Residents demand investigation after public commenter ties supplemental $3,000 consultant payment to city contracts

Jerry Bayes, a city resident, used the council’s public-comment period to allege that city officials funneled municipal funds to private consultants and used purchase orders to avoid council oversight. Bayes said one supplemental contract — a $3,000 payment dated June 1 and paid June 2 — paid for 15 days (25 support hours) of administrative work for a consultant identified in documents variously as “Jeffrey J.,” “Fuji Lee” and “Jeffrey Jing.” He said the payment “was a felony” if the city cannot substantiate work performed and called the arrangement “corrupt.”

Mayor (Dietrich Petrovsky) responded during her report and denied the allegations, saying the ordinances, resolutions and minutes cited by critics are factual and that the narrative attached to those records is misleading. The mayor asserted that legal requirements — including references in the meeting to the Ohio Revised Code and Ohio EPA regulations governing public works and staffing — informed emergency purchases and hiring, and said, “The truth matters and I will continue to stand firmly on it.”

Why this matters: Residents pressed council to demand documentation and, where appropriate, involve law enforcement. The public commenter alleged that a so‑called “Christopher Smith” public‑records request was used to fish for damaging material about four council members; Bayes said the request appeared to have been issued from within the city’s systems and urged an external investigation.

What was presented on the meeting record: Council and staff confirmed they had received public‑records requests and were producing records; city staff said responding to one extensive request required many hours of staff time. Finance staff and the clerk indicated documents had been collected and some were provided to requesters; questions remained in the meeting about which city accounts and which line items covered consultant payments, and whether a supplemental contract should have been treated as an amendment requiring council approval.

Council reaction and next steps: Several councilmembers and members of the public urged a formal review. One councilmember said council would consult the law director and confirm what remedies or options were available, including possible referral to law enforcement if criminal conduct is suspected. The meeting did not include a council vote to open an investigation or to discipline any official; no formal charges were filed or motions recorded on the public record at the meeting.

Background details from the record: The public commenter provided invoice and purchase‑order excerpts he said showed identical formatting between the city’s June contract paperwork and the public‑records request content (font, bolding and bullet styles). He also said the invoice described “in‑office hours” as time spent within Cortland’s jurisdiction and argued that the consultant was on vacation in Colorado during part of the contract period; council and staff said they would follow up to locate supporting documentation.

What remains unresolved: The record from the meeting does not show a completed internal or external investigation, nor does it include a final accounting that ties specific deliverables to the $3,000 supplemental payment. Council members asked for additional answers from the mayor and staff at future meetings and said they would consult the law director about options for follow‑up.

Ending: Council members and residents said they expect the city’s administration to produce clear, auditable documentation of consultant work and invoice approvals; the mayor and staff said they would provide follow‑up information to council.