Loveland, OH- On Monday, December 4th, Loveland City Council held elections for mayor and vice-mayor. After months without a mayor following Mark Fitzgerald’s resignation, Loveland unanimously voted 5-0 to elect Kathy Bailey as mayor and Rob Weisgerber as vice-mayor. Former vice-mayor Angie Settell refused to vote as she “could not remain impartial”.
The packed city council meeting saw a handful of regular attendees move from the audience to the governing body. Neal Oury, Tim Butler, Ted Phelps and Rob Weisgerber were victors in the November election. Weisgerber and Phelps, as a result, retained their council seat. The meeting began by swearing in newly elected members Oury, Butler and Weisgerber into office.
Tim Butler speaks with his wife before the meeting
Butler accepts his council seat
A packed city hall claps
Neal Oury accepts his council seat
Ted Phelps accepts his council seat
Rob Weisgerber accepts his council seat
Previous mayor Angie Settell
Kathy Bailey accepts role as mayor
Bailey gives an acceptance speech
Bailey, gavel in hand, begins role as mayor
Rob Weisgerber accepts role as vice mayor
Weisgerber gives an acceptance speech
Bailey signs a document in order to secure her position as mayor of Loveland
Pamela Gross and Stephen Zagamias were defeated in their bid to be re-elected. Since Mark Fitzgerald’s resignation on August 14th, Loveland has operated without a mayor. Previous vice-mayor Angie Settell called the meeting to order and immediately addressed the open mayoral seat and called for nominations; Bailey was the only nomination. She was approved by five members of the council with Settell refusing to vote.
Bailey has been a Loveland resident for 22 years and raised children in the city. Bailey has been an assistant prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County since 1992. She has a B.A in sociology with a focus on criminology from Miami University and attended the J.D. University of Cincinnati College of Law.
Bailey will miss her first meeting as mayor (and the first missed meeting since being elected to council) to pick up her daughter, Kaitlyn, from Ft. Sill in Oklahoma where she is completing advanced millitary training.
“We are all here because we love serving this city. I’m honored to be given the opportunity now to serve your city as your mayor,” Mayor Bailey said in her acceptance speech.
Once again the citizens of Loveland were denied, by three council members, the right to undertake the business of the city. This is the second meeting of 2017 where, from my perspective, the same three council members failed their oath to the citizens of Loveland. Loveland Charter outlines that two council meetings are required to occur, on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
In researching the absences of councilmembers during the last four years, there has never been a time where three council members were missing for a monthly meeting.
There were only 3 times that 2 council members were out for a required charter council meeting
I also looked at what percentage of meetings councilmembers missed during their time on council (this specific calculation is the only way to determine what affect their absences has had on council) because a straight numbers calculation over different periods is not meaningful.
Two council members have missed almost 17% of the required charter meetings, only one is currently on council – Steve Zamagias
One council member has NEVER missed a required charter council meeting – Kathy Bailey
Another council member has only missed one meeting in the last four years, the one where that absence caused a lack of quorum- Vice Mayor Angie Settell
Rob Weisgerber has missed 10% of meetings, Ted Phelps has missed 7.78% while Pam Gross has only missed 5.56% of required charter council meeting during the previous four years.
Based on this review I can am left to believe that only Politics played into the absence of three council members for one required by charter council meeting. Loveland fails when the business of the city is disrupted by officials who sign a pledge to follow the Charter of our city and then fail to live up to that pledge.
Shanda Gentry is a twenty-year resident of Loveland
Only one conclusion can be reached – that their absence was intentional
by Rob Weisgerber
I recently attended the September 26th city council meeting with council members Ted Phelps and Kathy Bailey. This was a scheduled meeting and had been on the calendar, as per the charter. Unfortunately, the meeting never took place due to a lack of quorum when the other three members of council did not show up. (City council no-shows: “Alignment of planets” or “Act of political cowardice?”)
To cancel a meeting requires a vote of the council – there is no unilateral authority by any one member to cancel or reschedule a planned meeting.
Most importantly, I did not find a case where there was a lack of quorum to do the business of the City.
If and when an individual member of council cannot make a meeting, it has not been an issue. However, In my history on council I can’t remember a time when 3 members had last-minute plans come up which caused a lack of quorum, halting a regularly scheduled meeting.
Council members do sometimes have to miss meetings. Almost always council votes to excuse him or her. The fact that people miss meetings is not disputable or even in question in my opinion. As a matter of openness, I have missed roughly 18 meetings over 7 years (that is about 165 meetings). This is about an average of 2 to 3 meetings per year. With legitimate reason or cause, being excused is appropriate for any member of council.
