October 27, 2025
- Please vote NO on Issue 25.
- The Charter Commission tried to solve a problem that was never fully described, and could be dealt with using existing tools.
- Passage of Issue 25 would cause an elected official to be immediately unseated and a new council president appointed by the current council. This does not serve residents or the city, and runs contrary to a stated goal of the Charter Commission.
I’ve sat through many meetings where a group of people try to determine how to solve a particular problem. Often in my role as a subject matter expert, one of my standard questions is, what problem are you trying to solve, and does this solve it? What new challenges would the proposed solution create? Framing the problem as “What problem are we trying to solve?” is what came to mind as I read the minutes from the Charter Commission meetings. There was not a single citing of what conflict of interest the committee sought to solve by putting Issue 25 on the ballot. There was no reference to an incident, no quote of a news article providing context for a problem, and no mention of residents demanding this legislation. “Conflict of interest” was repeatedly stated, though no actual occurrence was offered or recorded.
There already exists settled law and a set process to identify, address, and remediate conflicts of interest for public office in the State of Ohio. Issue 25 appears to treat these as nonexistent, doing a disservice to those who currently serve on council, the voters that elected them, and residents who may want to serve in the future.
Further, should Issue 25 pass with a simple majority, upon the certification of the election it would relieve a duly-elected public official of their position. Council would then select a new Council President, completely disregarding the will of the voters.
Issue 25 is trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. The Charter Committee made no reference to its likely consequences, and the outright rejection by the Charter Committee of a suggestion of a “grandfather clause” shows the true intent of this legislation: to unseat an elected public official so council can choose whomever they wish to replace him.
At the first public reading of this charter amendment before a crowded council chamber, one resident stated clearly for the record, “This is bullsh—”
I agree. Please vote NO on Issue 25.