Controversy errupted at the January 22 meeting of City Council when Council Member Broughton alleged that during a back room meeting, he was asked by Vice Mayor Leonard to put fourth the motion that killed the Earnings Tax proposal for a city income tax. Leonard, who voted against that same motion in open Council, denied the claim.
More troubling is that the discussion allegedly took place in a back room meeting, out of public view, and involved a majority of council members during a half hour break from the regular public meeting. Such a meeting could be in violation of the City Charter and Ohio Revised Code if official public business was being discussed. According to Broughton’s allegations, that’s exactly what the discussion was about.
Advertisement
Broughton’s comments, and those from other council members, describe a back room meeting where council members were discussing and debating how they would proceed with the city income tax issue and also planning a motion to kill the measure.
For the benefit of our readers, links to a complete transcript and MP3 audio file are provided at the end of this article.
What follows contains excerpts from the discussion.
The controversy began near the end of the January 22 meeting. Council Member Broughton began by saying that he wanted to clear up some confusion over events surrounding his motion to kill the city income tax proposal on January 8. He continued and asked the Vice Mayor to state that he had asked Broughton to make the motion. Vice Mayor Leonard denied the allegation.
“Broughton said, “So I would ask that the Vice Mayor be willing to go on the record to state that in fact he was the one who asked me to make the motion.”
Vice Mayor Leonard denied the claim saying, “I did not ask anyone to make a motion. I suggested, and I believe it was to you, John, that would be the only way to stop it from going on to the third reading since we don’t have to vote to pass it on to the third reading.”
Broughton responded with voice raised, “And I will go on the record and categorically state that not only did he tell me how to make the motion, he asked me specifically to make the motion and during that conversation both the Mayor and the Vice Mayor and Councilman Martin was standing there.”
The entire exchange continued for over 10 minutes and at various points included comments from most of the other members of City Council. Comments from Council Members Baker and Martin lended creedence to Broughton’s claim. Baker also claimed that some members of council who suggested killing it in private were the same ones who later voted against killing it in public.
Council Member Baker said, “I wasn’t there for that dialog but I was there earlier when I heard Mr. Leonard express his opinion that he didn’t think it should go forward… as well as I heard that from other council members that voted… not in favor of the motion.”
Baker later added, “Now, we’re going to let this thing turn into a dynamite type of thing if we’re not careful, but we shouldn’t mess with the truth.”
Throughout the exchange, Mayor Hadley tried to diffuse the situation and, at one point, asked members of Council to just let it die. Broughton immediately responded saying that it was the Mayor who wouldn’t the the issue die because he had made negative statements about council members and their decision at another public meeting.
Hadley said, “Alright, well let me state… I think we’ve vented some feelings here and I think we took action last meeting and it did not move forward and I think we need to let it die right where it is.”
Broughton quickly replied, “I would love to Mayor except that you showed up, and so did two other council people at a public meeting, and chastised the four of us for doing… covering your butts for screwing it up in the first place!”
The discussion of events that allegedly took place in the back room meeting continued and included the reasons for the meeting itself, reasons for killing the Earning’s Tax proposal and a statement from Council Member Baker that alluded to decision making taking place in the back room.
Council Member Baker said, “We were advised by Mr. McHugh that he suspected there’s problems and if it goes to litigation it may not fare well. And we created a mess… more or less. And that’s when it was decided that we couldn’t go forward.”
Advertisement
According to comments from council members, much of the discussion that allegedly took place in the back room centered on whether the City fulfilled requirements set by the Charter for passing ordinances. It could be considered ironic that the discussion itself may have been a violation the Charter if discussion, debate and decisions were being made involving the public business.
While certain provisions of the Charter were not met with the Earnings Tax proposal, including a full posting of the ordinance in City Hall, Mayor Hadley said he understood that they were in keeping with the spirit of the Charter. Council Member Howard disagreed and pointed out that the Charter was actually very specific about the requirements.
Hadley said,“But the question is… the question was asked. Did we meet the requirements set by the Charter and Mr. McHugh, as I understood it, said at the time he feels that we met the spirit of what the Charter intended.”
Council Member Howard contradicted Hadley and said, “And I’ll just say for whoever is watching or whatever that the Charter was very specific in that it must be posted, not in the clerk’s office but it must be posted and where I decided I was done with this whole thing was when we did not meet the Charter literally. I read it as though it’s a Bible… not in the spirit of things, but though we follow it to the letter as much as possible. That’s when I left early… I was done.”
Nearing the end of the exchange Council Member Martin both supported Broughton’s claim and summed up some of the reasons why he felt the Earnings Tax proposal had to be killed.
Martin said, “My recollection is a lot closer to your recollection Mr. Broughton. I think what’s important here though is that the public… we need to be truthful and honest with the public and the people at home need to know that the thing… we had to kill the thing. We had no other choice but to kill the thing because of improper posting, improper advertising and improper changes.“
At one point during the controversy Mayor Hadley denied that he even thought there was a discussion taking place in the back room.
Mayor Hadley said, “Well I didn’t know we were back there discussing anything. I didn’t think we were doing any discussing… in the back room.”
Both Broughton and Baker took issue with Hadley’s statement and asked why he spent time looking at dates on a calendar during the back room meeting which would not have been necessary if no discussion was really taking place. Hadley replied that he simply had a question about the dates.
There is no way to verify any of the statements made by council members regarding the alleged back room meeting or what was actually said. For such a meeting to be a violation of the Charter a majority of council members would have to be present and they would have to be discussing the public business of the public body in private. On the surface it appears that the alleged back room meeting may have met those requirements. If so, it could then be a violation of both the Beavercreek City Charter and Ohio Revised Code 121.22.
If such a meeting did take place it would also explain why a 15 minute break from the regular meeting turned into a 30 minute break and why following that break Council acted so swiftly to put forth the motion to kill the proposal with very little debate among council members.
As of the writing of this article there has been no coverage of the controversy in any other local media. No official action has been announced by any government agency, local group or individual regarding filing of suit with the court of common pleas over whether the alleged backroom meeting was a possible violation the City Charter and Ohio Revised Code 121.22.
The section of the Beavercreek City Charter pertaining to open meetings is reprinted below for the benefit of our readers.
SECTION 13.09. OPEN MEETINGS
Where a majority of a board, commission, committee, or similar decision-making public body of the City, including the Council, shall prearrange a discussion of the public business of the public body, it shall be required to take official action and to conduct all deliberations upon official business only in public meetings in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio. Executive sessions shall be permitted in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio.
RELATED STORY: Transcript of Controversy During Jan 22 2007 City Council
RELATED STORY: MP3 Audio of Controversy During Jan 22 2007 City Council
