[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.

City Charter Town Hall 4-5-25

Transcript