Item #1: Under "Selected Flawed Charter Amendments" they quoted a line allegedly from section 3.09g of the proposed charter amendments: "The Mayor shall have the power to appoint, promote or transfer any officer of the Municipality except those required by this charter to be elected.by a vote of the people."

The true and complete line reads: "Subject to the other provisions of this charter, the Mayor shall have the power to appoint, promote or transfer any officer or employee of the Municipality except those required by this charter to be elected by a vote of the people."

By removing the first part of the line shown above in bold, "Residents for Council-Manager Government" is apparently trying to convince voters that a strong Mayor would be an absolute ruler, able to hire and fire any employee at will. In fact, this section is an adaptation of the current section 4.03, Powers and Duties of the City Manager. 

The section "other provisions of this charter" includes the Civil Service Commission, the same as today. There are no proposed changes to the Civil Service system in Brunswick. Any job which requires a competitive test falls under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission for hiring and firing. This covers the vast majority of jobs with Brunswick, including the Police and Fire Departments.

"Residents for Council-Manager Government" also wrote in their ad:

"All City employees will be indebted to one person - the Mayor - for their jobs. While also controlling the Police and Fire Departments, the Mayor's extraordinary powers can be used for political favoritism and paybacks. Public employment should be on the basis of qualifications or merit - not politics."

FACT: All City employees will NOT be indebted to one person - the Mayor - for their jobs. Ohio law mandates which jobs are required to be controlled by the Civil Service Commission and they include the full time Police and Fire Departments. Any attempt by a strong Mayor to hire, dismiss or otherwise discipline a Civil Service classified employee must be approved by the independent Civil Service Commission, the same as today.

FACT: Existing protections in the current Charter against political patronage have been retained in the proposed amendments. These protections require that City Council confirm the appointment of all department heads. This is covered in section 5.01 paragraph 2 which reads:

"Each department shall be headed by a director who shall be appointed by the City Manager, (MAYOR) subject to confirmation by City Council, and who shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager (MAYOR). With the consent of Council, the City Manager (MAYOR) may serve as the head of one or more such departments."

The only proposed change is to replace the phrase "City Manager" with "Mayor." For non-Civil Service department heads to be replaced by the Mayor, City Council must agree. For Civil Service department heads to be replaced by the Mayor, the Civil Service Commission must agree.

FACT: The proposed charter amendments increase the protection against current employees being replaced by a Mayor for political reasons. This new protection allows an employee who is not protected by the Civil Service Commission to appeal any adverse job actions directly to City Council. City Council can then uphold, amend or dismiss such adverse actions. This brand new wording in Section 3.09g reads:

"All suspensions, reduction in rank, or removal from the department, or termination of employment, of unclassified civil service employees, may be appealed to the legislative authority of the Municipality within ten (10) days from the date of the Mayor’s judgment. The legislative authority shall hear the appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date the appeal was filed. The person against whom the judgment had been rendered may appear in person and by counsel at the hearing, examine all witnesses, and answer all charges against him. At the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative authority may dismiss the charges; uphold the Mayor’s judgment; or modify the judgment to one of suspension for not more than sixty (60) days, reduction in rank, or removal from the department. Action of the legislative authority other than upholding the Mayor’s judgment requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of Council. The decision of the legislative authority may be appealed to the Common Pleas Court, as provided in the Ohio Revised Code."

This protection does not exist today. The only protection a non-Civil Service employee has against a politically motivated dismissal is a privately funded lawsuit. Under the City Manager form of government, City Council is POWERLESS to stop it.

FACT: We believe in presenting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Apparently City Manager supporters do not. Do they believe the only way they can garner votes is to change the true wording of the proposed amendments so they have a case?

Item #2: The second section of their ad allegedly quotes proposed section 3.11, but takes it out of context. This distorts the true impact of the section. This is the entire wording of the proposed section 3.11:

"3.11 INVESTIGATIONS The Council, by a majority vote, or the Mayor, may make investigations into the affairs of the City and the conduct of any City department, office or agency. For this purpose, the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor of Council or other member of Council who is presiding at any such meeting or hearing, may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, and require the production of evidence. Any person who fails or refuses to obey a lawful order issued in the exercise of these powers by the Presiding Officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days, or both."

The existing wording of section 3.11 is being amended solely by adding the underlined text. The second line of this section is unchanged from the current wording:

"For this purpose, the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor of Council or other member of Council who is presiding at any such meeting or hearing, may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, and require the production of evidence."

Does this mean to you that the presiding officer, whether the Mayor or a member of City Council, to quote their ad: "... will have the authority to conduct the hearings, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, hold in "contempt" - just like a judge!" ? Huh? A Council member could also be "just like a judge!" even today?

Their ad further states: "There are no Checks and Balances where only one person - the Strong-Mayor - can legislate, execute the hearing and pass judgment!"

Do you see anything about "legislate" or "pass judgment" in the true and complete wording of section 3.11, either the original wording or the three words being added? We believe that any evidence discovered would be turned over to the appropriate authorities for prosecution if it appeared warranted.

It's also not "only one person - the Strong-Mayor - ". It is, to quote the true wording: "... the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor of Council or other member of Council who is presiding ...".

Why are these people so afraid of a brand new Mayor being able to perform investigations? Do they really think he or she might want to perform an investigation that City Council would not also want done?