Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Revision Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sparred over charter-posting language; law director flagged council draft as advocacy
Summary
A lengthy exchange about a mayor-posted informational letter and a proposed council response dominated the March 11 meeting; the city's law director described the council draft as advocacy, and members agreed to meet offline to revise language.
A contentious discussion over how the city should communicate the Charter Review Commission’s recommendations dominated Pepper Pike City Council’s March 11 meeting, with council members and the mayor debating whether website postings were informational or advocacy.
Background and immediate issue: The mayor had posted an informational letter about the proposed charter revisions on the city website earlier; council members drafted a different message they asked be posted as well. During the March 11 meeting the law director said the council draft read as an advocacy piece rather than a neutral informational message. Councilmembers disagreed about whether language in either posting constituted advocacy and whether the mayor consulted council before posting.
What happened in the meeting: The law director advised that the council draft made policy arguments and should not be posted as a neutral city communication. Councilmember Jim LeMay said he reworked the draft to be factual and invited the mayor to collaborate; the mayor said he would meet with LeMay privately to try to resolve differences. Members also discussed the process used by the Charter Review Commission, whether council members and the mayor engaged with commission members while the commission drafted its report, and the appropriate role for council liaisons.
Town hall and public reaction: Councilmembers said an informational town hall earlier had drawn about 90 attendees; several residents in public comment urged more prominent placement of the Charter Commission report on the website and asked for balanced information so voters can make an informed choice. Residents also raised concerns about a political-action committee formed by two commission members; council said it would review public-record questions separately.
Next steps: Councilmembers agreed to meet offline — the mayor and council asked to work together to produce a version acceptable to the law director and to post a neutral, factual FAQ or informational summary. No formal vote occurred. Several council members urged a calm, substantive debate focused on the charter’s policy changes (for example, whether to create a council president position or how removal would work) rather than ad hominem or personal accusations.
