Discussion of what is being called the “Waste Hauler Contract” are only taking place at work sessions and special meetings. As of yet, the topic has not been brought up during any regular televised meeting of City Council. The most recent meeting where the topic was discussed was at the April 21, 2008 Work Session, according to the meeting’s agenda.

According to Rumpke Municipal Representative Matthew McNelly, the City of Beavercreek under the direction of City Manager Mike Cornell has been looking into the idea since as early as October of 2007. McNelly first mentioned that the city was considering granting a single hauler waste contract when he spoke to the Beavercreek Rotary Club on October 12, 2007.

McNelly said that the city is considering granting one contract for all waste removal services for residents to either Rumpke, Waste Management or Dempsey. At the time, McNelly said the goal was to provide a cost savings for residents. But according to an investigation by The Beavercreek Record, any savings for residents may be negligible.

Our investigation showed that Fairborn, which has such a system and is smaller than Beavercreek, charges it’s residents $15 a month for curbside pickup of trash. The service is managed by Waste Management. Currently, a typical Rumpke bill for three months of service for a Beavercreek resident is $45.80. The difference between the two bills is only 80 cents over three months.

Similarly, we looked at Kettering which also has a single waste hauler contract with Waste Management. The cost for base service, the lowest a resident could pay, is $14.69 a month. But if a Kettering resident wants to use a Waste Management container, there’s an extra $2.50 a month rental charge.

Some argue that going with a city chosen provider will open up recycling opportunities, but according to a 2006 press release from the city, a portion of the monthly charge residents currently pay to their individual waste hauler is already forwarded to the Greene County Solid Waste Management District so that a county-wide recycling efforts can be provided.

Talk about awarding a contract to a single waste hauler has been around since 2001 when the Beavercreek Environmental Advisory Committee first suggested it as part of a way to improve recycling. On June 9, 2003, members of the BEAC made a presentation to the 2003 City Council that included a call for awarding such a contract. Members of the BEAC argued that awarding the contract would improve recycling and the current average rate would be lower with more service. The meeting’s minutes did not include what level of services were added to achieve the “average rate”.

During that discussion in 2003, then council member Bob Glaser said that he had problems with removing competition. Council member Fowler said that it would be taking a decision away from citizens and giving it to the government. Council member Jerry Petrak said that if the issue was recycling, then mandate all haulers to recycle. Vice Mayor Bob Stone said there would have to be substantial savings to the consumer for him to support it; otherwise let the market rule. Council member Julie Vann said she would like to see more information on the issue from staff and the City Manager at the time, Dan Dubruiel said that staff had not formed an opinion since he felt the proposal should be presented to Council first.

The subject and what it represents could easily become controversial. If Beavercreek City Council goes forward with plans to award a single hauler waste contract in Beavercreek, it would represent the first time the city mandates a public service with a fee rather than funding it through levies. The possible controversy surrounding the issue may explain why the topic has been given such low-key treatment, only being discussed at untelevised meetings.

Tony Corvo, local author of the book “All Politics is Loco: Musings from the Conservative Next Door”, said, “This is just another example of government failing to deal with their legitimate functions, and instead expanding into areas they have no business in so they can fail at that also. If the city council and manager are bored, someone should bring them a deck of cards.”

Story by Craig Barhorst.

At the March 24 meeting of City Council, Beavercreek City Manager Mike Cornell announced that construction updates will become a more regular part of his City Manager’s Report.

Cornell said some of the most frequent questions his office receives are about the various construction projects taking place throughout the city. Those working in Engineering and Planning also receive similar questions. Cornell said that to better inform the public, he plans to make updates on these projects a somewhat regular feature of his report at the end of City Council meetings.

Cornell started off immediately at the March 24 meeting by giving updates on 7 big construction projects taking place in Beavercreek. The updates included the LA Fitness Center, Walgreen’s/Key Bank Building, Hilton Garden Inn, Von Mauer and Phase II of the The Greene and the Davis Medical Building.

City Manager’s Construction Update Highlights Projects
The old Rhodes Furniture building covered in plastic in February as workers add a new facade to turn it into an LA Fitness Center (top left). The site of the new Walgreen’s/Key Bank Building, in the early stages of construction with plumbing being added (top right). The Hilton Garden Inn under construction in February (lower left). Construction on the Von Mauer department store, also in February (lower right). Photos © Craig Barhorst

Work on converting the old Rhodes Furniture building to a new LA Fitness Center is progressing with an expected opening later this year. Demolition of the old Majestic Cleaners and Glawe Awning building has made way for construction to begin on the new Walgreen’s/Key Bank Building. The current Key Bank building will be given a new facade and an addition will be added to house a new Walgreen’s. Construction is still in it’s early phases on the project.

Construction of the new Hilton Garden Inn, located near the Pentagon Tower Building on Pentagon park Boulevard, is well under way with an opening planned for Summer of this year. The new Von Mauer department store and the rest of Phase II at The Greene is expected to open in September of 2008.

Early Construction on the Davis Medical Building on Darst
An early view of construction in January on the site of a new two-story medical building located on Darst Road just behind the Indian Ripple Road Speedway. Photo © Craig Barhorst

The construction taking place behind the Speedway along Indian Ripple Road on Darst Road is for a new medical building that will be a combination facility for Wright State and Greene Memorial Hospital. The project is tentatively referred to as the Davis Medical Building. The building will be a two-story, 21,258 square foot medical building. The first floor will have a patient treatment area and 28 exam and procedure rooms. The second floor will serve predominately as offices and support area for the medical personnel. The second floor will also contain a few specialized procedure rooms, namely the x-ray and mammogram areas and will contain student studios, as well as 2 large classrooms able to accommodate up to 24 students each.

Story by staff. Source: Beavercreek City Council Meeting March 24, 2008. Additional information from Beavercreek City Council Meeting, October 8, 2007.

br20080324-01

Letter to the Editor:

Mayor Vann Overstepped Her Authority Again

In regards to Julie Vann sending a letter to the GMHA which made an appointment to the group’s board without a vote of City Council.

Julie Vann did something similar in overstepping her authority 12 years ago when she was first elected mayor. At that time she also sent a letter, with her signature, out to request a grant. The mayor cannot do this. When confronted by council, Ms Vann said she was only trying to help and she would never sign another letter. Council let it go with only a slap on the wrist because she was new to the city and council, but they told her if she ever did it again, they would take legal action.

Now, here it is, 12 years later and she has done it again. Only this time there are severe and lasting effects of her actions. Her apology was empty in that she should have known better this time.

She has now tainted all council members by overstepping her authority and the city will be stuck with the bill for any legal action taken.

My concern is that council won’t take action against the mayor because of the legal cost. How can they put a price on defending the charter? Our City Charter is to the city what the Constitution is to the American people. We can’t allow anyone to trample either of them.

Flo Thompson – Beavercreek

Opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor are those of the letter’s author and not The Beavercreek Record. The Beavercreek Record may edit a contributor’s letter for the purposes of grammer, spelling, brevity or to avoid concerns over defamation of character. In such cases every effort will be made to preserve the author’s point and intent. Letters to the Editor are published on Saturdays as submissions allow and may or may not be combined with letters from others.

lbr20080315-01

Many members on Council were visibly upset over the matter, having only been informed that the appointment was permanent shortly before the meeting. City Council had just finished 6 weeks of work on legislation to outline how such appointments are made. The new legislation gives City Council the authority to make such appointments by a majority vote. Council was planning to vote on the appointment to the Greene Metropolitan Housing Authority (GMHA) as early as this month.

Mayor Vann’s letter has now changed all that. With Vann’s letter having been accepted by the GMHA, that appointment has now been made from a legal standpoint.

Mayor Vann said that when she sent the letter she thought she was only making an interim or temporary appointment of Nancy Hadley to the GMHA’s board until the official appointment could be voted on by Council.

But City Attorney Steven McHugh informed members of Council that even though Vann’s letter listed the appointment as “interim”, it had the legal effect of making a permanent appointment since interim appointments are not allowed for in the law. An opinion from an outside attorney agrees.

Vann apologized for sending the letter and said she only made the interim appointment because the business of the GMHA was being held up without a full board since Beavercreek had not yet made the appointment. Vann said, “I sincerely apologize because I didn’t really… it was not my intent to cause a problem.”

The action taken by Mayor Vann in sending the letter now changes the legal burden from the GMHA to the City of Beavercreek. Prior to Vann sending the letter, it would have been the GMHA which would have to take legal action to block an appointment. Now that the letter has been sent making the appointment, that burden shifts to the City of Beavercreek.

If Council wants to revoke the appointment, they now have to initiate legal action which would also include the associated expenses. The potential cost to taxpayers of such legal action was the subject of some debate at the March 10 meeting of City Council. There are some on Council, however, who feel that it may be worth it. Council member Gerald Petrak said, “I am 100% convinced we need to take every action again to undo this, and whatever that takes let’s do it. Let’s put the manpower, the money, etcetera into this and find a way to unravel this.”

Mayor Vann’s choice of Nancy Hadley, wife of Council member Scott Hadley, may also have been the cause of much of the frustration expressed by many on Council. In December, 2007, Council chose not to appoint Nancy Hadley to the GMHA Board, rejecting a request from the GMHA that she be reappointed. Instead, Council chose Roger Sharp.

The GMHA rejected the choice of Sharp claiming that Beavercreek didn’t follow Ohio law in making the appointment in December. The group said that according to Ohio Revised Code the chief executive officer, presumably the Mayor, of the largest city in the county makes the appointment, not members of City Council.

In January Beavercreek City Council began work on an ordinance to give City Council the authority to make such appointments. While some question whether a city ordinance could really supersede Ohio Revised Code in such a matter, at least 4 members of the Council, Giambrone, Howard, Martin and Petrak voted to move the ordinance forward. The final vote passing the ordinance took place February 25, 2008. It becomes law thirty days after passage.

When the ordinance was first proposed in January, it quickly turned into a drama that occupied nearly 40 minutes of debate at the January 28 City Council meeting. Council member Scott Hadley challenged the ordinance saying that it was only being proposed to deal with the GMHA appointment. Council member Jarrod Martin said that Hadley shouldn’t even be discussing the matter since it has to do with his wife, Nancy Hadley, who Council turned down for the appointment back in December. Both Council members Jarrod Martin and Phyllis Howard said Hadley should recuse himself.

In late February, Scott Hadley proved Martin and Howard wrong when he announced that he received an opinion from an attorney at the Ohio Ethics Commission which said he didn’t have to recuse himself in the matter. Such opinions are routinely offered to public officials who seek clarification on such matters.

Everyone thought the matter would come to head later this month when the ordinance goes into effect and City Council would be able to vote on the appointment. Now, the matter may not come up again for another 3-5 years.

Those on City Council most upset with the matter have asked City Attorney McHugh to prepare a list of options the City may have going forward. But given that most options now involve legal action with a cost to taxpayers, it’s uncertain whether any action will be taken at all. As it now stands Nancy Hadley has been appointed to the GMHA Board for another 5 years.

Members of the audience expressed disappointment in how City Council has handled the whole affair and how some have acted during the ordeal. Two members of the audience took the time to speak at the end of the meeting.

One audience member said that he didn’t like seeing so much sniping among Council members. He felt that Council should have given some consideration the GMHA’s recommendation to appoint Nancy Hadley. He asked whether it was really a good decision for the City to fight to appoint someone else that the GMHA didn’t want and asked how effective that person would be on the board if the City won such a fight.

Another audience member said she had brought her Girl Scout down to see what a City Council meeting was like because she thought it would be a good experience. She said that following this meeting she was left with a lot of negative feelings and was very disappointed. She also said she didn’t like seeing so much backbiting among Council members.

Story by Craig Barhorst. Sources: Beavercreek City Council Meeting January 28, 2008. Beavercreek City Council Meeting February 25, 2008. Beavercreek City Council Meeting March 10, 2008.

br20080312-01 sp

Hadley said that according to an opinion from a lawyer at the Ohio Ethics Commission, his involvement poses no conflict of interest concerning his wife’s appointment to the Greene Metropolitan Housing Authority Board.

Hadley read part of the decision to other council members and said, “The opinion has come down. It says, based on the facts as stated above and based on my review of the Ohio statutes and applicable law and ethics opinions, it is my opinion that Mr. Hadley does not have to recuse himself from voting for the appointment of a family member to an uncompensated position on GMHA.”

Hadley went on to say that from now on he will involve himself in discussion and voting on the issue in the future. The issue may come up sooner rather than later. During the same meeting City Council passed Ordinance 08-6, which defines the process for making appointments to outside boards. The ordinance gives City Council the power to make such appointments by majority vote. The law goes into effect thirty days from February 25. Shortly after that time Council is expected to take up the matter of making the appointment to the GMHA Board.

