Per the Mount Vernon City Website; “the City Auditor is divided into four sections:  financial management, debt management, grants management and informatics decisions and the allocation of resources through the provision of sound information and advice.”   

The State of Ohio Statute says “The city auditor shall keep the books of the city and exhibit accurate statements of all moneys received and expended, of all property owned by the city and the income derived therefrom, and of all taxes and assessments.”

In our Statutory City the Auditor is voted in to office by the people of Mount Vernon.  This office wants to remain completely independent from both the Executive Branch (the Mayor or City Manager) and the Legislative Branch (City Council) for obvious reasons.  This position is a critical government position that is very adequately guided by the current state laws.

Any change to that relationship that requires the Auditor to report to the mayor or city council should be avoided at great expense.  The Auditor is the guardian of our money.  The transaction of moving money from one account to another account after the appropriations (funds) are approved, requires the Auditor to approach the City Council for approval in an open public Council Meeting.  The operations within the Auditors Office are all guided and administered by State laws not City laws.

A dedicated City Auditor follows the State of Ohio mandate to the letter. Those Auditors who follow to the letter of the law as established by the State are rewarded with the “Ohio Auditor of State Award with Distinction.”   There are significant benefits for cities to follow the Statutory Laws that govern municipalities.

Any City Charter that changes controls within the Auditors Office from the State Laws that govern our city should be avoided.  Any Charter that does not require the City Auditors office be an Elected one should be avoided. No City Auditor wants to be hired by a mayor, a city manager or a city council but this could be the terms of how a Charter could be written.

We believe the present arrangement of the Auditor’s office should be preserved as is.  The citizens need to see total transparency and we should demand total independency of that Office from the other branches of our government.

More Ohio Requirements of  the Office of City Auditor

Ohio Revised Code:  733.13 Overdrawing appropriation - proof of claims.

The city auditor or village clerk shall not allow the amount set aside for any appropriation to be overdrawn, or the amount appropriated for one item of expense to be drawn upon for any other purpose or allow a voucher to be paid unless sufficient funds are in the treasury of the municipal corporation to the credit of the fund upon which such voucher is drawn. When any claim is presented to the auditor or clerk, he may require evidence that such amount is due, and for this purpose may summon any agent, clerk, or employee of the municipal corporation, or any other person, and examine him upon oath or affirmation concerning such voucher or claim.

733.14 Detailed statements - receipts.

On the first Monday of each month, detailed statements of the receipts and expenditures of the several officers and departments of the municipal corporation for the preceding month shall be made to the city auditor or village clerk by the heads of the departments. The auditor or clerk shall countersign each receipt given by the treasurer of the municipal corporation before it is delivered to the person entitled to receive it, and shall charge the treasurer with the amount thereof. If the auditor or clerk approves any voucher contrary to Title VII [7] of the Revised Code, he and his sureties shall be individually liable for the amount thereof.

733.18 Duty of city auditor as to receiving bids.

When bids are required to be filed for the letting of contracts by the director of public service or the director of public safety, the city auditor or his chief deputy shall attend and assist at the opening thereof and inspect them.

733.22 Approval of contracts.

Except as otherwise provided in division (D) of section 713.23, and sections 125.04 and 5513.01 of the Revised Code, no contract in the department of public service or the department of public safety, in excess of five thousand dollars, shall be awarded except on the approval of the board of control of the city, which board shall direct the director of the appropriate department to enter into the contract. The members of the board shall prepare estimates of the revenue and expenditures of their respective departments to be submitted to the city legislative authority by the mayor, as provided by law.

“The ‘No’ (charter) campaign is misleading”, so “said Jeff Harris, one of the organizers of the group supporting creation of a commission, and a candidate to serve on the commission.  Harris continued, “There is no charter on the ballot. The question on the ballot is, Shall a commission be chosen to frame a charter?” Mr. Harris’ statements were reported in the Mount Vernon News on October 12, 2018, in an article entitled “Residents taking sides on charter commission”.  Tanner Salyers, another commission candidate, and Councilman Chris Menapace, both of whom are outspoken in their support of the formation of a commission, and apparently a charter as well, have made similar “misleading” charges. Mr. Salyers was quoted in the Mount Vernon News on August 30, 2018.  Mr. Menapace’s comment was made at the conclusion of a city council meeting video recorded on September 23, 2018. Maybe the purpose of such comments is to clarify the issue for the voters. Considering the choice of words, however, it seems more likely these accusations are intended to disparage opposition to the charter issue by name calling and innuendo while ignoring the facts.  If that is the case, how petty and how misguided.

Those opposing a charter commission have every confidence the voters of Mount Vernon are smart enough to understand the issue as it appears on the ballot.  If, however, there is any misunderstanding or confusion, it is NOT because of yard signs, but rather the total failure of city council and the administration to adequately study, and inform and educate the public on, this extremely important issue before rushing it to a vote.  Remember, city leaders in Newark, Ohio, spent more than 3½ YEARS (Mount Vernon News, July 12, 2018) identifying reasons for a charter, sharing and discussing those reasons with the voters and seeking public input before placing the charter commission issue on the ballot. Mount Vernon’s city leaders apparently felt 4½ HOURS over the course of two public forums more than a year apart was sufficient time to inform us about the issue.  Apparently not!

Nonetheless, what about those yard signs?  The reality is, a charter for the city of Mount Vernon cannot be written without a commission.  A vote against a commission, therefore, is a vote against a charter. NO COMMISSION, NO CHARTER.  VOTE “NO” NOVEMEMBER 6.

There is, however, some “misleading” that is taking place concerning the charter issue.  In order to calm voters’ justified fears that a charter could provide for an unelected manager to run the city, some who support a charter commission are saying things like, “no one is talking about a city manager” and “a city manager is just being raised to scare people into voting against forming a commission”.  (Not quoting, but referring to statements made by Councilman Sam Barone at the conclusion of the August 27, 2018, Mount Vernon city council meeting.) Guess who was quoted in the Mount Vernon News, July 10, 2018, as preferring a city manager. No one other than Mr. Barone. It was also arguably alluded to by Adam Gilson, Head of the Knox County Democratic Party, in a letter to the editor appearing in the Mount Vernon News, July 23, 2018, when, in support of a charter, he referred to commission members considering “Would a different administrative structure (emphasis added) better meet the city’s needs?”  More than these individual comments, however, how can anyone say what a charter might look like?  Who can say it won’t provide for a city manager? Everyone agrees A CITY MANAGER IS AN OPTION UNDER A CHARTER and, as the Mount Vernon News pointed out in its October 12, 2018 edition, and as several members of city council have repeatedly hammered home during the entire course of this discussion, A CHARTER IS ALL ABOUT OPTIONS.  Unless and until a charter commission is created and convened, nobody without a crystal ball can say what the commission will or will not consider, or what will or will not be put into a proposed city charter.  That’s a fact.

Unfortunately, misleading of the public by the pro-charter supporters does not end with a city manager.  They say the November charter issue is just a “discussion about” or “study of” a charter for our city. Try as they might, however, those who favor a charter commission cannot hide the real agenda of some of their most vocal members and some of the commission candidates (read candidate  comments in the October 12, 2018 edition of the Mount Vernon News carefully), THEY WANT A CHARTER FOR MOUNT VERNON! One that can be changed over time, so what you see one day is not necessarily what you will get the next. Also, in a recent mailer, the “Yes! Charter Commission” states, “A yes vote for the Home Rule Charter Commission DOES NOT eliminate our Civil Service system.  It allows us to strengthen it!” It is true that a charter cannot eliminate Civil Service, but what about strengthening it? How does that statement sit in light of Councilman Barone’s comments reported in the Mount Vernon News, July 10, 2018, when, in speaking of the benefits of a charter, Mr. Barone said (quoting the News) “the city could slip around the constraints of the Civil Service system (emphasis added…”.  Does that sound like “strengthening” Civil Service?  Maybe that is why the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA), as posted on their website on September 28, 2018, came out against the charter issue and “is encouraging a NO vote on the Mount Vernon charter commission.”  Who is misleading who?  You decide.

First Ward Councilman, Sam Barone, is at the very heart and start of the charter movement.  In the fall of 2016, Mr. Barone brought up the idea of a charter for the city of Mount Vernon in general discussions with eight other individuals.¹  After city council voted 5-2 to place the charter issue on the ballot, the Mount Vernon News, July 24, 2018, reported Mr. Barone as saying (quoting the News) “council has one role in the charter issue and that is to give it to the people to decide.”  The News went on to quote Mr. Barone, “It's not to express our opinion, but solely to provide an on ramp for discussion.”

With council’s decision to move forward on the charter, attention turned to candidates to serve on the 15 member commission, what qualities should they have?  Commission members should be independent and open minded (which does not preclude a person from having an initial opinion or thoughts regarding the benefits or risks a charter can pose to the city); and the commission, as a whole, should represent a cross-section of the community.2  In fact, prior to the July 23rd vote, during preliminary discussions about the charter commission process and the circulating of petitions, Mayor Mavis, seeking to ensure honest debate on the issue, warned against “packing” the commission with “advocates of one type of charter” 3, or by extension, opposing or supporting a charter.  In effect, the commission should be made up of people with diverse thoughts and ideas, not like-minded people sharing a singular point of view.  Similarly, as reported by the Mount Vernon News, July 10, 2018, Mr. Barone stated the purpose of a charter commission is “to look at the pros and cons of a charter”.  To do that, “to look at the pros and cons”, it is necessary for the commission to be made up of both people who tend to favor and those who tend to oppose or question a charter for our city.  Assuming the charter vote on November 6th is not unanimous, if a commission is formed, having people on that commission who initially favor and those who initially oppose a charter would reflect a cross-section of the community.  As the pro-group has often claimed over the last several months, “a charter is not on the ballot”. “The formation of a commission is just a step in a larger process.” “We only want to study the issue, to have a discussion, what can be wrong with that?”   If it is as advertised, it is supposed to be the start of a conversation as to whether a charter would benefit our city. Unfortunately, in politics, people don’t always mean what they say. Sometimes they misrepresent their attitudes and intentions, walk different than their talk.  Councilman Barone appears to be a prime example, and that casts a cloud over the entire pro-charter group.

Mr. Barone should have heeded his advice.  Having voted to place the charter issue on the ballot, in his own words, he fulfilled his role as a council member and it was not in his purview to express an opinion on the issue, but only to “provide an on ramp for discussion”.  Recently, Mr. Barone posted on his personal Facebook account an endorsement of “his choices” of commission candidates, making reference to non-endorsed candidates that are (according to Barone) anti-charter from the get go. The six (6) who did not receive his endorsement, Don Carr, Michael P. Hillier, Gary Koester, Bruce Malek, Jody L. Pritchard and David Randall, appear to have one thing in common.  While not authorized and not attempting to speak for or on behalf of these candidates, by comments made during the public discussion on the charter issue, their profiles as included in the October 12, 2018 edition of the Mount Vernon News, or otherwise, they have apparently done or said something that in Mr. Barone’s view questioned, challenged or was in opposition to a charter, or the charter process as it has been conducted by the administration and city council.  Acknowledging the right of free speech, that right is sometimes (or at least should be) constrained or restricted by decisions people make, positions they hold or just in good judgment. In this website’s opinion, that is the case with Mr. Barone. What he says in the course of private conversation is one thing, but it is quite another for him, as a public official and public servant, representing all the people of his Ward, to make a public declaration on social media as to his personal preferences for the charter commission, especially in light of his own earlier statements as to his and or city council’s limited role in the charter debate.  Additionally, Mr. Barone’s endorsements, or lack thereof, contrary to Mayor Mavis’ warning, is an attempt to “pack” the commission with like-minded people who may not represent a true cross-section of the community. Seating a commission that is devoid of opposition is contrary to the healthy debate of the pros and cons of a charter as called for by Mr. Barone himself. The concerns regarding Mr. Barone’s decision to endorse candidates is not about the candidates. Rather, his conduct suggests he has not been sincere in his comments about the reasons for supporting a charter commission, its purpose or council refraining from offering an opinion on the merits of a charter.  On August 27, 2018, at the conclusion of the city council meeting, Mr. Barone, speaking to the citizens of Mount Vernon, said: “ I can assure you people who have spent a lot of time getting their signatures (the commission candidates)… they seem to be interested in one thing and one thing only and that is making our government truly local, truly home rule, making it reflect what we want for our community, ‘Ah’, without having to follow ‘lock-step’ … everything that 132 legislators in Columbus do. ‘Ah’, They are interested in making it more efficient, cost saving and in making sure we have the highest quality people,’ Ah’, staffing the departments of our city. So please folks do not be afraid of studying a Charter…‘Ah’, so study it, be informed, but by all means, don’t allow yourself to be alarmed by allowing a committee of your fellow citizens to study something (the charter) that could really bring great benefit to our community over the coming decades.”

Only slightly biased and, apparently, not accurate.  Is that statement consistent with Mr. Barone’s comments reported by the Mount Vernon News on July 24 that, “ (C)ouncil has one role in the charter issue and that is to give it to the people to decide.  ‘It’s not to express our opinion, but solely to provide an on ramp for discussion.’”? You be the judge. Don’t be fooled. THE INTENTIONS OF MR. BARONE AND THE PRO-CHARTER ADVOCATES IS TO WRITE A CHARTER AND DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THAT CHARTER ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER OF 2019.  Mr. Barone’s actions prove it.

NO COMMISSION, NO CHARTER.  VOTE “NO” NOVEMEMBER 6.

*Where applicable, the information included in this article is, except as otherwise indicated, drawn from information as reported in the Mount Vernon News

¹ Mount Vernon News: May 8, 2017; April 3, 2018; July 7, 2018 and July 10, 2018

² Mount Vernon News: July 10, 2018

3  Mount Vernon News: April 3, 2018

INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED, OPEN-MINDED, DIVERSE
A CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY

These and similar terms describe the characteristics Charter Commission Candidates need, so say those who favor the charter initiative and want to create a commission to consider and potentially write a charter for the city of Mount Vernon.  That is what the pro charter advocates say we, the citizens of Mount Vernon, need, but what will we get?  Relationships or connections exist between many of the individuals involved in the charter issue, including several of the candidates for the charter commission.  Voters should be aware of those relationships or connections so they can judge for themselves whether a charter commission, if seated, would meet the above criteria.  The information provided is not intended to advocate for or against any charter commission candidate. It’s not even about the candidates. The information is offered to assist the voter in judging the sincerity of at least some of the most out spoken pro charter advocates when they tell us, the citizens and voters, things like: the charter issue is just about a “conversation”, “discussion”, or  “study” of a charter; that, just like the decision by council to place the issue on the ballot, voting to form a charter commission is not a big deal, it’s just one more small step in a much larger process; and what can be wrong with just talking about a charter and letting the people decide?  If a charter commission is formed, will there be an open and honest debate of the pros and cons of a charter, or are we being sold a bill of goods that is intended to lead us to the ultimate goal of Mr. Barone and others who share his dream, a charter government for Mount Vernon? 

Much of what follows is as it appears on the internet, including the websites of the Area Development Foundation of Knox County (knoxadf.com) and Community Foundation of Mount Vernon and Knox County (mvkcfoundation.org).  In providing it, the value of volunteers is acknowledged. The relationships between a number of individuals involved in the charter issue is provided solely for the purpose of transparency.

In the fall of 2016, Sam Barone had discussions with eight other individuals about a charter for the city of Mount Vernon.  The names of some of those others are well known or have become familiar since the charter discussion became public in the Spring of 2017.  They included Mayor Richard Mavis; Democratic Party chairman Adam Gilson; Council President Bruce Hawkins; and Jeff Harris, the president of the Area Development Foundation (ADF).  Mr. Harris is now a candidate for the charter commission. Quoting from an article in the Mount Vernon News, October 12, 2018, Mr. Harris is “one of the organizers of the group supporting creation of a commission…”  Mr. Harris was interviewed by the News for the article.  That same article identifies commission candidate Gordon Yance and Marc Odenweiler as the treasurer and deputy treasurer, respectively, of the pro-charter group.  Mr Odenweiler, while not a candidate, is the finance director of the Community Trust. What is the significance of the Community Foundation? Sam Barone, yes the same Sam Barone, is the executive director of the Community Foundation!

How is it that Mr. Harris came to be president of the Area Development Foundation?  According to Mr. Harris, “I got to know Mayor Richard Mavis, Councilman Sam Barone and Steve Waers,” the latter of whom is the outgoing foundation president, Harris told me. “They called me and asked me if I wanted the job.”  (This quote appeared in an article by Brian R. Ball, staff reporter for Columbus Business under the title Worthington’s economic development chief heading to Knox County, published August 20, 2015 and appearing at bizjournals.com.)  Recently, Jeff Gottke, one of the council members voting for placing the charter issue on the ballot, was hired by the Area Development Foundation as vice president.  According to the Mount Vernon News, October 9, 2018, “ADF President Jeff Harris said Gottke will have a number of administrative responsibilities…” Mr. Gottke voluntarily resigned his council seat to take the position with the Area Development Foundation “after the Ohio Ethics Commission issued an opinion that it would be a conflict of interest (for Gottke) to remain on council and work for the ADF.” ¹

According to the ADF website, in addition to Jeff Harris, two other commission candidates, Clint Bailey and Gordan Yance, are on the board of the Area Development Foundation.  A brief bio appearing on the Central Ohio Technical College website (cotc.edu) indicates Mr. Yance has also been involved with the Community Foundation of Mount Vernon and Knox County (“Community Foundation”) and served from 2002-2011 as President for First Knox National Bank.  First Knox National Bank houses the office of the Community Foundation. Bruce Hawkins, President of City Council and one of the nine people involved in initial charter discussion with Mr. Barone, also serves on the ADF board and is the father of commission candidate, Todd Hawkins, who is employed by First Knox National Bank.  While not a commission candidate, Terry L. Divelbiss, who is on the board of ADF along with candidates Clint Bailey and Gordan Yance, also serves on the board of the Community Foundation.

As noted above, Sam Barone, is the Executive Director of the Community Foundation.  According to its website, board members of the Community Trust include Terry L. Divelbiss; Dr. Sean Decatur, President of Kenyon College; and Richard K. Mavis, mayor. Kenyon College is identified on the ADF website as a “Partner” of the Area Development Foundation.  Charter Commission candidate Samuel Filkens is employed by Kenyon College, serving on the benefits and policy committee for staff council. Candidate Julia Warga is a librarian at Kenyon College. Sam Barone graduated from Kenyon. After graduation, he served Kenyon as News and Sports Information Director and Public Relations Director.        

Mount Vernon Nazarene University (MVNU) is also identified as a “Partner” of  the Area Development Foundation. Charter Commission candidate Randy Cronk has a long history with MVNU as an employee, and candidate Tanner Salyers is a recent graduate of MVNU.

INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED, OPEN-MINDED, DIVERSE, A CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY?   

All of the Charter Commission candidates mentioned in this posting have been “endorsed” by Councilman Sam Barone, who was quoted by the Mount Vernon News, July 24, 2018, as saying,   “(C)ouncil has one role in the charter issue and that is to give it to the people to decide.  ‘It’s not to express our opinion, but solely to provide an on ramp for discussion.’” So the question is raised again:

If a charter commission is formed, will there be an open and honest debate of the pros and cons of a charter, or are we being sold a bill of goods that is intended to lead us to the ultimate goal of Mr. Barone and others who share his dream and Mount Vernon’s nightmare, a charter government for our city?  You decide.

NO COMMISSION, NO CHARTER.  VOTE “NO” NOVEMBER 6.                    

¹ Mount Vernon News, October 23, 2018