Embedded Files
▶️ Who are we?
We are a group of Pepper Pike residents opposed to a dangerously out-of-balance shift in powers as proposed in the repeal/ replacement Charter. Please join us to support Pepper Pike and protect the thriving and well-functioning suburb we currently enjoy!
▶️ What is a Charter?
The Pepper Pike charter, first established in 1966, is an authoritative document that sets out the fundamental principles of the organization's structure, defines power accorded to the roles and relationships among the parts of the system, and establishes the processes that enable our local government to function.
▶️ What happened to get this all started?
In 2024, Pepper Pike City Council formed a Charter Review Commission of nine selected Pepper Pike residents. With the exception of a few piecemeal changes, the initial Pepper Pike Charter, adopted in 1966, had received no comprehensive review since its inception. The reason given for a review now was that our Charter needed to be brought up-to-date. Council implied that an update was a neutral and seemingly innocuous process.
The Commission met 17 times over the last 5 months of 2024 and was directed to recommend changes that would support improved communication and result in a "responsive, transparent, and effective" local government.
There have been repeated instances of Council violating its own goals of improved communication, responsiveness, transparency, and effectiveness.
Although Council was initially going to head the nine-person Commission, the Mayor vetoed the plan because guidelines from the National Civic League's Guide call for a "detached, objective and impartial" process: "While a mayor and/or council may play a role in the appointment of commission members, the involvement of elected officials should end at that."
Council revised its plan by appointing its members as "liaisons" only, but they heavily controlled the selection process (who was "in" and who was "out") from the pool of 24 applicants. Although the Mayor could vote on members, he had only one vote while Council had seven. Subsequently during Commission meetings, the Council "liaisons" routinely influenced Commission members through active participation and the distribution of written documents; the contents of these documents are unknown since they were not included in the Commission's meeting minutes (a violation of the stated goal of transparency).
▶️ What “problem” is Council trying to solve with its more radical recommendations??
The existing Pepper Pike Charter is not broken! It merits an updating of language, improved alignment with Ohio law, and consistent processes, but not a radical reconstruction that strips power from the Mayor and shifts it to City Council.
Councilman Jim LeMay, a supporter of the proposed alterations, said more than once, “There is no problem in Pepper Pike,” and “Nothing is broken here,” and “The Mayor is doing an excellent job.” OK, then why ...?
There have been vague mentions by Council of “communication issues,” but these hardly require a total restructuring of government. We have heard no credible responses to which Charter changes are expected to address minor communication issues, or what “problems” the rest of the changes are aiming to solve.
▶️ But didn't the Commission work very hard on this effort?
Yes, the Commission DID work very hard to meet Council's aggressive deadline, but the effort does not on its own speak to the prudence of the recommended courses of action. Our opposition to the Charter replacement is NOT a referendum on the efforts of the Commission members.
Hard work on a project of this scope typically requires an iterative process over two years and includes interim consultations with community residents.
We should judge the recommendations on their own merits, not how hard Commission members worked to produce them.
▶️ Have City residents had opportunities to provide input on the replacement Charter, and if so, have those preferences with wide support been incorporated?
Limited opportunity for input - mostly not. Only by attending 17 Charter Commission meetings over a 5-month period and offering audience comments could residents have provided input, although there were no guarantees their comments would be seriously considered. How many electors would choose to spend that much time? (the data show that just over a dozen were involved, and there is no record of public input being integrated into the proposal).
Town hall meetings allowing citizen input were promised by Council for fall 2024. They didn't happen.
During City Council's three special January meetings that were open to public comment on the Replacement Charter, multiple residents testified against its extreme provisions; not a single Pepper Pike resident spoke in favor. Following testimony at one of the January meetings, two Council members informed a resident that none of her or other public suggestions was worthy of Council consideration.
Council's treatment of residents has been disrespectful, a violation of its stated goal of responsiveness.
Town hall meetings for spring 2025 may still be held to sell the new Charter, but you will only get to hear what is in it. Any input you offer will not alter the Charter provisions.
Just two Council members, Scott Newell and Jackie Godic, opposed rushing the replacement forward to a May vote, preferring to delay the vote until November and provide residents opportunities for input before finalizing the Charter.
Residents should ask, why did 5 Council members repeatedly and completely reject citizen input into the submitted Charter?
Council has treated the Pepper Pike electorate dismissively by denying it a chance to fully engage with, comprehend, comment on, discuss, and improve the New Charter after it was submitted to Council. Additionally, residents should ask, why the rush to a low-turnout primary ballot in May? Moving fast gives Council a chance to slide a lopsided document past the electorate while letting Council candidates on the November ballot avoid having to publicly defend the New Charter’s radical restructuring of our City government - another violation of their stated goals of transparency and responsiveness.
▶️ Why should I vote NO on this issue?
Our City has been doing well for decades with the full-time executive (Mayor) and part-time legislative (Council) branches working together in a balanced fashion. A return to financial health, a new library, intervention on storm sewer overflow, and sidewalks on selected streets are only a few of a long list of accomplishments. Radical change in the Charter will impede our proven path of success.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse