Three City Council Members Reverse Course to Reject Flag Project
Feb. 22 City Council Meeting Needs Citizen Oversight
On April 12, 2023, then City Council President Jeremy McIntire had plenty to say about the presentation a Stow student had just given City Council about the city’s flag, heartily endorsing the idea of creating a commission to review and potentially adopt a new flag.
But, on Feb. 8, 2024, when it came time to discuss and vote on the legislation to create that very commission, the usually vocal McIntire was silent, and he voted against the ordinance, along with two other council members -- Ward 1 Councilman Matt Riehl and Ward 4 Councilman Mario Fiocca -- who also had fully endorsed the project less than a year ago. Together with a No vote by new Ward 2 Councilwoman Kelly Coffey, the ordinance was rejected on a 4-3 vote.
Tomorrow, Feb. 22, the Stow-Munroe Falls High School junior, Andrew Brantsch, who made the original presentation to council about how the city’s flag violated the North American Vexillological Association’s Five Principles for Flag Design, hopes to change some minds during the Committee of the Whole meeting in City Council chambers at 6 pm. Brantsch posted a plea on Facebook, asking residents to show their support for his efforts by attending the meeting:
He also posted a detailed timeline of discussions he’d had with council members about the commission from the time of his presentation last year. What’s clear is that the full-throated support he received last April dissipated over the next several months as McIntire pushed the issue aside and then buried it altogether.
It was resurrected by Mayor John Pribonic and City Council President Cyle Feldman this year when it was introduced to council on Jan. 25.
During that meeting, McIntire seemed more concerned with getting his way on the makeup of the commission. (See story from Jan. 25 meeting.) McIntire objected to the legislation allowing the mayor to pick the chairperson of the commission, which was intended to be Brantsch, even though in his comments last year, he made the suggestion that Brantsch be the commission chairperson.
What they said last April
It's worth revisiting the comments made in last year’s council meeting when the flag proposal was originally discussed. Here are the direct comments on April 12, 2023, of the three council members who then voted against the flag commission on Feb. 8. The entire flag discussion from April 12 can be seen here.
Jeremy McIntire (immediately after Brantsch’s presentation): “Andrew, I must say, that was an excellent presentation. The passion for flags is clearly there. I didn’t know what to expect when Mr. Reilly picked up the phone and called me about this. Talked about this last week and the first thing that came to my mind was Sheldon Cooper’s “Fun with Flags.” So I appreciate you coming in and giving this presentation. Based off the facts that you presented, I couldn’t agree with you more that maybe it is time to look at that.”
Matt Riehl: “Great job, great presentation.”
Mario Fiocca: “I just wanted to echo some of the comments that fellow council members made. Just really an excellent presentation. It’s really eye-opening, especially some of the key points that you made about the flag. I agree it’s time for a look. It’s an opportunity to really potentially get the whole community involved and go from there. So, thanks again, really great presentation.”
McIntire (a second time, after all other council members had also voiced support for the project): "Thanks again Andrew for coming in. For one thing Stow or council has the ability to create a board or commission to undertake this. We do have a lot of boards and commissions and it appears this is a very special one. I mean I personally wouldn’t just give this to one of our current sitting boards or commissions because I don’t think it falls in the purview. This warrants a special board or commission just for the sole purpose of undertaking an endeavor like this. If you’re looking at the same standards and looking at the flag, and, apparently, there was an Independence Day Commemoration Committee that talked about the use of the seal and things of that nature. Me, personally, I’m only speaking for myself, I couldn’t see a better person chairing that committee than someone with your expertise, if that’s something you’d be willing to consider. I would certainly bring legislation for it next meeting and work with you to draft that legislation to put together that timeline and scope that, so we can seek applicants to submit on that and move forward with changing our flag. I think it’s a great idea, and if you’re open to it, I’d certainly like to include you in the legislative process of drafting that because I wouldn’t know where to begin as far as setting the criteria. I think that should all be spelled out in legislation so that when the committee meets on Day 1 there’s no question what it is that they’re there to do, just start at Step 1 and work through the process.”
To a person, every council member voiced their support for a commission to review the city’s flag design. Feldman is the only remaining member from last year’s council who voted in favor of the legislation on Feb. 8. New Council At-Large Kyle Herman and Ward 3 Councilman John Baranek also voted in favor of the proposal.
How it fell apart last meeting
During council’s discussion of the issue on Jan. 25 and Feb. 8, Coffey was the only member to convey disagreement with changing the flag.
“My primary concern is that if we’re striving for unity there are a lot of strong feelings either way towards keeping it or changing it and I think throughout the whole process that would continue, so I think that would create discord instead of unity,” she said.
