Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Issue 25 Charter Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge 'No' on Issue 25; law director says rank-and-file public employees remain eligible
Summary
At the Oct. 21 North Royalton City Council meeting, residents urged voters to reject Issue 25, a proposed charter amendment they said could bar public employees from council; Law Director Tom Kelly said the amendment was not intended to apply to rank-and-file employees and would likely reach only high-level chiefs.
At the Oct. 21 North Royalton City Council meeting, resident Daniel Teel urged the mayor and council to encourage constituents to vote NO on Issue 25, the proposed charter amendment that he said would prohibit public employees from serving on the council.
"Please encourage your constituents to vote NO on Issue 25," Teel said, arguing the amendment was "misguided and detrimental to the quality of governance" and warning that its "vague language" could exclude police, firefighters, teachers and other public servants from office.
Teel said his 34 years in public service — including 12 as a police chief — showed the value of experience on council and that the amendment, as written, "limits the benefit to be gained from skilled public servants" and "creates costly time-consuming barriers to having the best at the helm."
Why it matters: Supporters of the amendment say it prevents conflicts of interest; opponents told council the current wording is broad enough that it could unintentionally prevent rank-and-file employees from running and leave the city without experienced candidates for elected office.
Law Director Tom Kelly responded after Councilmember John Nickell asked for clarification, saying the Charter Review Commission did not intend to bar rank-and-file police or firefighters. "It is at least arguably the fault of the broad language that was used," Kelly said, and later added, "I am telling everyone who will listen that it does not apply to the rank and file." He said the wording could be read to affect high-level officials such as chiefs but that his legal interpretation as city attorney is that ordinary rank-and-file employees would remain eligible.
There were audible reactions from the audience during the exchange; council then considered procedural motions. A motion to adjourn made by Councilmember John Nickell failed on roll call (yeas: none; nays: seven). The council then voted 4-3 to recess into an executive session to discuss the purchase or sale of property under ORC 121.22(G)(2). After the executive session, resident Robert Rybak returned to the lectern and reiterated that the amendment's language "absolutely, in my opinion, leaves open the possibility that teachers, policemen and firefighters could be excluded" and said the near-immediate switch from an adjournment motion to a motion for executive session raised optics concerns.
The meeting record does not show any formal amendment or final council action to change the text of Issue 25 at this session. The council reconvened and adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. The clerk had earlier reminded attendees that the next council meeting will be Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, because elections occur on Nov. 4.
The council and the Law Director's statements at this meeting are the available public record on the amendment's intended scope; no legal opinion or ballot language rewrite was adopted at this meeting.
