Tag: ohio

  • Here’s what Vice-Mayor Settle didn’t want you to know

    Here’s what Vice-Mayor Settle didn’t want you to know

    Silence a resident: A story is born!

    by David Miller

    Loveland, Ohio – Life-long resident, Neil Oury asked the Mayor for time to speak at the February 14 council meeting. The request was granted and his name was added to the agenda. Oury said he wanted to speak about future downtown development projects. He barely started speaking when Vice-Mayor Angie Settle, who was presiding over the meeting in the absence of Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, continuously interrupted him and said he must stick to the subject of what he was given permission to speak about.

    The first interruption was when Oury talked about how Loveland taxpayers paid $20,000 to put on Christmas in Loveland and the Fourth of July celebration, events previously put on by the Loveland Chamber of Commerce at no cost to taxpayers. (“On the sly” – How City Hall pirated Christmas in Loveland)

    Settell: “I’m sorry, if you don’t get to your point, I’m calling you out of order. You signed to speak about one thing.”

    Oury:  “Yeah, I’m getting to it.”

    Settell: “No, You got to get to it right now. I’ve reminded you three times, I’m sorry but your time is up.”

    The more adamant interruptions by Settell was when Oury tried to speak about a lawsuit filed against Fitzgerald when he was City Manager of North College Hill.

    Loveland Vice-Mayor Angie Settell (File Photo)

    Oury says he is very concerned that a decision had been made to demolish Loveland’s City Hall without public knowledge. He said the project to construct a new City Hall was announced as a done deal in the City newsletter and he reviewed past meeting minutes and could find nothing concerning the project. He says that he wants more transparency in decisions about downtown development and knowledge about how Fitzgerald managed affairs as City Manager of North College Hill should be a warning to Loveland residents and council. He said that when City Hall takes over popular public events, interferes with events like the Loveland Farmers’ Market, and decides behind closed doors to rebuild City Hall, it’s time for a change from business as usual.

     

    Oury: I find it real ironic that basically, our mayor acted the same way when he worked for North College Hill as city administrator. He was…

    Settell: OK Mr. Oury, ya know…

    Oury: There’s a very good point to this.

    Settell: You talked about, um…

    Oury: You’re interrupting my time.

    Settell: Well I know, because I’ve asked you several times to stay on point, OK. This is not on point when you start talking about individuals’ personalities. Let’s confine it to the issue, please.

    Oury: It’s not personalities.

    Settell: Well, That’s what it sounds like to me.

    Oury: We have a mayor that has committed fraud and is being sued for fraud.

    Settell: OK, That’s it.

    Oury: And I think he is doing the same thing here.

    Settell: OK, I’m sorry.  I’m not going to stand here and let you talk about people who are not here to defend themselves.

    Oury: He can watch it on tape.

    Settell: Well, he’s not here.

    Oury: I’m not going to discuss it with him, I’m making a statement.

    Settell: OK, your times up. Thank you.

    Below is video of the exchange. You can also read at the bottom of this story the full text of the remarks Oury tried to read at the council meeting.

     

    Angered after reading the minutes of the meeting, Fitzgerald lit into Oury at the next council meeting saying Oury lied about ever being accused of fraud.

     

     

    In this video, Oury reacts to Fitzgerald’s anger:

     

    Oury also spoke to Loveland Magazine about his treatment by Vice-Mayor Angie Settlell:

     

    Loveland Councilman Ted Phelps (File Photo)

    The next council meeting brought a response from lawyer and Councilman Ted Phelps who decided to comment on Fitzgerald’s allegation that Oury lied. Phelps said, “The statement about the Mayor having never been on the receiving end of a complaint of fraud is not corroborated by filings made in Hamilton and Montgomery County courts.”

     

     

     

    BACKGROUND OF FITZGERALD’S WOES AS CITY MANAGER OF NORTH COLLEGE HILL

    In June of 2014, when Shawna O’Shea was a member of the North College Hill (NCH) council she filed a taxpayer lawsuit against the City and City Manager Mark Fitzgerald for what she argued, “Was an attempt to continually misrepresent facts to Council, engage in fraudulent behavior toward the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS), misapply city funds, and abuse corporate powers.” The lawsuit revolved around allegations of combining the salaries of Fitzgerald and his wife, Economic Developer Linda Fitzgerald, in order to increase future retirement checks for Mark Fitzgerald.

    Then-Mayor Dan Brooks and Mark Fitzgerald wanted Linda Fitzgerald to take no salary and to have what would have been paid to her, combined with her husband’s salary.

    O’Shea alleged Mark Fitzgerald was engaged in fraudulent behavior toward OPERS in order to bolster his retirement benefits. By combining both salaries it was alleged that Mark Fitzgerald could report all the income towards his own retirement.

    A document filed in the case by O’Shea’s attorney claimed, “Defendant Mark Fitzgerald initiated the entire scheme solely to further enrich himself” and that he, “Conspired to defraud OPERS” .

