Charter Amendment: Issue 28

A Farce in the Name of Government Transparency

This charter amendment would require all meetings of municipal bodies, including City Council, and all City Boards, Commissions, and Committees (chartered or codified) shall commence live public broadcasting and recording of all their public meetings.

Doesn’t sound so bad, does it? At its face value most anyone would agree that more transparency in government is a good thing.

Here’s the thing: Was it necessary to create a charter amendment for this?

It Started as a Law

On November 10, 2022, City Council voted to enact ORDINANCE NO. 2022-187, sponsored by Councilman At-Large and President Jeremy McIntire, which would have forced the all-volunteer boards and commissions to also broadcast their meetings. The legislation passed on a 4-2 vote, with McIntire, Ward 1 Councilman Matt Riehl, Ward 2 Councilwoman Sindi Harrison and Ward 4 Councilman Mario Fiocca voting in favor; Councilmen At-Large Cyle Feldman and David Licate voted against. And, Mayor John Pribonic vetoed it.

In a letter explaining his veto (see letter attached beneath ordinance), Mayor Pribonic wrote in part: “Council’s authority…is not to micromanage the inner workings of (the Mayor’s) administrative staff. This piece of legislation single handedly strips every Board and Commission, which is an administrative function of this City, of their own ability to create and adopt their own administrative procedures….”

Beyond the issue of “stay in your own lane” are reasons of practicality and necessity:

1. What problems or issues have arisen by not having these meetings broadcast? Just sounding like a good idea isn’t enough when one has to factor in the details of executing on the plan.

2. Who wants to watch all those meetings? As it is, the council meetings, livestreamed on YouTube twice a month, get an average of about 145 views. Hardly the interest-level among a city of 34,000 residents to require every commission to do the same.

3. Every commission would need to have its secretary trained on how to use the equipment – really? What if they’re not tech-savvy? And, what if they’re not at a meeting?

4. There are 12 groups that would be required to use the council chambers to broadcast their meetings, some of which meet twice a month. They all can’t meet there at the same time, so conflicts in scheduling would happen.

5. Some of the commissions, like Parks & Recreation, Urban Forestry, Cemetery Board and Arts Commission have good reason to meet off-site at locations impacted by the policies or programs they are considering. What means will council provide to broadcast those off-site meetings?

Each of these commissions already fulfills obligations of Ohio’s Public Records Act and Open Meetings Act, including publishing their agendas in advance, holding open meetings and publishing the minutes of their meetings after-the-fact. All meeting documentation is provided on the City of Stow website.

On the night before Thanksgiving, City Council held a special 15-minute meeting that was scheduled by McIntire just five days earlier, whose sole purpose was to override the mayor’s veto of the legislation. In what could only be described as the most ironic occurrence, this meeting on government transparency was held at a time when most people were busy with holiday preparations AND cannot be viewed on Stow’s website:

Additionally, most of the YouTube stream of the meeting has no sound, but you can hear the last seven minutes, during which Licate asks for council to consider adding some flexibility to the proposal, but felt council had instead produced legislation with more restrictive language:

There are minutes of the full meeting, just as there are minutes from all the meetings held by the various boards and commissions. You can read the minutes of the special council meeting here.

During the special meeting, Lowdermilk and Harrison expressed interest in “tweaking” the legislation, and the council voted to do that.

Meanwhile, boards and commissions impacted by the legislation independently voted on whether to go along with council’s edict to control the place and manner of their meetings, which the Stow charter currently says is up to the individual boards and commissions. They all voted against it. There is no indication from meeting minutes that McIntire or any other city council member met with any of the boards and commissions to discuss the proposal prior to enacting the legislation.

Second Version, as Bad as the First

So, on Jan. 12, 2023, McIntire introduced Version 2 of the legislation, which now required just four of the 12 groups to broadcast their meetings from council chambers while the others would be required to “broadcast their meetings when possible.” Curiously, the Building & Zoning Board of Appeals, which had been ranked a lowly 11th in priority (2nd to last) in the first proposed law was moved to 4th priority in the second version. The second version of the legislation, ORDINANCE NO. 2023-021, was sponsored by Lowdermilk and passed 6-1, with Licate voting against.

Introduction of a Charter Amendment

On July 13, McIntire introduced legislation to put this matter to the people of Stow as a charter amendment. The members of City Council and other city officials debated the measure, with Law Director Jaime Syx saying she had met with every board and commission to see if they could and were willing to broadcast meetings and each had voted unanimously against the policy. Feldman and Licate also said they’d visited some of the commission meetings to get the volunteers’ feedback on the feasibility of the plan.

None of the five council members who ultimately voted for the charter amendment said they’d met with any commission members to discuss the topic during the 9+ months that the issue had been discussed. Watching the council’s charter amendment discussion reveals it’s a half-baked plan, with council members refusing to acknowledge the legal ramifications of the legislation they’re about to pass.

See the charter amendment discussion:

Despite unanswered questions about how this measure would conflict with other sections of the city’s charter, McIntire, Harrison, Lowdermilk, Fiocca and Riehl voted to move forward with a charter amendment. Licate and Feldman voted against it.

So now the issue will be decided by the people of Stow on November 7.

Let’s Talk About Government Transparency

If McIntire, Harrison, Lowdermilk, Fiocca and Riehl would like to improve “government transparency,” perhaps they should first work on cleaning up their own house. Here are some suggestions:

1. Explain why McIntire didn’t post on the City Council’s agenda the applications that were sent in to fill the Ward 1 council vacancy caused by Dennis Altieri’s death in 2021, and why he didn’t have council interview any of the applicants before appointing former term-limited councilman Matt Riehl.

2. Explain why this charter amendment took priority over approval of an employee compensation plan that would bring some parity to non-bargaining employees after 15 years of no merit raises. What exactly were the concerns of councilmembers holding this up – were they objecting to the proposal overall or were they questioning the compensation of individual employees? Learn more about this issue.

3. During board and commission appointments: Council should give persons nominated or re-nominated by the mayor the opportunity to address council and answer any questions before their vote on the appointment. See why this is an issue.

4. When rejecting a mayor’s appointment, each council member should explain why.

5. The board and commission application form should be amended to include questions about what qualifications they can contribute to the commission for which they are applying and why they want the position.

There are about 65 Stow residents who volunteer their time to be on the city’s various boards and commissions. They’ve been doing that job just fine without anyone watching them on video. Their meetings are already open and documented so that anyone who wants to know what’s going on can easily get that information.

This isn’t an issue of government transparency, it’s one of gaining control over administrative functions, without a good reason. Or, could it be that certain members of council want to watch all the proceedings so that they can boot out any commission members they don't like? They refused to re-appoint three of Pribonics commission members last year; could they be looking to do more of the same?

There’s a place for a conversation about government transparency – but that shouldn’t be on the November ballot or in the city’s Charter.

We recommend that Stow voters reject Issue #28 and vote for City Council candidates who will fulfill the goal of government transparency by improving City Council’s conduct first.