City Council Prevents Voters from Deciding on Charter Updates
- Angie Charles
- Oct 11
- 13 min read
Updated: Oct 27
Two of Nine Charter Review Commission Recommendations to Appear on Nov. 4 Ballot
NOTE: This is Part 1 of a four-article package about this year’s City Council elections. See links to other pieces at the end of this article.
It’s election season and time for voters to decide which City Council members should be re-hired for another two-year term and which ones should be replaced.
The best way to do that is to review legislative items they’ve voted on, where their votes highlight differing perceptions on how Stow should be governed.
Over the next few weeks, we’ll review some of the more significant actions (or inaction) taken by Council as information you can use to make your decisions on Nov. 4.
Today we’ll cover Council’s handling of the Charter Review Commission this year.
What is the Charter Review Commission
The Charter Review Commission is an ad-hoc committee required through the city’s charter to be appointed by the mayor and approved by City Council every five years.
The commission is charged with reviewing the city’s charter and making recommendations for updates. As specified in the city’s charter, the recommendations are reviewed by City Council, which votes on whether to place the items on the ballot for Stow voters to decide.
In January, Mayor John Pribonic appointed seven Stow residents to this year’s commission. All seven filed applications to be on the commission in response to the city's public advertisement of the positions on its website. Those residents, all volunteers, worked on reviewing the city’s charter over a six-month period, holding 10 meetings to review, discuss and prepare their recommendations. The commission also held two public Town Halls to share their work and get feedback from residents.
So that City Council would be fully informed about the work it was doing, the commission invited Council to attend its meetings and Town Halls to provide input, all of which were public, and scheduled a special meeting where Council members could interact directly with the Charter Review Commission members to learn how the proposals were developed and why.
There were 13 meetings total where City Council members were invited to provide input on the Charter Review Commission’s work. The commission’s chairperson, Dennis Campbell, and member Rick Charles, each appeared at several regular City Council meetings to apprise council of its progress and/or to invite Council members to attend its meetings.
Only a few council members engaged in the work that these Stow residents, their constituents, were doing prior to being asked to vote on the recommendations:
Councilman At-Large Kyle Herman showed up and participated at most of the Charter Review Commissions meetings.
Council President and At-Large Cyle Feldman attended and participated in several meetings, including one of the Town Halls and the special council meeting.
Ward 3 Councilman John Baranek participated in one of the commission’s work meetings and the special council meeting.
Ward 2 Councilwoman Kelly Coffey attended one of the Town Hall meetings but did not ask any questions or provide any comments.
None of the other council members engaged with the Charter Review Commission at any of its public meetings.
What was Proposed and How it Turned out
On Aug. 7, the commission’s nine recommendations were presented to council, which voted down all but two that will appear on this November’s ballot. Below are the details of the recommendations with links to the ordinance and recommended wording changes put forward by the Charter Review Commission. In order to appear on the ballot, council is required to pass recommendations with a minimum 5-2 supermajority vote.
The two that were approved are minor technical changes.
Public Notices
The city has been required by the charter to post in six public places advance notices of upcoming special meetings. The commission recommended changing the ordinance to three public places plus any social media that the city utilizes, as it was unlikely that many residents were traveling to the city’s fire departments, for example, to view a posted public notice. See commission’s recommended changes on public notices here.
Council’s Vote: Approved 7-0, amendment will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Charter Review Commission Schedule
The second recommendation, approved unanimously by Council and which will appear on next month’s ballot, sets the timeline for when the mayor and council shall appoint the Charter Review Commission and a deadline for when their work should conclude. Members of the commission explained that the proposed timeline was to guarantee that the commission would have enough time to do its work and turn it over to council in time for review and approval to meet ballot deadlines. See the commission’s recommended changes regarding the Charter Review Commission’s schedule.
Council’s Vote: Approved 7-0, amendment will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Council Rejects 7 Proposed Amendments
Here are the items that were voted down and by whom and why. It should be noted that while the Charter Review Commission deliberated over these proposed changes in 13 meetings over six months, ultimately there was very little discussion by council members about the details of each of the proposals prior to their votes.
Their comments for each one are noted below:
Acting Mayor
The commission attempted to clarify language in the existing ordinance on the appointment of an acting mayor in the case that the mayor is temporarily unavailable. The commission believed that the current language of the provision could create “a conflict where the President of Council started serving as Acting Mayor, then Council, on its own initiative would, by majority vote, designate a different member of Council to serve as Acting Mayor,” according to a May 27 memo to City Council from Charter Review Commission Chair Dennis Campbell. See the commission’s recommendation for updating the language for appointing an acting mayor.
Council Discussion: Coffey was the only councilmember to comment on this proposal, saying she felt the language of the city’s charter was sufficient.
Council’s Vote: Failed 2-4, with 1 abstention. Approved by Herman and Baranek. Rejected by Councilman At-Large Jeremy McIntire, Ward 1 Councilman Matt Riehl, Coffey and Ward 4 Councilman Mario Fiocca. Feldman abstained because the ordinance directly impacted his role as council president.
Acting Finance Director
The city’s charter currently has no provision for appointing an acting finance director who would have the legal authority to act in that capacity, including signing financial documents on the city’s behalf, in the absence of the finance director.
Why that matters: The city found out last year when Finance Director Kelly Toppin missed several weeks of work due to a health issue. City staff was required to shuttle paperwork for him to review and sign while he was out on sick leave because the charter didn’t address who could sign paperwork in his absence. The Charter Review Commission recommended designating the Deputy Finance Director as the acting finance director in such cases.
“..there is no provision in the Charter for what happens if the Finance Director becomes incapacitated but does not vacate the seat of Finance Director,” the Charter Review Commission’s recommending memo to Council says. “An event, such as a medical emergency, which requires the extended absence of the Finance Director does not allow for the continuity of government in that time of incapacity.”
Council Discussion: Coffey said she reviewed how other communities handle such vacancies and felt that what Stow does is sufficient. Herman said he would support the measure because Stow had direct experience with finding that no one was authorized to handle the responsibilities of an absent finance director. Feldman said the charter does not provide the Deputy Finance Director with the same legal authority as the Finance Director.
Council’s Vote: Failed 4-3. Approved by Feldman, Herman, Riehl and Baranek. Rejected by McIntire, Coffey and Fiocca.
Acting Law Director
Likewise, the city’s charter does not provide for a legal replacement of the law director should he/she become temporarily unavailable or incapacitated. The Charter Review Commission recommended an ordinance to appoint the Deputy Law Director as the acting law director in those cases. See the commission’s recommendation for appointing an acting law director.
Council Discussion: McIntire said the charter already addresses vacancies for these positions and that the city could hire an outside law firm to handle its business in the case of a vacancy of the law director.
Council’s Vote: Failed 4-3. Approved by Feldman, Herman, Riehl and Baranek. Rejected by McIntire, Coffey and Fiocca.
Term Limits for Finance Director and Law Director
In the 2023 election for both finance director and law director, only one candidate ran for each office. And, in this year’s election for the last two years of the law director’s current term (Law Director Drew Reilly was appointed in 2024 to fill the unexpired term of former Law Director Jaime Syx), Reilly also is running unopposed.
What the Charter Review Commission learned in its review and discussion was that it’s difficult to find qualified candidates for these elected positions for two reasons: 1) the pay is far less than what someone would make in the private sector; and 2) with a two-term (8-year) term limit, neither position qualifies to become vested in the state’s pension program.
The Charter Review Commission wanted to rectify what they could by recommending that the Finance Director and Law Director term limits be changed to three four-year terms and up to 14 years if someone were appointed to fill a vacant position. Making that change would enable elected law directors and finance directors who held the office for at least 10 years to earn a pension for the time served.
Council Discussion: McIntire said there was no reason to reopen discussion about term limits because Stow voters had already voted on term limits previously. In 2010, Stow voters voted to establish 8-year term limits for City Council and the Finance Director and to retain 8-year term limits for Mayor and Law Director.
Coffey said she understood the issues being addressed, but felt the language wasn’t sufficient and that she would be interested in reviewing the finance director’s and law director’s terms if she were re-elected. Riehl said he felt the issue could be handled by increasing the pay of these positions, though he contended no one had tried to do that.
Council’s Vote: Failed 3-4. Approved by Feldman, Herman and Baranek. Rejected by McIntire, Riehl, Coffey and Fiocca.
Increasing the Number of Wards, Council Members
Stow’s original charter was approved in 1958, at a time when the city had approximately 12,000 residents (based on 1960 census). The charter created the structure of our city’s government, including the size of City Council and how they would be elected. Three councilpersons would be elected city-wide, known as At-Large positions. And four councilmembers would each be elected from voters who lived in their ward, for a total of seven council members.
Stow is now three times the size it was population-wise than in 1958, with more than 34,000 residents. The Charter Review Commission looked at the sizes and structure of city councils in other communities and found that Stow’s four wards represent significantly many more people than when the charter was founded as well as many more, on average, than other communities. It recommended that the city split its voters among six wards, rather than four, and add two council members to council, so that ward council positions would more closely reflect the smaller neighborhood-style of representation that the city’s founders had intended.
“The addition of two more wards would allow Ward Councilpeople to better serve their constituents and account for Stow’s increased population,” the Commission’s May 27 memo to Council said.
Council Discussion: Coffey and Fiocca both said they felt that reducing the sizes of their wards was unnecessary and that Stow residents are adequately represented.
Council’s Vote: Failed 3-4. Approved by Feldman, Herman and Baranek. Rejected by McIntire, Riehl, Coffey and Fiocca.
Staggered 4-Year Council Terms
One of the things the Charter Review Commission discussed in its meetings was how well would council function if it lost all its institutional knowledge by having all the council positions turn over in the same election. Currently, council members serve two-year terms, with term limits of eight total years.
The Charter Review Commission recommended that council terms be changed to four-year terms, with at-large and ward seats elected in alternating two-year cycles. It modeled its plan after what other communities, like Munroe Falls and Hudson, do. The group’s discussions centered on providing stability from one council to the next, but also lessening the cost burden of council members having to run for re-election every two years.
“This would give Councilmembers more time between elections, allowing them to not worry as much about campaigning and focusing on the job as a City Councilmember,” the Commission’s memo to Council said. “Staggering the terms would also eliminate the potential of an entire Council turning over to entirely new members at every election, thereby allowing for the increase in institutional knowledge.”
In the Commission’s May 21 meeting, Kent Fire Chief James Samels, a Stow resident, gave testimony about the complexity of getting budget items that were included in five-year plans approved when there was significant change in the makeup of council from one year to the next.
Council’s Discussion: Coffey said she understood the benefits of staggered terms but that the issue was not a priority for her. She felt that voters had previously weighed in on the issue. Feldman said he supported the commission’s recommendation on four-year, staggered terms because in his first term as councilman in 2020, six of the seven council members were new, which created challenges (Former Ward 2 Councilwoman Sindi Harrison was elected president of council that year with less than one year experience, being the only remaining member on council after the Nov. 2019 election.) Fiocca said that during his time on council, there have been two members still representing the city and he felt that there was enough natural turnover.
Council’s Vote: Failed 3-4. Approved by Feldman, Herman and Baranek. Rejected by McIntire, Riehl, Fiocca and Coffey.
Ranked Choice Voting
Already a community that holds nonpartisan elections, the Charter Review Commission advanced a recommendation that the city adopt Ranked Choice Voting, which would ensure that officials elected in Stow were chosen by a majority of the voters.
Council’s Discussion: Feldman expressed concern that passing RCV would put the city at odds and at risk of lawsuit as a result of bills in the Statehouse that would ban communities from adopting RCV. Coffey said she felt there was no reason to deviate from the federal and state government’s current voting system because there weren’t usually more than two candidates for each position other than Council At-Large, but that she would support additional study of the issue. Herman thanked his colleagues for considering the issue and said that Ranked Choice Voting is a way to guarantee majority rule.
Council’s Vote: Failed 1-6. Approved by Herman. Rejected by Feldman, McIntire, Riehl, Coffey, Baranek and Fiocca.