Now that Scott Hadley no longer has to recuse himself, he can both nominate his wife Nancy and vote on her approval. Nancy Hadley lost by just 1 vote back in December when the matter began. Two members of City Council have changed since then so it’s anyone’s guess as to what the final outcome will be.

The Issue of Hadley and the GMHA Board Appointment

The issue became the subject of much debate and some raised tempers at City Council meetings this year, but the problem started late last year. Back in December of 2007, City Council had two candidates vying for appointment to the GMHA Board. Nancy Hadley, wife of council member Scott Hadley, had served on the GMHA board for 5 years and had the GMHA’s recommendation to continue. Roger Sharp, former accountant for the GMHA, had also applied. The vote was 3 for Sharp and 2 for Nancy Hadley. At the time Scott Hadley had recused himself on the advice of City Attorney McHugh and did not vote on the matter. Jarrod Martin was excused from that particular meeting and also did not vote on the matter.

The GMHA later rejected the appointment of Sharp, saying that Beavercreek’s City Council didn’t follow the law in making the appointment. They cited Ohio Revised Code which says that the chief executive officer of the largest city makes the appointment and not a majority vote of City Council. The assumption being that the mayor is the chief executive officer. The GMHA also asked that Nancy Hadley be reappointed.

On January 28 of this year, City Council set out to fix the problem by codifying how they make appointments to outside boards with a new ordinance giving City Council the authority to make the appointment by a majority vote. Hadley challenged the ordinance saying that it was only being proposed to deal with the GMHA. Jarrod Martin said that Hadley shouldn’t even be discussing the matter since it has to do with his wife and he should recuse himself. Council member Phyllis Howard agreed.

The whole affair turned into a debate and somewhat of a drama that played out for nearly 40 minutes at the January 28 meeting of City Council. Over the course of subsequent meetings the ordinance passed a second an third reading with a few changes. It will go into effect in late March. At that time this particular story may finally come to an end with a City Council vote on the appointment to the GMHA.

Story by Craig Barhorst. Sources: Beavercreek City Council Meeting January 28, 2008. Beavercreek City Council Meeting February 25, 2008. br20080307-02

At the center of it all was what seemed to be a simple ordinance put forth to clarify how Beavercreek appoints members to outside boards. But the debate quickly turned personal when council member Jarrod Martin brought up the former mayor’s wife and said that she was the subject of the ordinance.

The ordinance that Beavercreek’s City Council was voting on would give council the power to appoint members to outside boards and commissions. Currently that power can vary and, in at least one case where the outside organization is following Ohio Revised Code, it rests with the chief executive officer in the city… presumably the mayor. And that’s where former mayor Scott Hadley took issue with the ordinance. Hadley said that the ordinance was an attempt to strip that outside duty from the mayor and give it to council. Hadley also said the only outside board the city appoints to is the Greene Metropolitan Housing Authority (GMHA).

If an outside group, such as the GMHA, has in it’s own rules set forth by the Ohio Revised Code that the mayor of Beavercreek appoints members to it’s board, the question arises as to whether Beavercreek City Council can pass an ordinance that would even apply to the group’s rules. Can an ordinance from the City of Beavercreek trump the GMHA’s own rules set forth by Ohio Revised Code?

But there’s another side to this story and it gets personal. Last December there were two people who wanted the job of serving on the GMHA Board. One candidate had already served there for 5 years and the GMHA had recommended she be reappointed. She is Nancy Hadley, former mayor Scott Hadley’s wife. City Council rejected the recommendation of the GMHA and instead voted for the other candidate by a vote of 3-2.

There’s probably no denying that it could have easily gotten personal for Scott Hadley, but he argued from the facts and never brought up his wife while making his point, that would be done by council member Martin. Hadley did, however, bring up the GMHA which definitely hit a nerve with Martin who feels Hadley’s association with the group represents a conflict of interest. Martin became so upset he was interrupting Mayor Vann while she was responding to Hadley. Vann had to ask Martin to wait until she was finished.

When he did speak, Martin said, “I don’t know why we had the long diatribe from Mr. Hadley. We discussed this in detail at our retreat. As a matter of fact we spent two and a half hours on it. In all honesty Mr. Hadley probably should not be participating in any of this discussion due to his relationship with the Greene Metropolitan Housing and his wife being the subject of this ordinance.”

And with that statement, everyone in the audience and viewers at home could see that there was a lot more to this issue. Martin had said that Hadley’s wife Nancy was “the subject of this ordinance.” Public and private matters rarely clash so openly while the cameras are rolling at Beavercreek’s City Council. The debate hinted at a lot of emotions stirred up behind the scenes. One might ask how anyone can be objective here. Martin went on to say that at the retreat there was strong disagreement whether the city’s mayor could single handedly appoint to boards and that is why the ordinance was being brought up.

But it’s important to keep in mind that former mayor Hadley never appointed his wife to the board. That occurred before he was even a council member. Hadley also recused himself from any meetings where the GMHA was being discussed. Had the city followed Ohio Revised Code in December, Hadley would not have made the appointment because of his recusals. The Vice Mayor would have had to step in for that duty. As it now stands it was City Council that overstepped their bounds back in December according to the GMHA which says it is following Ohio Revised Code.

The GMHA was the first to bring up the issue saying that City Council did not have the authority to make the appointment. On the GMHA’s website, in an area explaining the board, it says that the Mayor of the largest city in the county appoints 2 board members. This same explanation has been on the website since at least 2003.

The issue is really quite complex and the emotions have only complicated things. Emotions aside, it could be said that Scott Hadley has a valid point arguing that City Council shouldn’t attempt to take over an outside duty of the mayor. But Hadley’s personal connection lead some to question his motivations. City Council as well may have a point, arguing that Beavercreek is designed with a weak mayor form of government giving council most of the duties of mayor. But with emotions running so high, they also have left the door open for people to question their motivations. The GMHA has rejected the appointee put forth by the City Council in December and has asked that Nancy Hadley be re-appointed. That only further complicates matters.

The debate that ensued went on for nearly 40 minutes. In the end the ordinance moved on to a second reading with a vote of 4-3. While there isn’t enough space to cover the entire debate, we have tried to provide you with a few capsules and analysis to better understand the issues and events. The Council meeting will rerun on Channel 5 over the next two weeks. This issue comes up 1 hour and 38 minutes into the meeting. We suggest our readers watch the exchange or listen to the MP3 audio file on this page to get a complete view of the issue.

The Beavercreek Record was first with this story.

City Council Seeks The Power to Appoint to Outside Boards

The ordinance titled Ordinance 08-6 Appointments of Outside Boards and Commissions would give City Council the power to appoint members to outside boards and commissions. Currently under Ohio Revised Code, that power rests with the chief executive officer in the city… presumably the mayor. In Beavercreek’s case, according to Hadley, the use of this power currently only applies to one outside board. That board is the Greene Metropolitan Housing Authority (GMHA).

Analysis: In the recent past, City Council has voted on appointments to the GMHA Board, even though they may not have legally had the authority to do so. There’s a big question as to whether any ordinance City Council passes would even apply. If an outside organization is chartered by the state of Ohio and must follow Ohio Revised Code for it’s own rules, can Beavercreek City Council pass an ordinance that in effect sets up new rules for that organization which supersede the state of Ohio? Also, many say that the term “chief executive officer” is vague and is not clearly defined in Ohio Revised Code. According to some, that could be the mayor or the city manager. Clarifying this term first may have been a better course of action as a first step to fixing the problem.

What Happened on December 10, 2007

City Council met on December 10, 2007. On their agenda was the appointment of a board member to the GMHA. Nancy Hadley, wife of Scott Hadley, was the current member of the GMHA Board. Members serve for 5 year terms and her term was expiring at the end of 2007. When a member’s term expires, the GMHA sends a letter to the city recommending a replacement. In this case they sent a letter recommending that Nancy Hadley be reappointed to the GMHA Board for another term. In the past, the city has honored the recommendation of the GMHA. In this case, however, they did not.

Another application had been received from Robert Sharp, who was also interested in sitting on the board. Sharp, a CPA, most recently ran unsuccessfully for Beavercreek Township Fiscal Officer in November, 2007. Council member Baker nominated Sharp, Braily nominated Hadley. A vote was taken. Sharp received 3 votes and Nancy Hadley received 2.

Analysis: In the past the city has honored the recommendation of the GMHA. For some reason this time City Council rejected that recommendation. There was no discussion at the meeting. If any discussion of the candidates took place, it happened somewhere else or at another meeting. As for Scott Hadley’s relationship to the applicant, it should be taken into consideration that Nancy Hadley was originally appointed before Scott Hadley began his term as a city council member.

Council Member Scott Hadley’s Issue With The Ordinance

Following the reading of the ordinance, council member and former mayor Scott Hadley made his argument against the ordinance. Hadley calmly presented his argument saying that the ordinance was being put forth to deal with a specific issue because it really only applied to appointments to the GMHA. He said this is true because Beavercreek is not a member of any other outside board. Hadley listed Ohio Revised Code as well as an outside attorney’s opinion saying that the City Council had no authority to do what they did on December 10, 2007.

Analysis: Hadley may be right but on December 10, 2007 he sat silently in his chair as the vote was taken. According to later comments during last night’s debate, it was the GMHA that originally brought up the improper appointment by City Council as a reason for their rejection.

Council Member Jarrod Martin Heats Up The Debate

Hadley’s comments incited council member Jarrod Martin. Martin said, “I don’t know why we had the long diatribe from Mr. Hadley. We discussed this in detail at our retreat. As a matter of fact we spent two and a half hours on it. In all honesty Mr. Hadley probably should not be participating in any of this discussion due to his relationship with the Greene Metropolitan Housing and his wife being the subject of this ordinance.” Martin went on to say that at the retreat their was strong disagreement that the Mayor could single handedly appoint to boards and that is why the ordinance was being brought up.

Analysis: Martin brought up debate that occurred at another meeting, namely the “retreat’. Some refer to these type meetings as “shadowy” because discussion and debate takes place far from the cameras. According to the city’s media policy, no real decisions can occur at these type of meetings when cameras are not running. Martin may feel like the issue was debated and even agreed upon at the retreat, but in fact Hadley was well within his rights to bring up the matter for debate with the cameras watching. If Scott Hadley had not given his “long diatribe” as Martin put it, viewers and residents would have had no idea what the issue and disagreement was about.

Other Council Members Voice Their Opinions

Council members Jerry Petrak, Julie Vann and Vicki Giambrone were not part of the City Council that made the decision back in December. Council member Jerry Petrak said that he felt City Council made the appointment in December in good faith and didn’t know they weren’t following the rules. Council member Phyllis Howard said that she didn’t want the discussion to stray to far away from the matter at hand, the ordinance. She also said that she felt since Hadley had been recusing himself he really shouldn’t be discussing this issue now. Vice Mayor Vicki Giambrone said the ordinance was being put forth to fix a flaw in the process and agreed that City Council acted in good faith in December. Council member Tom Leonard brought up that the GMHA had rejected City Council’s appointment and City Council would need to put up somebody else. He also disagreed with the language of the ordinance. That led to a debate as to whether the GMHA had legally rejected the appointment or not which led to a legal opinion by city attorney McHugh that they may not have legally done that yet. Mayor Julie Vann weighed in with her opinion after about 25 minutes of debate. Vann said that in the past the GMHA would suggest an appointee and the city would usually honor that request.

Analysis: Council members in support of the ordinance seemed to gravitate toward creating a mirror of the process currently used for appointing members to city boards. In that process applications are solicited and City Council votes on applicants and majority rule wins. They also point out that City Council was acting in good faith back in December because they were unaware that the mayor had that duty. Opponents of the ordinance seem to feel the mayor should be able to act in an executive role in such matters, especially when it applies to an outside duty of the mayor. Ohio Revised Code backs them up. They also say that while most of the mayor’s duties are ceremonial, there is also an official capacity with regard to the mayor being recognized as head of the city government by the Governor for purposes of military law and by the courts for civil process involving the City.

40 Minutes of Debate, Some Heated

The debate was by no means a fight, but Mayor Vann did get to give her gavel a healthy workout as she tried to restore order. Most of the problem seemed to come from council member Jarrod Martin who was found interrupting other council members and at one point, after hearing numerous bangs of Mayor Vann’s gavel, defiantly banged the table back at her with his fist and smiled. At other times, however, the debate could be described as dull as the city attorney explained legal concepts and council members probed for information.

Analysis: Most of the heated debate came from Martin who argued that Hadley shouldn’t even be a part of the discussion because his association with the GMHA and the candidate that was rejected, his wife, represents a conflict of interest. But Hadley never brought his wife into the discussion, Martin did. Hadley did bring up that the ordinance would only apply to the GMHA which Martin may have considered as Hadley’s bringing his wife into the discussion. But viewers wouldn’t be aware of the connection if not for Martin saying Hadley’s wife was the subject of the ordinance.

A Conclusion is Reached, Sort Of

Vicki Giambrone made a motion to move the ordinance forward. Phyllis Howard seconded. Then, upon hearing that the language was not the same as what was discussed at the retreat, Howard withdrew her second and Giambrone withdrew her motion. Then City Attorney McHugh said that they could move the motion forward and amend the language before the second reading. Jerry Petrak then put forth that motion, it was seconded and voted on. Leonard, Hadley and Vann voted no. Martin, Howard, Petrak and Giambrone voted yes. The final vote was 4-3. The motion now moves on to a second reading to fight another day, so to speak.

Analysis: Probably one of the fuzziest votes that will ever go on record. City Council approved moving an ordinance on to a second reading without really knowing what it will say. Those who voted in favor of it did so on the promise from the City Attorney that the language would be fixed, but what will that language be?

MP3 Audio Excerpt of the Discussion Below

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD
INSTRUCTIONS: Click on the link above to listen or right mouse click and choose “Save File” to save a copy to your computer. Length: 32 Minutes (Compressed from 38 Min.). File size: 3.8 Mb.
The Beavercreek Record is making this audio available to further help readers understand the issue. The original audio length of 38 minutes was shortened to 32 minutes using a compression technique which slightly increases the speed of the audio while maintaining the pitch at regular levels. The audio is otherwise unedited.

Story by staff. Source: Beavercreek City Council Meeting, Jan. 28, 2008.   BR20080129-01

So what is this “shadowy” meeting system that many claim exists? Basically, the argument is that through “work sessions” and “retreats” City Council has found a way to discuss and debate the issues far from the cameras and somewhat out of public view. In the case of “retreats” the discussion can even take place far from the city government building. Sometimes they are at the golf course or, most recently, at the Public Works building on Orchard Lane.

While it’s true these meetings are open to the public, the lack of coverage by cameras, strange meeting times and locations often leaves many residents in the dark. The most recent retreat on January 21 occurred at 8:30 am in the morning. It also occurred at the Public Works building on Orchard Lane. It had an agenda that consisted of only one specific item, a general reference to “strategic vision” review and development.

The city’s media policy prevents any real decisions from being made at these “work sessions” and “retreats” when cameras are not running, but many wonder if council members are reaching some sort of consensus through the discussions that take place there. Then, when the regular meeting occurs and the cameras are running, they wonder if it’s nothing more than just paint by numbers.

The questions they raise are these: Are these un-televised meetings held at odd times in various locations preventing the public easy access? Does the public miss out on critical debate and discussion necessary to really understand the issues? Opponents of these types of meetings say yes. What took place at the January 28th City Council meeting would support that view.

During the dust-up at that meeting, many residents were able to experience this first-hand when council member Jarrod Martin said, “I don’t know why we had the long diatribe from Mr. Hadley. We discussed this in detail at our retreat. As a matter of fact we spent two and a half hours on it.”

That’s two and a half hours that the public will never see. If they’re lucky they may read about it as a one line description in minutes published months later. Then again, maybe not. Beavercreek has stopped publishing the minutes from “retreats” and “work sessions” on their website. That change coincided with City Manager Mike Cornell taking the helm at the beginning of 2007.

To read minutes from “retreats” and “work sessions” a person would have to go to 2006 or years prior. There are none published at the website from 2007. We seem to be suddenly getting less information, not more.

So are resident’s ending up with a santized view of their city government? It sure looks that way. And when somebody like council member Scott Hadley goes off script, things can quickly degenerate into what we saw at the January 28th City Council meeting. Was the anger and frustration we saw that night about the issue at hand, or was it about someone breaking ranks and taking the debate on an issue out of the shadows. From the looks of things, it may have been about both.

During the debate at the January 28th City Council meeting, nearly every council member referenced the “retreat” and the discussion that took place there. Essentially they were saying “Hey… we’ve already discussed this.” Too bad we’ll never really know what they were talking about.

It’s also truly sad to see Jarrod Martin, long regarded as one of Beavercreek’s champions of ethics in government, talk so openly about a discussion that took place at one of these “shadowy” meetings and object to it being brought up during City Council’s regular meeting. Perhaps he is unaware that the minutes from the meeting will probably never be published on the city’s website. Maybe he doesn’t realize that by taking the real debate and discussion on the issues away from the regular meetings, City Council only fosters ignorance of the issues.

Then again, they really didn’t talk about much if the agenda is to be believed. What was on the agenda for that meeting? Printed below is a copy of what the public saw. Strange how the two hour discussion Martin talked about didn’t even rate high enough for an agenda item. But then again, does it really matter… nobody’s looking anyway. Did it even really happen? We may never know. The answer lies in the shadows.

BEAVERCREEK CITY COUNCIL
Retreat January 21, 2008, 8:30 a.m.
Public Service Conference Room
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. DISSCUSSION ITEMS
  A. Short/Long Term Strategic Vision Review/ Development
V. ADJOURNMENT

The Beavercreek Record invites opinions on this issue from all current and former members of Beavercreek City Council and residents of the City of Beavercreek.
Email your comments to beavercreekrecord@sbcglobal.net or use our online submission form. Include your first and last name please. If published, we will only use your first name and last initial in print.

OPBR20080129-02

In his address, Mayor Hadley thanked the residents for electing him and listed the major accomplishments made during his two years. He described the major changes and growth in 2006 and 2007 and concluded by talking about changes at the city levels of government. But before doing that, Hadley wanted to highlight two accomplishments he was personally proud of. He said he was able to change the start of city council meetings to 6:00 which made it easier for local residents to attend. He also said he was particularly proud he was able to reintroduce prayer into city council meetings after a long absence. Even though the prayer is voluntary, he said he’s happy to see it back.

Hadley described the growth of Beavercreek highlighting the accomplishments by year. He said 2006 saw the grand opening of The Greene Towne Center and the addition of 143 new businesses in Beavercreek. That year also saw the hiring of a new Chief of Police, John Turner, and new City Manager, Mike Cornell. A new interim Planning Director was also hired in 2006.

Mayor Scott Hadley

He said 2007 saw the addition of another 80 new businesses including 22 at The Greene. The mayor also pointed out that two more large developments are occuring at The Greene right now including construction of Von Mauer Department Store and Marriott Courtyard Hotel. Hadley added that his wife is “very much looking forward to” the opening of the new Von Mauer. Hadley said 2007 saw the hiring of a permanent Planning Director and new Parks Director, both from within the city’s ranks.

Mayor Hadley spoke about developments started during his two years as mayor that residents will see completed in the next few years including the 80 acre Mission Point development, Ashford Center Phase II, The Advanced Technical Intelligence Center, a new Walgreens, Fifth Third Bank and a new Wright Patt Credit Union.

Hadley spent time highlighting some of the large commercial developments completed or currently under construction including Clark State at College Park, Devry University, the Idea Center at Research Park which added 203 jobs, thew new 5 story CSC Building at Pentagon Park as well as the new 5 story Pentagon Tower and Hilton Garden Inn, both of which are scheduled to open in Spring of 2008. Major residential developments included The Lofts at Willow Creek and Buckingham Village at Willow Creek on Park Overlook.

Hadley said this City Council was responsible for passing new ordinances regarding the use of city credit cards, city travel, meal and food allowances and petty cash as well as ordinances covering animal nuisance, handicap parking, the city’s cable services agreement and construction noise. Haldey pointed out that this year the Beavercreek Police Department’s K-9 Unit was reactivated and officer Chris Williams, a 16 year veteran of the department, is the handler for Beavercreek’s new K-9 officer DJ.

Hadley said that during his time as mayor it was his pleasure to officiate 40 weddings as mayor resulting in $1720 in donations to the Beavercreek Community Theater and $1950 in donations to the Parks Department.

The mayor paid tribute to all the volunteers that make Beavercreek work. He said that this year the COPP (Citizens of Preventive Patrol) program celebrated it’s 20th year and the Citizens Police Academy graduated it’s 8th class. At the Senior Center, 120 volunteers donated over 21,000 of service which is equal to 10 full time employees. He said even at the minimum wage the amount of salary alone for 10 people would be $123,000.

Hadley wrapped up by saying, “I have very much enjoyed these last two years, working for you alongside of a very wonderful staff in every department here at the City of Beavercreek.”

The mayor concluded by saying, “We know how great it is to live in Beavercreek, (and) as we learned this past August, so do the editors and staff of Money Magazine, because it was then that they published the results of their study and chose Beavercreek as one of the top 100 best places to live in the country… not the state, the country. We placed number 84 in their ratings. I think that’s because of the quality of the citizens and employees we have as well as our schools, the police, shopping, economic strength and possibilities.”