Embedded Files
Let's take a look at the claims the other side is making... We'd like to add more information and let you, the voter, ask yourself the questions.
Their claim: "This makes the Charter use modern best practices."
Consider also: The National Civic League (who has zero interest in Pepper Pike politics) states clearly that there is "no one right way" to write the City Charter. Every city should write the charter tailored to that city's unique needs.
There is no best practice. Saying something is "best practices" does not make it so.
Ask yourself: Pepper Pike is doing very well, right? Why on earth would we consider changing the way we do things to the way lower- performing cities do them? Are we saying there's simply value in conformity?
Their claim: "The Charter hasn't been overhauled in a long time."
Consider also: The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788. Yes there have been amendments over the centuries but it is essentially the same document. Similarly, the Pepper Pike Charter has undergone minor improvements since 1966.
Ask yourself: Does something that works well need to be rewritten simply because it's old? WHY was it necessary to rewrite so much of the Charter at one time? And why restructure?
Their claim: "The Commission worked very hard on this."
Consider also: It’s admirable they worked so hard to meet the deadline set by Council to get this issue on the May ballot - an election that will have a lower voter turnout.
Ask yourself: Should this vote about how hard the Commission worked, or what the changes are to the Charter?
Their claim: "This wasn't rushed. Other cities do a review in 6 months."
Consider also: Council says the City hasn't done a major revision in 60 years, but then cites the 6-month timeline of a City that has done regular incremental revisions. That's not a comparable benchmark!
Ask yourself: Do you feel like they've given you ample opportunity to consider and discuss this? Do you think your opinion is truly valued?
Their claim: "This is about creating guardrails and checks & balances."
Consider also: The Mayor chairs meetings and sets the agenda but cannot vote on items or spend more than $25,000. Council can add items to the agenda, votes on everything, and controls the "purse strings." The Mayor can nominate appointees but Council has to approve. In the new Charter Council President can, in theory, make themselves chairs of anything they want (with Council's approval).
Ask yourself: How would letting Council President set the agenda, chair meetings, and vote be "balanced"? Did anyone consider the risk of a "runaway Council President?"
Their claim: "The Charter needs updates to reflect the presence of women on Council and some modernization in practices and technology."
Consider also: No argument here ... IF those were the ONLY proposed changes, we would be telling you to vote yes. Those specific items could also have been EASILY corrected without a Charter revision.
Ask yourself: If Council really wanted just to fix those items, WHY are they bundling them together with significant restructuring in how the government works?
Their claim: "Council had to hurry to get this onto the May ballot so it wouldn’t interfere with Council members' re-election races in November 2025."
Consider also: How would the Charter vote in November be an "interference" in races? Voter turnout in May is always very low. Choosing a May election will cost Pepper Pike taxpayers an extra $12,000+.
Ask yourself: Why pay extra money for a lower voter turnout? Why NOT ask prospective Council members to campaign for the November election on a Charter that they chose and alters how our government works?
Their claim: "Residents had input into the Commission review process."
Consider also: The Commission asked for input before beginning the review. They received only 12 actual responses. That timing was HEAVILY biased towards people knowing what was coming and wanting specific changes. Residents would have NO warning of the extent of the eventual recommended changes.
Ask yourself: Did you forfeit your right to an opinion because you trusted them as your representatives to not push for radical, aggressive changes like this? Why did Council refuse to do a citywide survey FIRST (as they did for sidewalks), or even after seeing a draft Charter?
Their claim: "Residents had the chance to participate in the Commission discussions!"
Consider also: The Commission met for 37 hours, 17 times late July-December. All but 4 meetings were held on weekdays during weekday business / school hours.
Ask yourself: Does that sound like a meaningful opportunity for busy Pepper Pike residents, professionals, and parents to participate?
Their claim: "Residents will have the chance to discuss the recommendations."
Consider also: Council promised to hold town halls to discuss the final recommendations BEFORE the ballot language was finalized. Councilman Tony Gentile (the champion of the review) later said he changed his mind (exact quote).
Ask yourself: Does this sound like valuing YOUR (resident) input? If we have major problems with the final recommendations, that won't make any difference now. Their case is closed.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse