“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.