Two Alternative Proposals
In anticipation of Council voting down its recommendations on increasing the number of wards and Ranked Choice Voting, the Charter Review Commission also forwarded two requests for the Council to establish special commissions to further study each issue and provide recommendations to Council.
“If Council does not wish to put the requested Charter Amendment on the ballot, the Charter Review Commission recommends instead the passage of legislation to establish a Commission to study the issue and provide recommendations to Council,” the Commission’s May 30 memo to Council said.
At its Sept. 11 meeting for the vote on those proposals, Coffey said she would not support a commission to study the number of wards because she feels she is able to capably represent her ward. Feldman said that while he respected the work done by the Charter Review Commission, in the current election, three of the four ward representatives were running unopposed.
The proposed commission to further study the number of wards failed on a 1-6 vote with only Herman voting in favor.
The proposed commission to further study Ranked Choice Voting failed on a 2-5 vote with Herman and Baranek voting in favor.
A History of Ignoring Charter Review Commission Recommendations
Council members Feldman, McIntire and Fiocca were on City Council the last time we had a Charter Review Commission, in 2020, along with Sindi Harrison, who is now running to reclaim her former Ward 2 seat against Kelly Coffey.
Harrison was president of council at that time and McIntire was vice president. They presided over a council that failed to advance nine recommendations by that year’s Charter Review Commission to the ballot for voters to decide. Harrison and McIntire attempted to rewrite and advance each of the Commission’s recommendations, which resulted in a lawsuit by the city. Feldman along with Councilmembers Christina Shaw and Steve Hailer voted against Harrison and McIntire’s efforts to advance their rewritten charter amendments to the ballot.
In comments to the Akron Beacon Journal at that time, McIntire said “for four decades charter review commissions have been proposing the same pro-elected official charter amendments.”
Mayor John Pribonic explained in the same article the city’s decision to sue City Council over its efforts to rewrite the Commission’s recommendations: “Through council’s actions, council is standing in the way of the people’s right to have their voices heard in these important matters.”
Ultimately, no charter amendments were put on the ballot in 2020.
McIntire is correct that some topics have been brought up by prior commissions. Adopting four-year staggered terms was one of the nine recommendations that year. Three other proposed amendments that year addressed the filling of vacancies for mayor, law director and finance director.
Current Councilman Baranek was Chair of the Charter Review Commission in 2020.
Lack of Faith in Voters
By refusing to pass most of the Charter Review Commission’s recommendations so that voters could decide in November, a majority of the current council demonstrated that it feels its judgment is more sound than that of seven residents who spent six months studying these issues or of the voters, who will never get the chance to decide.
In fact, the topic was brought up by Stow Council At-Large candidate Kim Young, at the Sept. 30 Candidates Night, sponsored by Stow Citizens for Non-Partisan Politics. She said she felt that Stow voters should get to decide the issues that were crafted by a bipartisan committee of Stow residents.
McIntire countered that the commission couldn’t be considered bipartisan because it was appointed by the mayor. He also said he felt that ballot fatigue would prevent any amendments from passing and that in his time as a councilman, no Stow resident had ever called and said they wanted RCV.
However, a review of the public voting records of the commission members indicates that three are registered Republicans, two are registered Democrats, and two are unaffiliated.
Additionally, had McIntire participated in any of the 13 public meetings held by the Charter Review Commission, he would have seen dozens of residents who voiced support for many of the rejected proposals.
McIntire is a paid council member, whose job is to represent the residents’ interests and yet he couldn’t be bothered to attend the public meetings where they made their opinions known on these topics. Feldman, Herman and Baranek attended commission meetings and their votes reflected their understanding of how residents would want them to vote, even if they didn’t agree on everything. Someone else who attended a town hall who had no vote in the matter: Kim Young, now running for council.
There is nothing more pro-democracy than allowing voters to vote on the city's charter.
Not engaging with the Charter Review Commission to discuss the merits of these carefully considered proposals and then falsely claiming that residents have no interest in these items should be a red flag for voters considering whether certain council members have earned the right to continue representing them.
Other Articles in our 2025 Stow Election Coverage:
