Jeremy McIntire’s Overreach
Failed Audit Legislation Highlights Stow City Council Dysfunction
It’s clear from the Jan. 26, 2023, Stow City Council meeting video and minutes that Mayor John Pribonic had had enough. The normally mild-mannered executive gave a blistering rebuke of City Council President Jeremy McIntire for the way in which he had initiated legislation the council would pass on a 5-2 vote later that same meeting to force the city to undergo a performance audit by the Ohio state auditor’s office.
And, to be sure, it was unusual. City Council President Jeremy McIntire invited representatives from the state auditor’s office to make a presentation at its meeting on Dec. 15, 2022. Then, during the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on Jan. 26, McIntire presented Ordinance 23-035, which was labeled as “Requested by Council.”
After just 3 minutes of discussion during that meeting, the council voted 5-2 to advance the ordinance to the full council for approval. McIntire, Ward 1 Councilman Matt Riehl, Ward 2 Councilwoman Sindi Harrison, Ward 3 Councilman Brian Lowdermilk and Ward 4 Councilman Mario Fiocca voted to approve the legislation. Councilmen At-Large David Licate and Cyle Feldman voted against.
Prior to the vote, Licate pointed out that these types of reports typically recommend reduction in personnel to save costs without considering the programs or values deemed important to a community. He noted that the state auditor had done such a performance audit for the Stow-Munroe Falls Board of Education, recommending an unrealistic reduction in personnel for the district, and that members of the school board were in attendance who could discuss the matter more fully. He also suggested that the other council members review the more detailed information on the state auditor’s website to better understand what the city would get for its $80,000.
McIntire ignored the suggestion that council question the school board members present about their experience or conduct further review of reports available on the state’s website. He called for the vote to move the issue to the full council.
See the Jan. 26 Committee of the Whole discussion and vote on the matter:
The Mayor’s Response
When the Stow City Council meeting began just 15 minutes later, Pribonic was asked to give his Mayor’s report. In a prepared statement, Pribonic asked why members of council were pushing for this type of audit given that the city was in excellent financial condition (the city had a $10 million carryover from 2022) and noted that McIntire had been told on several occasions by the law director that he was “acting outside his scope of authority,” including in the negotiation of the performance audit contract on behalf of the city. (See the contract McIntire solicited on behalf of the city.)
Pribonic questioned McIntire’s motives and timing of this aggressive move, just 10 months before the mayoral election. He noted McIntire’s habit of telling administrative employees, including some who have worked for the city for many years, how to do their jobs.
See Pribonic’s comments during the Jan. 26 City Council meeting:
McIntire responded by asking the council if anyone had questions for the mayor. There were none.
A Rush to Vote
Later in the meeting, McIntire called for a vote on the proposal. Feldman questioned why council would be taking a vote without having the normal three meetings to review and discuss the legislation.
Lowdermilk gave comments in favor of the audit, saying it would give council an outside viewpoint on the city’s operations and that ultimately council could decide then what to do with the recommendations.
Licate offered his past experiences working with and teaching how to write performance audits and the limitations he saw in the state’s proposal. He said he’d reviewed reports posted on the state auditor’s website and found them lacking in value considering the cost. He asked his fellow council members if any of them had read any of the posted reports (none said they had). And, he voiced concern that the report would be used for political purposes.
The council spent a total of 9 minutes of additional discussion on the performance audit, which would cost the city $80,000, before voting 5-2 to pass it – McIntire, Harrison, Lowdermilk, Riehl and Fiocca voted for it; Licate and Feldman voted against.
See council’s discussion and vote:
In presenting the audit legislation to council that evening, McIntire skipped every process normally done to get his legislation passed:
He didn’t discuss why this type of audit was needed or get input from anyone in the administration, including the finance director, law director or mayor;
He didn’t discuss the proposal with Licate or Feldman prior to introducing it or explain publicly the need for this audit either at the Dec. 15 council meeting or at the Jan. 26 meeting, and yet, somehow, the ordinance says it was “Requested by Council” – who exactly requested it considering that Licate and Feldman voted against it?
He bypassed the process of having the legislation reviewed by the city’s Board of Control, which reviews all contracts exceeding $1,000 prior to being submitted to City Council for a vote;
He bypassed council’s Finance Committee for review of the legislation;
He pushed the legislation through council as an “Emergency” without the normal three hearings before voting on it, which prevented citizens of Stow from having a say in this matter before the vote;
To understand how unusual this process was, we reviewed the 17 pieces of legislation that were approved by council that same night. Of those 17 pieces of legislation, only the performance audit had the vague designation of “Requested by Council”. Every other ordinance was requested by specific officials, for example, the Law Director, Service Director or Planning Director.
Only one other piece of legislation that night was requested by council and that was an ordinance for a road maintenance plan, which was requested by McIntire, Harrison and Feldman. Another ordinance for a state-mandated annual audit, approved in the same meeting, was requested by the Finance Director.
The performance audit legislation introduced by McIntire was presented as having been requested by the entire council, when in fact two members voted against it.
The ordinance for the city’s annual audit, approved in the same meeting, was requested by the Finance Director.
An Embarrassing Outcome
On Feb. 8, the audit legislation was unanimously rejected by the City's Board of Control, which by Stow law is made up of the Mayor, the Director of Public Service, the Director of Finance, the Director of Law and the City Engineer.
When Stow City Council met on Feb. 9, McIntire disputed the process by which the legislation was killed. He read passages from the city’s Charter to defend the way in which he’d proceeded to get the legislation passed.
McIntire then claimed that there was no passage in the city’s Charter that said the Board of Control was required to pass the legislation.
Law Director Jaime Syx countered that statement by reading SECTION 173.05 APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS:
“Within the city no contract entered into by or for the City of Stow in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) shall be awarded except on the formal and written approval of the Board of Control, and the Board shall direct the Mayor, Director of Finance or Director of Public Service to enter into the contract….”
Syx later said she was not asked by McIntire to review the contract prior to council’s vote and calls she made to the auditor’s office to get additional information had been ignored.
See McIntire's comments about his understanding of the legislation process and Syx’s response:
During the lengthy exchange with Syx, McIntire admitted that he voted for the contract without reading it. See below:
Does this serve the best interest of Stow? A councilman trying to bully the administration into signing a contract that he solicited but didn't bother to read?
Ultimately, McIntire suffered the embarrassing public humiliation of his legislation failing to go into effect because he bypassed the city’s standard process for formulating and gaining appropriate approvals for contracts. He left out the three elected officials (Mayor, Law Director, Finance Director) whose approval would have been required through the Board of Control and refused to include them or their staffs in the process of determining the necessity of an audit or the appropriate parameters of a performance audit for the city of Stow.
He further ignored the suggestion from fellow councilmen to further review the deliverables of such an audit.
And he pushed the legislation through without giving Stow citizens the opportunity to review and comment on it.
But, more importantly, this episode brought to light the dysfunction of a council president whose ambition exceeds his authority.
