Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance And Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pepper Pike charter revisions prompt weeks-long debate; council schedules town halls and will revise council letter
Summary
Council debated a proposed informational letter responding to the mayor’s website post about a replacement charter and questioned whether the letter crossed into advocacy; the law director warned against municipal funds being used for advocacy. Council agreed to revise the letter, schedule town halls and revisit the matter at a later meeting.
A months-long review of the Pepper Pike charter and a citizen-led Charter Review Commission’s recommendations dominated council discussion on Feb. 25, when councilmembers debated a draft response letter to a mayoral posting and raised concerns about process, public engagement and whether the proposed letter was informational or advocacy.
Councilmember Jim LeMay circulated a draft letter intended to summarize the Charter Review Commission’s work and help residents understand major changes in a proposed replacement charter. "...the purpose of this is to get comments from the elected officials here today," LeMay said when introducing the item. Several councilmembers praised the letter’s clarity; others and the law director said parts of the draft blurred a line between neutral explanation and advocacy.
Law Director Steve Byron raised procedural and legal concerns about having council publish material that the city funds which he judged to be persuasive rather than merely informational. "If it's advocacy, it should not be published at city expense," Byron said. He flagged specific phrasing in LeMay’s draft that, in his view, went beyond neutral fact and could be interpreted as advocating for the commission’s recommendations. Byron and other councilmembers also disputed several historical or comparative claims in the draft and asked for precise citations or rewording.
Mayor Newell and other council members debated whether quoting the Charter Review Commission’s final report in the city’s communication would itself be advocacy. "I'm publishing what the commission said in their public record and recommendation. That's important information for our citizens," the mayor said, defending making the report available. Some councilmembers countered that including interpretive text drawn from the report effectively put the city’s resources behind a persuasive case on a May ballot initiative.
Other themes at the meeting included process questions: several councilmembers and residents said the commission’s 17 public meetings (July–December) and the city website were not sufficient to inform many residents. Public commentators urged council to move the item to the November ballot or to provide wider outreach. Several councilmembers repeatedly urged removing adjectives and evaluative language from the draft letter so it would read as neutral and informational rather than persuasive.
Council did not publish or adopt LeMay’s draft as-is. Members asked LeMay and staff to revise the draft to remove evaluative phrasing and to add clearer references to the commission’s report where appropriate. Council also scheduled three public town-hall meetings for public input on the charter: March 10 (7 p.m.), April 2 (7 p.m.) and April 5 (9 a.m.) at a school facility (pending confirmation) and asked administration to coordinate logistics and notices. Staff also reported that the red-line text of the proposed replacement charter is being mailed to residents per the statutory schedule and that the mailing process was in progress.
Ending
The council left the draft letter on the table for rewording and agreed to reconvene the item at a subsequent meeting after receiving a revised draft and law director feedback; three town-hall meetings will be held in the weeks before the May ballot.