Feldman countered: “Discord amongst who? We’re going to give the public an opportunity to input. What I’m hearing you say is you want us to leave the original out there. Maybe I’ll run that by the commission chairperson and if most people vote to leave it, I think we’re unifying and engaging and creating excitement. If that’s what you’re suggesting, maybe we’ll talk to the commission about that.”
She was unswayed from her viewpoint and voted against the proposal.
At the time the vote was taken, there was only one resident in attendance, which points to the issue of civic engagement. When left to their own devices without input on issues from Stow residents, several council members are prone to flexing their partisan muscle to prevent the mayor or others from succeeding on various projects. That may be the case here, as the three GOP council members who so overwhelmingly supported the flag project last year have reversed course now that the Democratic mayor and city council president have officially sponsored the proposal.
It's worth pointing out here that McIntire is currently running for the Republican nomination for County Council District 3 against incumbent Gloria Rodgers. See story here. If he wins the March 19 primary, he would face former Stow Councilman At-Large David Licate, who is unopposed as the Democratic nominee, in the November general election.
Initiatives need resident support to pass
Civic engagement can help rectify partisan showboating. A recent example is the acquisition of the Cornerstone Church, which will be used as a new senior and community center. McIntire and Fiocca voted to delay the vote on the purchase, initially putting the deal in jeopardy until the city renegotiated the contract to allow for more time to get it approved by council at a higher cost. A large group of senior citizens attended each of the council meetings, speaking with council members during and after about the necessity of the new building. On Jan. 25 the purchase was approved 7-0.
Another recent example is the months of meetings regarding the Millers Landing development on N. River Road. Council members were empathetic to the plight of nearby homeowners because of their impassioned presentations at Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Ultimately, council voted 5-2 to approve the development because the developer Pulty filed a federal suit against the city and council members individually to force them to vote for it.
The flag commission is a tough issue now that it’s been voted down. In order to reverse that decision, one of the council members who voted against it would need to ask for a motion to reconsider that vote – and that needs to happen at tomorrow’s (Feb. 22) meeting. But Brantsch plans to make his best argument and hopes that others will join him.
This certainly isn’t the most important business the council will take up this year, but given the members’ enthusiasm for the project last year, Brantsch at the very least deserves answers from the council members who voted against it why they reversed their stance. Having other residents attend the meeting to support this young man may help him get his answers.
Some thoughts on the Stow flag
As an aside, the U.S. flag has been altered 26 times. The Grand Union flag, flown throughout the Revolutionary War, was retired in 1777 for the "Betsy Ross flag" that had 13 stars and 13 stripes. That flag was used from 1777-1795.
No one has fought and died for the Stow flag. There is nothing written in our city's codified ordinances that the Stow flag should be in color, let alone blue and yellow, so, logically, one might argue that the flag currently flying in front of City Hall is illegal because it does not resemble the black and white version in the city's laws. Perhaps we should revisit the flag's design.
Other Items on Feb. 22 Agenda
There are several other items on council’s agenda that merit the public follow to see how well council and the administration are trying to work together:
Changes to Board of Control – The administration has requested legislation to update the limits on the sizes of contracts that the administration can sign without requiring City Council approval as well as contracts that would require competitive bids. The limits on expenditures that can be approved solely by the Board of Control, a committee comprised of the mayor, Director of Public Service, the Director of Finance, the Director of Law and the City Engineer, haven’t been updated since 2002, according to Director of Public Service Nick Wren.
Changes to City Council Rules – Among the proposed rule changes are ones that increase the public comment period during city council meetings to three minutes, which was reduced to two minutes in 2020 by then City Council President Sindi Harrison; and the ability for City Council to consider legislation that was rejected by council in a prior term.
Amendments to city law regarding the hiring of police officers – changes requested by the Civil Service Commission to aid the police department in being able to quickly fill vacant positions.
Each of these agenda items has the potential to bring out the worst among GOP city council members who have a habit of viewing the governance of Stow as an exercise in honing their partisan skills. Having Stow residents attend and comment during the meetings can help to remind council members who they are there to serve.
Ideally, having residents attend city council meetings on a regular basis might be the best way to ensure all council members perform the job to which they’ve been elected. That’s asking a lot.
So, going forward, Stow Sunshine Project will be monitoring the City Council agendas to alert residents to key issues that require resident input and monitoring. If you'd like to be apprised of these things as well as any other new stories on the site, fill out the annoying pop-up window on the home page (you don't have to fill it out again if you've already done so previously and receive our emails). Together, perhaps we can help Mayor Pribonic and City Council President Feldman succeed in their efforts to serve the people of Stow.
Comments