Tension grows at City Council

By Matt Echel­berry
Inquirer Reporter

The offi­cial draft of the amend­ment to the City Char­ter was pre­sented at Galion City Council’s meet­ing on July 24. It was stand­ing room only that evening, and when the amend­ment was dis­cussed, the ten­sion that has been build­ing for months in regards to the change came to a tip­ping point, show­ing the divide between citizens–and coun­cil members.

The Char­ter Abol­ish­ment Peti­tion, as it was named in the meet­ing agenda, abol­ishes the cur­rent City Char­ter and replaces Galion’s sys­tem of gov­ern­ment with “the gen­eral statu­tory plan for munic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tions under the Ohio Revised Code.” It came before Coun­cil dur­ing its meet­ing for approval to be put on the bal­lot for the Nov. 6 elec­tion. If passed, a tran­si­tion period will take effect in which the cur­rent city offi­cers and office hold­ers will con­tinue their duties. Another elec­tion would be held the fol­low­ing May in order to elect new officials.

How­ever, Coun­cil mem­ber Cathy George moved to table the leg­is­la­tion because she said it con­tra­dicts the Ohio Con­sti­tu­tion. In the lan­guage of the draft, it called for the newly-elected mayor, law direc­tor and audi­tor to serve ini­tial terms of four years and seven months. Accord­ing to George, the Con­sti­tu­tion states that those offi­cials may not hold office for a term of more than four years. She was strongly opposed to the abol­ish­ment and very vocal about her feelings.

Law Direc­tor Reese Mills explained that Coun­cil only had lim­ited review in that sit­u­a­tion. It could not reject the leg­is­la­tion on the basis of con­tent, only the form in which it was writ­ten. “In this case, Coun­cil serves an admin­is­tra­tive duty. It does not deter­mine whether it’s legal or illegal.”

Rachel Mendell

City Law Direc­tor Reese Mills explains how Coun­cil could respond to the legislation.

George’s motion to table died for lack of a sec­ond, so Coun­cil then dis­cussed the leg­is­la­tion itself. Coun­cil mem­ber Roberta Wade revised some of the leg­is­la­tion, adding a new sec­tion that spec­i­fied an ini­tial term of two years for the newly elected trea­surer. She said it would stag­ger the terms of the trea­surer and auditor.

Before the vote was taken, Coun­cil Pres­i­dent Gail Baldinger said, “My yes vote for this is only to com­ply with the Ohio Con­sti­tu­tion. I am not in favor of this.” Sev­eral other coun­cil mem­bers voiced their opin­ions as well. George said, “I love this com­mu­nity and I’d hate to see it go back­wards. We’ve come so far.”

Dr. Tom Fell­ner called the leg­is­la­tion “democ­racy in action.” He sup­ported the cit­i­zens of Galion being able to decide how they should be gov­erned. “How­ever, if this is a per­sonal vendetta against our cur­rent city man­ager, then I am 100 per­cent in agree­ment with Cathy that this is com­pletely wrong. But it’s gonna be up to the peo­ple and I hope the elec­tion has a good turnout.” Paul Flan­nery stated, “I’ve lived in this city for 70 years. For the last 25 years we’ve had a city man­ager and for the last 25 years we have went downhill.”

Baldinger then allowed cit­i­zens to offer com­ments about the leg­is­la­tion. Gina Pow­ell said that the abol­ish­ment effort had noth­ing to do with City Man­ager Gene Toy. “You would have to be liv­ing under a rock to not see what’s going on in this town, the empty houses for rent or for sale. And I appre­ci­ate Roberta Wade for stand­ing up for what we believe. You’re the only one who has.”

Rachel Mendell

Coun­cil mem­ber Roberta Wade explains the Char­ter Abol­ish­ment Petition.

Shirley Clark agreed with Pow­ell. “I think Gene Toy has done a won­der­ful job with what he got thrown into…I think the peo­ple of Galion have a right to decide. This is def­i­nitely not a vendetta against Gene or any­body,” she said.

Don Faulds clar­i­fied that the leg­is­la­tion would only put the amend­ment on the bal­lot. If it passes, then there will be a spe­cial elec­tion for city offi­cials. Inter­ested indi­vid­u­als would step for­ward to have their names put on the bal­lot. “Those qual­i­fied peo­ple will step up once this gets passed. I think you’d be sur­prised how many peo­ple are inter­ested in hold­ing these positions.”

Coun­cil passed the revised leg­is­la­tion 5–1 so that it could be sub­mit­ted to the Board of Elec­tions to be put on the bal­lot. George was the only mem­ber to vote “no” for it and Coun­cil mem­ber Wal­ter Keib was absent. Sev­eral cit­i­zens in the room applauded after the vote.

Posted by Matt Echelberry on Jul 24 2012. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.