I could not remember in my history on council when we have had 3 members of council miss the same meeting or, even worse, not having a quorum to conduct city business. Nor could I find any request to move a meeting because a couple of members could not make the meeting. This is the real issue. Looking back through the last 8 years of records, I could find about 4 or 5 meetings where 2 members missed the same meeting. No meetings in that time had 3 members missing a meeting. Most importantly, I did not find a case where there was a lack of quorum to do the business of the City.
Several times while on our family vacation, as happened this year in August, I flew home at my own expense to make the scheduled meeting.
The first I had received any information from Vice-Mayor Angie Settell was through the city solicitor, about 60 hours following our last regular meeting. The email stated that there may be a problem and she wanted a special meeting the following week. This discussion should have taken place at the council meeting just 2 and 1/2 days prior. My schedule is very busy and full and I could not accommodate her request. Council members Bailey, Ted Phelps, and I did propose other dates but I received no feedback regarding our offer. I did make it clear that priority has to be given to the scheduled meetings as we all know they are coming and can plan. If I make plans that I can control I schedule them for non-council weeks. Several times while on our family vacation, as happened this year in August, I flew home at my own expense to make the scheduled meeting. There are times outside of my control when I can’t make a meeting due to work commitments.
I did not receive Ms. Settell’s email claiming to be a press release. I also noticed a real issue with the date of the notice being September 19th as meeting alternatives were offered following that date.
In the last several months we have now had Pam Gross, Steven Zamagias, Settell, and former mayor Mark Fitzgerald vote to schedule a meeting where Bailey, Phelps, and I could not attend, a walk out meeting where Gross, Zamagias, Settell, and Fitzgerald created a lack of quorum to do the business of the city by abruptly ending it and walking out. Now we have the same members not showing up so no meeting can occur. Only one conclusion can be reached – that their absence was intentional – again.
While I have missed meetings before, not once did any absence of mine preclude the business of the city getting accomplished. I take my commitment to you and the city seriously.
Rob Weisgerber is a member of Loveland City Council
Rule 19. Appearing Before Council (Five-Day Rule).
Any person, group or delegation wishing to be placed on the agenda to appear before Council shall direct a letter to the Clerk of Council so it is received by the Clerk no later than 12:00 Noon on the Thursday preceding the regularly scheduled Tuesday Council meeting, or the fifth day prior to the scheduled meeting if it is scheduled for a day other than Tuesday. The Mayor may suspend the Thursday rule in the event of unusual or emergency circumstances.
Loveland, Ohio – Life long Loveland resident Sherry Hamlin prepared a presentation to give at the September 12 council meeting, but while practicing it she discovered it was too long to fit into the five minutes allotted if she spoke during the Open Forum agenda item of the meeting. She said, “As I practiced my presentation it was running long and I didn’t want to cut it short.”
Anyone is allowed to just go to a meeting and sign a sheet at the doorway to the council chambers and they are given five minutes to address any subject on their mind, but Hamlin also knew of the “Appearing Before Council (Five-Day Rule)” which allows people to contact the Clerk of Council by noon on the Thursday preceding the meeting, and be allowed ten minutes of speaking time.
Hamlin said she wrote the required request three days before the cut-off, and it was the first time she had ever requested to speak in that time slot. “What happened next surprised me. I received a reply that Vice-Mayor Angie Settell denied my request to speak before council and suggested I consider speaking during the Open Forum instead. It seems I don’t have much choice since I was omitted from the agenda published on Friday.” She said there were no other requirements, “I just had to do was ask by Thursday at noon. I asked on Monday, nearly three full days before the deadline and I saw nothing in the rules that allowed the Vice-Mayor to deny my request.”
After the meeting, Hamlin told Loveland Magazine that what she originally wanted to talk about at the council meeting would have to wait for another meeting because the denial of speaking rights suddenly took precedence.
Hamlin said that business owner Tim Canada who does not live in Loveland or pay personal income taxes to the City has appeared during the ten-minute time slot four times since the beginning of the year. She asked Settell, “So I would like to ask this question. Why is it that a local business owner is permitted to speak during persons before Council, but I a resident am not?”
You can watch these LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV videos to see Hamlin asking her question, Settell’s response, and Councilwoman Kathy Baliey’s response. The Vice-Mayor defended her actions however Bailey raised some of the same questions as Hamlin.
Loveland chiropractor Douglas Portmann, DC at Wards Corner Chiropractic & Sports Rehab is one of the best chiropractors in the Loveland area specializing in chiropractic care.
Halie Rebeccaschild is the Secretary of the Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC
First, In his argument that certain sitting City Council members are “anti-business,” Kulik stated, “Legally required public hearings were voted down by this Council to stop positive business growth.” It appears that Mr. Kulik has over simplified the matter, as Council has stopped a public hearing from proceeding only in one case this year, that of the city hall project. The city never moved to a public hearing because residents expressed outrage at multiple City Council meetings in May and June of this year over the planned demolition of Loveland City Hall. In fact, On May 9th, City Council deadlocked on the nature of public engagement. After Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) President Jay Stewart recommended involving residents and holding a work session with Ken Geis, Vice Mayor Angie Settell immediately motioned for a public hearing (1). Such a move would have then fulfilled the legal requirement for a single hearing prior to transferring the city hall property to the autonomous CIC, ensuring demolition of our city hall building in July, as planned.
Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice Mayor Angie Settell, and Pam Gross voted no on these public engagement forums.
Residents had expressed great concern about the city hall project moving too quickly, which may be seen in both April and May City Council meeting minutes. Rob Weisgerber, Kathy Bailey, and Ted Phelps responded to residents by opposing the vote to immediately move to fulfill the single public hearing requirement. Then, Council Member Rob Weisgerber motioned for no less than three resident engagement sessions, which would have brought residents into the planning process on either a 2-story, 2.5 story, or 4-story building. Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice Mayor Angie Settell, and Pam Gross voted no on these public engagement forums, while Council Members Rob Weisgerber, Kathy Bailey, and Ted Phelps voted yes. The deadlocked votes reflect a difference in how much emphasis was placed on resident engagement.
Not a single resident has come to address Council to demand that the city hall demolition move forward, so who does Mr. Kulik represent?
Mr. Kulik spoke of the public hearing requirement completely out of context of the planned demolition of City Hall, and in such a way that suggested a law was somehow broken in slowing down the city hall project for residents to give necessary sanction. Indeed, if the public hearing had occurred as pushed by Mark Fitzgerald, Angie Settell, and Pam Gross, the transfer of our city hall to the CIC would have been final. Once in possession of the CIC, residents would have had no further input. This process would have prevented residents from thoroughly engaging in the planning for our new, city hall building in Old Loveland. Instead of anti-business, as Mr. Kulik suggests, Rob Weisgerber, Ted Phelps, and Kathy Bailey’s vote for multiple hearings reflect their duty as public servants to residents of Loveland. Residents have been relieved that the planned demolition and any repurposing of city hall will wait until after elections when residents will have their say with their votes. Not a single resident has come to address Council to demand that the city hall demolition move forward, so who does Mr. Kulik represent?
Next, Mr. Ryan Kulik went on to claim that City Council acted wrongly by cancelling Mr. Stansel’s contract. Kulik said, “What is it Mr. Stansel did wrong? I can see where council should have had the discussion on his services, but we never had that discussion. Rob Stansel was hired by the City Manager, not council. Stop lying. This is what the city manager does. The council should have had a chance to vote on his contract when the spending limit was exceeded. We never had this discussion.”
Yet again, Mr. Kulik is mistaken.
Yet again, Mr. Kulik is mistaken. City Council did have a discussion about cancelling Rob Stansel’s contract just prior to their vote that terminated it on May 9th. Mr. Kulik asks, “What was illegal about the contract? Was it because the spending limit was exceeded? Okay, I understand that.” If Mr. Kulik understands that City Council voted after a discussion to cancel the contract because it violated the City Manager’s spending authority, then what’s his agenda? Why would he want Council to violate our city charter?
Then, Mr. Kulik goes on to say, “[Stansel] secured over $600,000 for, I believe, the Chestnut property.” Not exactly. The “letter of intent” brought by Mr. Stansel to the city died upon expiration on May 5th, 2017, four days prior to City Council voting to terminate Stansel’s contract on May 9th (2,3). Perhaps Mr. Kulik should speak with City Manager Dave Kennedy about why the offer wasn’t pursued. Because at this point, it appears that Mr. Kulik is speaking beyond his knowledge and expertise.
it appears that Mr. Kulik is speaking beyond his knowledge and expertise.
Last, Kulik goes on to say, “[Rob Stansel] was working on the Christman property that we’ve heard a lot about.” Yet, again, Mr. Kulik references a development project that brought Loveland residents out in droves against it. Residents from the Brandywine and Butterworth Glen neighborhoods overflowed Loveland City Hall at the public hearing on June 13th when City Council was expected to vote on an ordinance to transfer city land to the Community Improvement Corporation that would have then been sold to Drees Co. and ultimately culminated in a Drees Homes development of 10 acres nearby. Apparently, the residents of those neighborhoods believed the city years ago when it claimed to have bought the Christman property to be a park, and they weren’t too excited about the pending development deal. That’s why the city did not transfer the land to the Community Improvement Corporation, and the private deal between the developer and the commercial real estate firm dissolved.
Upon scrutiny, Ryan Kulik’s arguments fail due to his oversimplification and outright error. In any regard, I appreciate him bringing up three very important topics to Loveland residents, and hope everyone registers to vote by October 10th and comes out to vote this November 7th.
Halie Rebeccaschild is the Secretary of the Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC.
“Why is this so?” his voice cracking, almost reaching falsetto. “Why can’t there be civil discussion instead of personal attacks?
– Loveland Mayor Mark Fitzgerald
by David Miller
Loveland, Ohio – Mayor Mark Fitzgerald called the June 27 Council meeting to order. He led those gathered in the Pledge of Allegiance. In unison, everyone said, “Indivisible.”
[quote_box_left]
The Mayor quoted Dr. King saying, “We must live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”[/quote_box_left]
He asked for a roll call and found that all Council members were present. He quoted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and asked why the love for the community often turns to hatred on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. “Why is this so?” his voice cracking, almost reaching falsetto. “Why can’t there be civil discussion rather than personal attacks?”
Then, he laid into the audience and Councilmember Rob Weisgerber.
He said there were community agitators infiltrating the City and spreading lies.
[quote_box_right]
THE FACEBOOK POST THAT PROMPTED PAM GROSS’ CALL TO THE POLICE:
You dont [Sic] have to give her anything. Thats [Sic] a violation. Does she have a subpeona [Sic] ? She can request all day long. Lol who does she think she is? Trying to pull another fast one with intimidation. She nerds a good old fashion loveland [Sic] ass kicking 80s style lol.
[/quote_box_right]
He said vitriolic rhetoric had taken an “even darker turn” when a post (Read the post below) appeared on Weisgerber’s Facebook page where a threat to Councilmember Pam Gross could be found. He said that Weisgerber had made no attempt to admonish the person who wrote the comment. At that point, Weisgerber asked City Solicitor Joe Braun for a “point of order” where Council rules would dictate that Fitzgerald yields the floor to the Solicitor so he could address the “point of order”.
“Point of order,” could be heard at least ten more times during Fitzgerald’s four-minute barrage of charges leveled at Weisgerber and the community. Councilman Ted Phelps joined in asking for a point of order.
Fitzgerald to Weisgerber, “You are contributing to this misinformation and innuendos throughout our City. And, you routinely impugn the reputations of our citizens who volunteer their time and unselfishly serve our City.”
“False. False,” Weisgerber told the Mayor who was not deterred from finishing his speech without interruption.
Fitzgerald to Weisgerber, “You have created and fueled a toxic environment in our City – spawning threatened violence”
“At the minimum, you should be sanctioned,” Fitzgerald said waving his hand toward Weisgerber. “All this talk about resignation, you’re the one who should resign,” he continued with another wave of the hand in Weisgerber’s direction.
“Then, give me a chance to explain,” Weisgerber pleaded.
Fitzgerald continued his prepared speech – his speech pattern unbroken and gathering speed.
Fitzgerald only yielded the floor when as he finished his speech, he looked toward Vice-Mayor Angie Settell who had practiced the next line. In a fraction of a second she said, “Mayor, I move to adjourn.” Gross knew the next line and immediately seconded the motion, twice nodding in the direction of Fitzgerald, making sure he saw the ball coming back in his direction.
Weisgerber said, ‘Point of order” one more time.
The City Solicitor finally got a chance. He said, “There is no discussion on a motion to adjourn.”
The Mayor, who can count to four, called for the vote on the motion to immediately close the meeting.
Fitzgerald, Settle, Gross, voted, “Yes.”
Weisgerber said a defiant, rather loud, “No”
Kathy Bailey voted, “No.”
[quote_left]Phelps’, “No,” was said emphatically in comic disbelief.[/quote_left]Phelps’, “No,” was said emphatically in comic disbelief.
The 3-3 tie vote was broken when Stephen Zamagias cast the deciding, “Yes.”
Down came the Mayor’s gavel, placing the 14-minute meeting in the history books, enshrined in the official City Journal.
Zamagias and Gross had already packed their belongings in a neat stack before the motion was made. Gross had already grabbed her handbag from the floor and leaving her seat before the vote was tallied by the Clerk. She was through the side door within eight seconds. The other “Yes” voters quickly followed Gross’ exit out the side door, leaving the three “No” voting Councilmembers stunned. The three had expected to go through the full agenda of City business.
The dazed, angry, audience responded, “Boo! Who do you work for? Wrong! Who do you work for? Who do you work for people?” At least three of them had wanted to use the open forum portion section item on the agenda to speak of their community concerns.
Weisgerber, remaining in his seat, calmly stating his case for not deleting the Facebook comment. He also told the audience about the conversation he had with Sean Rahe, the Loveland Police Chief the next day. Rahe got involved after Gross called him to investigate, according to Weisgerber’s account. Weisgerber also said that he was told by Rahe that the comment didn’t rise to the level of a threat and Rahe had also consulted with the Clermont County Prosecutor for a second opinion. According to Weisgerber, the Prosecutor was not convinced the post constituted a threat.
In an email to the Police Chief that Weisgerber sent about seven hours before the council meeting, he said, “I understand Pam’s concerns and I am strongly against hate or threatening speech yet I will not censor free speech. Having said that, I don’t see what was said as a threat but that is not my call.”
Rahe responded by saying, “Rob, thank you for your time, and this response. I understand your position. Sean.”
While the Solicitor was still in the room, former Councilmember, Todd Osborne rose and said, “As a taxpayer, I asked the City Solicitor… We have not had a meeting. This meeting has not been adjourned properly. It has to be adjourned correctly, and, there has to be public business.”
[quote_left]Hearing this, Mays crumpled the meeting agenda she was holding. Resident Patti Sandmayr Horton , ripped the agenda in half then placed it at the empty spot where Pam Gross had been sitting a few moments before.[/quote_left]The solicitor returned to his seat, was about to speak, but just shook his head as if to say, I don’t know when he realized the microphone had been turned off? When a member of the audience asked, “Are they coming back, he simply said, “No, they adjourned. They adjourned.”
Pat Mays, a former member of Council was sitting in the audience, she held up the meeting agenda and asked, “So, this is mute, so, none of this is going to happen?
The Solicitor answered by saying, “The meeting was called to order and it was adjourned.”
Hearing this, Mays crumpled the meeting agenda she was holding. Resident Patti Sandmayr Horton , ripped the agenda in half then placed it at the empty spot where Pam Gross had been sitting a few moments before.
After the meeting, Bailey went on camera to respond to what had happened. She said Fitzgerald’s prepared statement, “Was really nothing more than an attack on Councilmember Rob Weisgerber.”
Bailey described the meeting end, “As soon as he finished his speech, in clearly what was a practiced and rehearsed and already decided move,” the meeting was adjourned. “So, all of us council members, the staff, dozens of citizens that were here – all for nothing because they took their ball and went home.” Bailey [quote_right]Bailey said it was clearly practiced and rehearsed.[/quote_right]said they had a full agenda for the meeting, including working on a collective bargaining agreement that, “Has to be dealt with in the next couple of days or we have a problem.” She said the four majority members who closed the meeting had no concern for the business of the City or for the citizens or anyone else who showed up.
Fitzgerald, Gross, Settell, and Zamagias had left the meeting room, so were not available for any rebuttal to Bailey’s allegation of a scripted shut-down of the meeting.
The next regularly scheduled Council meeting is in three weeks on July 11. The “second” Tuesday of the month.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Loveland Magazine sent an email the next morning to the Councilmembers who voted to shut down the meeting asking for their response regarding Kathy Bailey’s accusation that the abrupt closing down of the council meeting was pre-planned. None have responded.
The post on Rob Weisgerber’s Facebook page on June 21 at 9:50 PM ·that Fitzgerald and Gross say condones violence towards Gross
Rob Weisgerber
To all my friends out there and especially for those who have spoken out against Mark Fitzgerald and Pam Gross on Loveland City Council. Pam Gross today submitted 9 separate public documents requests for all emails and documents between me and a host of private citizens. The magnitude of the list of names is very disturbing. She had also made the same request of Ted Phelps and Kathy Bailey included in those 9 requests.
I will be clear that her request looks to be so broad and ill defined that no one can respond. Legal council now has to be involved to resolve. Pam is costing you the residents of Loveland by wasting your tax dollars on petty requests.
The depth Pam Gross is willing to stoop to for her campaign is embarrassing
(Name Redacted by Loveland Magazine) You dont [Sic] have to give her anything. Thats [Sic] a violation. Does she have a subpeona [Sic] ? She can request all day long. Lol who does she think she is? Trying to pull another fast one with intimidation. She nerds [Sic] a good old fashion loveland ass kicking 80s style lol.
by Shanda Gentry,
