Trending
WARREN -- Two Warren City Council members objected Wednesday afternoon when they learned just prior to the Warren City Council meeting that a vote would be taken to choose one of four candidates to replace Todd Johnson as the 1st Ward Council member.
At Large Councilwoman Helen Rucker objected to the vote happening that night for a couple of reasons, including that she was not notified in advance that the vote would be taken and did not have a chance to talk to the four people who submitted letters of interest in the position or read their letters of interest.
She said it would have helped if the agenda for the 5 p.m. Wednesday council meeting that the Clerk of Council's office emailed to council members the previous week would have said the vote was coming up Wednesday.
Rucker's comments took place at a caucus session that started in the caucus room adjacent to council chambers 45 minutes before the city council meeting started.
Law Director Enzo Cantalamessa was part of the caucus session, which is held before each council meeting to discuss legislation that will come up at the regular meeting.
Council President John Brown summarized at the caucus session what he and the Clerk of Council's Office had done to prepare for the vote – issued a public notice that anyone interested in filling the vacancy should submit a letter of interest to the clerk’s office by the previous Friday. Four people submitted letters.
Brown said each candidate would give remarks during the public speaking portion of the meeting. And after the regular business of council was over, he would "entertain nominations from council members for the appointment to first ward council seat for the remainder of the term."
Council chose former 1st Ward Councilman Larry Larson by a 5-4 vote. Larson is replacing Todd Johnson, an independent, who defeated Larson in the 2021 election. Larson will serve the remainder of Johnson’s term, which ends Dec. 31, 2027.
Rucker responded that she suspected that the public meetings laws were violated because the public was not notified that a vote on filling the position would be held that night and the meeting agenda "does not call for a vote on this."
Cantalamessa said none of the complaints Rucker raised would stop council from going forward with the vote Wednesday night to select a new council member. He mentioned that a notice was issued a week or two earlier giving the people interested in the open seat a 4 p.m. Friday deadline to submit their letter of interest.
Cantalamessa also said the notice also stated that the vote would "take place to name a successor at (Wednesday night's) meeting. So public notice was provided."
However, when the Tribune Chronicle looked at the notice Thursday that Cantalamessa mentioned, it did not say anything about the vote happening at Wednesday's meeting. The notice is on the city's website. The Tribune Chronicle asked Cantalamessa Thursday about it, and he said did not know if the notice was sufficient because his office "did not review it prior to its publication." He said the Warren Council Clerk’s office prepared it.
Cantalamessa said if the notice did not satisfy the public notification requirements, "they can take whatever action they deem appropriate. I thought it was handled correctly and appropriately."
He also acknowledged that there were some "bumps in the road mechanically" when Brown was asking for the nomination and appointment of the new council member.
But he said he thinks that was because the process of council voting to replace a council member was not familiar to many on council because it had not been used in so long. But he still believes the "mechanics of the process were done openly and fairly" and he thinks it was proper for the vote to have taken place.
When Rucker was asked Thursday whether she is unhappy enough about the way the vote was carried out Wednesday to try to address it through legal action, she said no. "Let somebody else do it," she said. "I called attention to it about the Sunshine Law (also known as the Ohio Open Meetings Act.) That is the main thing that should have been examined."
She said during the meeting, people who come to council meetings a lot were texting her, saying that they did not know the meeting to pick a new council member was happening.
The other council member who tried to get the vote on the 1st Ward postponed at the caucus meeting was Tina Milner, who said looking at the letters from the four candidates was not enough for her to make a decision.
She said, "I don't want to be judged by a piece of paper, and I don't think council has done its due diligence without sitting down and speaking with everyone who is interested in filling this position.
"We owe it to the community to at least conduct interviews instead of judging people by a piece of paper. I don't think we have done our diligence if we move forward tonight."