I got I got to go and
that's why I wanted to I'm late or be
[1:17:03] late but I need to say we're going to do
better than this and I'm saying we're
[1:17:06] going to I think we have to this line is
drawn in the sand saying yes and no
[1:17:10] today and because of what we think it's
the right thing and all of us got
[1:17:14] opinions because we think we're doing
the right things not only for our
[1:17:17] families but for the community and so
forth. I think that's very important to
[1:17:19] stay in front of and do. But I think
what we're hearing is is that man, we
[1:17:25] need to go back an example put a
framework in place of us in terms of how
[1:17:29] do we do this better to get to this
stuck point this yes no before we have
[1:17:35] to get to the yes no this early in the
game and I think that's a very important
[1:17:39] thing I think looking at it that okay
hear us both you hear them they hear you
[1:17:46] what do we do to get the yes no thing
understood better and how do we do this
[1:17:51] going forward in terms of even if we're
going to hire a not a planner but even a
[1:17:56] a service worker is that is everything
being done okay to the best of our
[1:18:00] interest to be better not just good and
go for it. I leave here right now with
[1:18:07] man I hope we can come to some kind of
format that that can be developed and
[1:18:11] done because you are good pepper great
okay and I look forward to staying here
[1:18:15] you for a long god let me uh stay here
and do my part and so forth so I that's
[1:18:21] what I'm going to say and I apologize
for having to leave and go out but I got
[1:18:25] some grandkids and so forth probably
waiting to cut that cake and I want to
[1:18:27] be cut my own cake so thank you for
having me and let me speak again thanks
[1:18:37] Happy birthday, sir. Thank you. Anyone
else? It's back to you before I break.
[1:18:44] Anyone else?
[1:18:58] First of all, uh I'm voting no for this.
Gerard Marta Savage 296000 Ship
[1:19:06] Boulevard. I'm voting no for this. But
one of my really uh uh issues tonight is
[1:19:14] or tent this morning is where are four
council
[1:19:18] members? This is an important issue with
our city of Pepper Pike. Where are they?
[1:19:23] Why aren't they here? This is
wrong. When council members said, "Oh,
[1:19:29] you can communicate with us anytime."
When uh residents are telling us now
[1:19:33] that that when they send emails, they
don't respond.
[1:19:37] So, uh, I'm disappointed in that when
Miss Jared, I I totally understand your
[1:19:43] frustration. I I really do. I know, uh,
there was a you you all your committee
[1:19:48] members, uh, put a lot of effort in this
and, uh, there when we went to city
[1:19:53] council, we were told that there was
going to be nine commission members.
[1:19:59] We sat there in the in the in the uh in
the uh audience of a city or in the
[1:20:04] Pepper Pike council meeting and all of a
sudden three more show up. It was a a
[1:20:08] council. We were never informed or never
uh informed that the three council
[1:20:14] members were going to be included in the
conversation. We heard so many times
[1:20:18] where they're intelligent people uh on
the
[1:20:23] commission. Well, if they were
intelligent people, wouldn't they say,
[1:20:26] "We got this. We could handle this on
our
[1:20:29] own." Uh, I'm I'm very disappointed in
that. Uh, my wife and I started the u uh
[1:20:37] political action committee for sidewalks
and obviously we've been very
[1:20:41] successful. And what what was
interesting is the
[1:20:45] timing. Uh, council members were not uh
for sidewalks. They would not take a
[1:20:51] sign. They would not say we're we're for
sidewalks. Uh some of their family
[1:20:57] members even had no signs on their uh
front yards. Uh and then they come back
[1:21:02] and say we voted for sidewalks. Really?
You voted for sidewalks? My god, you had
[1:21:08] three uh surveys and a vote. Uh who
wouldn't vote for it? That would be
[1:21:15] suicide. So uh I'm I'm advising all of
you this is this is rushed. We had we
[1:21:21] were hoping that the commission would
come and give a report at a council
[1:21:25] meeting. We were very we were hoping
that you would give a report like most
[1:21:30] uh uh committees so we can hear what's
going
[1:21:34] on. We were very disappointed that the
commission was shut down. Why? What's
[1:21:41] the rush? We were very disappointed when
we requested letters. The letters aren't
[1:21:47] available anymore. Why are the letter
letters no longer available anymore?
[1:21:52] I've asked the president or the the
committee chairman. I've asked the
[1:21:56] secretary for the for the letters. U the
the chairman says we don't have them
[1:22:01] anymore. This I haven't heard back from
the secretary. So um and then I was
[1:22:07] really surprised to hear that the
commission didn't know anything anything
[1:22:12] about this letter. the letter that the
the vote no people uh for sidewalks
[1:22:18] submitted to council in November of
23 because they were so upset with the
[1:22:24] uh the the yes vote for sidewalks. They
wanted a uh a charter review. Very
[1:22:30] interesting. I couldn't believe that
some of the uh charter review commission
[1:22:33] members didn't even or weren't even
aware of this letter. They keep talk
[1:22:37] council keep talking about uh
transparency. Why don't they put this
[1:22:41] information on the website so everyone
can
[1:22:47] see I uh as a as a committee member for
vote no uh uh as some of your other
[1:22:54] committee members uh we're putting up
the sign we're going
[1:22:57] people were confused people were very
confused in the charter review
[1:23:02] commission notes it said that there was
going to be town halls early in the
[1:23:08] fall why did that why did not that not
happen? Why are we having town halls
[1:23:14] now? This is totally ridiculous. It's
already at the uh uh uh up for a vote.
[1:23:21] We've talked to a lot of the residents
in this community at Pepper Pike. Uh
[1:23:26] most of the former council members, the
majority of the council members are
[1:23:30] against this change. Uh they're all
listed on here. Some of them said they
[1:23:35] were voting no for it and uh uh but they
didn't want to be listed and they they
[1:23:41] didn't want to sign it. Former mayor,
mayor uh Bruce Acres was uh talked to
[1:23:47] about this. He's voting no. So, this is
a very poor process and it's a poor
[1:23:54] piece of
legislation. So, I recommend everyone
[1:23:58] vote no for this charter uh repeal. And
if you want any documents or any
[1:24:04] information that I was able to find,
you're welcome to come and see me and
[1:24:07] I'll give you all that I have. Thank you
very much.
[1:24:14] My phone.
I found the phone up here. My phone's
[1:24:18] gone. I'm your phone. Literally grabbing
my phone. Like where's my phone?
[1:24:24] Hi, Fred WB resident. So, I just wanted
to address I uh conflict of interest
[1:24:29] saying I don't think we actually
disagree, but we only have 5 minutes. I
[1:24:31] can't get my output. Yes, I agree with
what you said. I saw in the meeting
[1:24:35] minutes where the law director said
conflict of interest by Ohio revised
[1:24:38] code or wherever that is. I forget which
number it is. That's fine. And I don't
[1:24:41] think we disagree on that. I mean, it's
important, but a charter can provide
[1:24:45] more restriction than Ohio law, you
know, does. You can restrict things
[1:24:48] more. And so my position which is not
well I was busy no Ohio law allows
[1:24:53] conflict of interest and there's rules
about recusing yourself disclosing it
[1:24:56] yada yada yada but in teeny town USA
with teeny I'm sorry I say that with
[1:25:01] affection. I love being in teeny town
USA and having a teeny mini city
[1:25:05] council. Sorry if it came out but I
would be a little bit more restrictive
[1:25:09] and say if I I don't want any conflict
of interest which is beyond the scope of
[1:25:14] this discussion. I just want to be clear
that within five minutes I couldn't get
[1:25:18] that out. So I agree with what you said.
I just want would want that in and that
[1:25:21] would be a discussion we would have back
to my original point. See how I work
[1:25:25] that around is I think we didn't finish
it. Not we. Yeah. Anyway, that's
[1:25:32] thanks. There's no way this Oh, it does.
[1:25:43] Anyone else?
[1:25:58] very interesting some of the things that
uh Mr. Bark Savage just
[1:26:03] said council I the charter commission
could have handled this on their
[1:26:09] own. This is in the last meeting there
was a person that came up spoke very
[1:26:14] well for the say no position and she
said FUD never heard of FUD. FUD means
[1:26:22] fear
uncertainty doubt. Okay that's what
[1:26:27] they're casting on here. He just said,
"Okay, they could have handled this on
[1:26:31] their own." Can you imagine if they
didn't ask the council people what they
[1:26:35] felt? Can you imagine if he if they
didn't ask the residents what they felt?
[1:26:42] Okay, can you imagine that in regards to
handle this on their own? Okay, I
[1:26:47] attended 16 of the 17 meetings on here.
You're not going to get a finer group of
[1:26:52] people. And I'm going to stop talking
about the finer group of people. I'm
[1:26:56] going to talk about the chairman of the
committee is the law
[1:27:00] director in in Twinsburg. Okay. You've
got three other lawyers on here. You we
[1:27:06] we spent thousands upon thousands of
dollars to have the legal our legal
[1:27:12] director, our law director there at the
meetings on here. All of these people
[1:27:17] got the information that this committee
asked for. Okay. one of the people that
[1:27:22] that uh you know so to say uh you know
again this FUD item that the no thing is
[1:27:27] saying they could handle this on their
own. They wanted the input from you
[1:27:31] folks. They want the input from council.
They're living on it every day. Okay.
[1:27:35] And and with that this committee went
over let's see the president of council
[1:27:42] uh 10 20 30 40 some times they discussed
they went back and they discussed that
[1:27:47] 40
times. The planning commission, they
[1:27:51] discussed that 20 times. They went back
over
[1:27:54] that. Keeping it simple. They did their
job. They did their job adequately.
[1:28:01] You're never going to get a more
qualified. Again, the guy that was the
[1:28:05] chairman of the committee, he's a law.
He's done this three times for other
[1:28:09] communities. Three or four times. Oh, we
have the exact number on three times.
[1:28:13] Three times for other communities on
here. you're never going to get a more
[1:28:18] thorough review of what's the problem,
you know, is and right now, Mr. Thompson
[1:28:23] who speaks extremely well and thank you
for coming to council meetings, you
[1:28:27] know, on air and bringing up the points.
And again, my first comment was, "Thank
[1:28:31] you for getting people to show up.
There's a person, her name is Luanne
[1:28:34] Bram. She came to council meetings for
years. She was the only person there for
[1:28:39] like 20 years." Council was saying,
"There's nobody there." So, finally, we
[1:28:43] got people that are listening. So,
please listen, okay, to what's, you
[1:28:46] know, being said. Mr. Thompson said in
and this is a an item that he gave to
[1:28:52] the to the commission. Let's be honest.
There are problems between the mayor and
[1:28:57] the council. It's not hard to see. Okay.
And with that, they looked at that and
[1:29:04] they looked at the other inputs that
people gave and they came to their
[1:29:08] conclusions. Okay? And they came to
their conclusions. And with that, trust
[1:29:13] them. Okay, we all laugh about social
media and the and the and the the toxic
[1:29:20] environment that's in and the
misrepresentation. Trust, you know, them
[1:29:24] on here. They talked about, you know,
the sidewalks on here. The first again
[1:29:29] this FUD item of fear and things like
that. Council approved the sidewalks.
[1:29:35] First meeting that I was presented,
okay? you know, on there. The mayor
[1:29:40] said, "I'm not okay." And that was
February 17th. Okay. Mayor said, I'm
[1:29:45] reading I'm quoting from the minutes,
and this is what was presented to the
[1:29:50] commission. Four minutes. Thank you very
much. The mayor said, uh, I'm not fond
[1:29:55] of
surveys. We get the input from residents
[1:29:59] in in in hearings on here. Bob Free
said, I'm not voting for this unless I
[1:30:05] get a public survey. The reason why he
got three public surveys is because the
[1:30:11] mayor issued his own survey. He didn't
consult with council. Okay? And they had
[1:30:18] to go back three times to get it. And
the last major item then on the
[1:30:22] sidewalks, you've have Jackie Godic
who's a council person that's mainly a
[1:30:27] sidewalk person, you know, who said, "I
really appreciate sidewalks and so forth
[1:30:31] on here." and she's told them on their
on their website, get off of the
[1:30:36] sidewalks already. This is not about
sidewalks. They choose not to listen to
[1:30:42] that advice, you know, on here. So, the
item is the last point, there's so much
[1:30:47] more data that I can give you on here,
but the last point is council could have
[1:30:51] voted down sidewalks. 5 minutes. They
could have voted on sidewalks. They
[1:30:56] could have done it in council with four
votes and killed it. They did what you
[1:31:01] want to do of your representatives. They
put aside what their individual items
[1:31:06] were and they put it on the ballot.
And with that, they could have killed it
[1:31:11] if they wanted to kill it.
Thank you.
[1:31:17] Is there anyone else?
[1:31:22] No one else. I still got five minutes.
Not seeing anyone. Wait, wait. Wait,
[1:31:25] wait, wait a second. They're still time.
You don't get twice. Why not? The
[1:31:30] meeting goes to the meeting goes to you
know Oh, please.
[1:31:35] No, no, no. Okay, we talk twice to
think. The only thing I'm still not
[1:31:43] the only thing I have to say is it seems
that sitting here today listening to all
[1:31:47] this and I appreciate all your great
information why you want to vote no. I
[1:31:53] understand it and I understand Manny's
done a lot of research. I'm not sure
[1:31:58] now. I'm going to have to go over what
Manny has put together and what you have
[1:32:02] all put together. I appreciate all that.
I appreciate all your attendance at the
[1:32:06] council meetings. Right now, from what I
can tell about this today at this town
[1:32:11] hall, is there a conflict between the
mayor, the law director, and the
[1:32:16] council? And I don't like that. I don't
like a conflict. I would love I've loved
[1:32:21] living in Pepper Pike for 55 years. I
agree with everyone. Every everything
[1:32:26] here is run very well. I just don't like
this conflict. I don't like this
[1:32:32] division between our residents right
now. I don't like any of this. I just
[1:32:36] wish it would stop. And I just don't
know whether it's the law director
[1:32:41] making wrong decisions or something's
happening at the top. And I just wish it
[1:32:46] would stop. That's all I have to say.
Thank you so much.
[1:32:53] Thank you.
Yes, ma'am.
[1:32:57] [Music]
Hi, Grace Barber, 33,000 Shaker
[1:33:04] Boulevard. I'd like to access my time to
Manny.
[1:33:07] I'd like to give my time to Manny. My
five minutes.
[1:33:14] Why? Respectfully, Mr. NAF has spoken
twice and respectively at the first
[1:33:21] meeting at the first town hall. The no
side spoke at length for 20 minutes, 15
[1:33:28] minutes, 10 minutes. It's unfair that
only certain voices are heard in our
[1:33:34] community via social media or at council
meetings and that's the the only people
[1:33:40] that get to speak. I am not a public
speaker and I would like to give my time
[1:33:45] to Manny.
No, that's not what you do.
[1:33:51] I I but all due respect, Grace, I think
Okay, I will respect it, but it's
[1:33:56] unfortunate that certain voices are shut
down. Typically, we did limit it and and
[1:34:01] Manny has had 10 minutes and
uh you know, he's he's he's volunteered
[1:34:06] to give this information to anybody who
wants it offline and I think that that's
[1:34:10] that's good enough. But I'd like to also
say the diversionary tactics are
[1:34:15] dividing this um city and it is
disappointing.
[1:34:20] Thank you.
[Music]
[1:34:25] You're watching
[1:34:33] not seeing any new voices. Uh I think we
will uh uh make it a wrap. Thank you
[1:34:42] everybody for your attendance at this
meeting at the prior meetings if you
[1:34:46] made it to those. Uh this is an you know
coming up as an exercise in democracy
[1:34:52] and uh that's a good thing. So uh thank
you very much and uh we'll see you
[1:34:59] around town. Bye.