    In a document revealed in court, Brooks explained:

    “Mark Fitzgerald approached me last year and informed me that he is looking forward to retiring in 4 years but, he needs to bolster his OPERS pension. I assume most of you realize that the pension is based on the average of your best three years salary. Thus, he asked to be made an employee as opposed to a contractor. He suggested that his and Lynda’s salary be combined thus totally $125,000 per year. As an employee, we need to pay a portion of his OPERS but not all. In addition, he will pick up a portion of his health insurance. In exchange for this, he and Lynda will freeze their salary at this level for the entire four years.”

    In the original complaint about the combined salaries, O’Shea’s attorney, Matt Miller-Novak, alleged that even though Linda had retired from her position as economic development director, Mark continued to collect her salary as if his own. He said, “Mark Fitzgerald continued to pay himself the entire package price of $125,000 intended to compensate both Linda and Mark Fitzgerald.” Miller-Novak said that no one on the NCH Council knew that Linda Fitzgerald had resigned. “Instead, he kept quiet and he has been pocketing City funds he is not entitled to. He is abusing his powers, he is misusing City funds, and he is self-serving.”

    Nicholas Link is a former Auditor of NCH. When he found out about the combined salaries he filed a complaint with OPERS. The very first person he spoke to after describing specifically what was happening said, “Well, they can’t do that,” said Link. 

    O’Shea’s lawsuit claims Mark Fitzgerald gave himself a $41,000 raise, above the $84,000 he was being paid for his City Manager position, and over four years received $120,000 in “ill-gotten gains” from “his fraud and deceit.” 

    Link also said on Monday that he has been told by several insiders at NCH that OPERS is now refusing to accept the additional payment that NCH was sending them for the $41,000 income, and is returning the money to NCH. He said that after OPERS studied the facts and did their due-diligence, “Once they determined that Mark was not legitimately making $125,000, they decided would send back the over-payments that represented anything above his $84,000 salary.” Link said that since the OPERS payments were in part deducted from Fitzgerald’s salary, he assumes that NCH would be returning the money to Fitzgerald.

    The lawsuit also alleges that NCH Law Director, William Deters directed Linda Fitzgerald to draft a “phony” letter designed to fool OPERS into believing she had resigned but led the NCH Council to believe she was still working. It is alleged, and confirmed by Link that on several occasions, Linda would appear at council or other meetings as if she was still employed by the City.

    Also, O’Shea claimed that in 2014, Fitzgerald illegally granted a contract for enforcing the city’s building codes to his friend Gerry Stoker, despite the council voting down the contract. She claimed that Fitzgerald presented a contract to hire Stoker to NCH Council and they voted against it. They wanted competitive bids for the work. Days after he got the no vote, Fitzgerald went ahead and signed a contract with Stoker’s building inspection firm, XPEX. Stoker is a former zoning department head for the City of Loveland.

    Loveland Mayor Mark Fitzgerald (File Photo)

    Both Mark and Linda Fitzgerald were asked to respond to Phelps comment and the allegations made in the O’Shea lawsuit. Mark replied via email saying:

    There is no merit to the O’Shea complaint. It is politically motivated designed to tarnish my many years of public service.

    NEVER have I been prosecuted for any alleged misconduct.

    NEVER did the O’Shea complaint ask for relief on fraudulent conduct.

    Attached is the memo from NCH mayor brooks to council of his intent to combine the positions (begin at the third paragraph and please convey it verbatim in your Loveland magazine article)

    Council endorsed mayor brooks decision.

    Read the attachment HERE: SKM_224e17032114030

    On February 13, 2017, the NCH Council voted to settle the outstanding lawsuit just as it was heading to trial. According to the settlement agreement, the City of NCH agrees to never again employ or contract with Mark Fitzgerald including any entity he has an association with in any capacity. The City of NCH also agreed to never again compensate employees beyond what NCH Council appropriates. The City agreed to pay legal fees to O’Shea’s lawyers. The agreement was for a total of $100.000. $75,000 came from NCH coffers and $25,000 was paid by a NCH insurance policy. O’Shea, who only sought injunctive relief, received no money.

    NCH Council Member Matt Wahlert voted yes to settle the lawsuit against Fitzgerald. He said in a press release, “What the city did, I believe was wrong and I thought we would lose this case.” 

    Link said that to his knowledge, Fitzgerald does not have to return the $120,000 because it wasn’t a stipulation of the settlement agreement. He said that the current majority on NCH council will probably never ask Fitzgerald to return the money paid to him for the services Linda Fitzgerald was not providing. “The Teflon Don strikes again,” is how Link described it.

    NCH also hired and paid the attorney that defended Fitzgerald in court. NCH hired a separate law firm to defend itself in the lawsuit.

    Matt Wahlert also said, “I felt compelled to settle because I believed the alternative would have been a lengthy and more costly litigation process. A loss by the city would mean much higher legal fees and the distinct possibility of cutting services. I was not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

     



    The Writer’s Notes:

    It has always been the policy of Loveland Magazine to not report when someone has been merely accused of a crime. So, even though many citizens have encouraged us to report the fraud allegations over many years — we have not done so until now. It is our belief that all persons are innocent until “proven” guilty and that everyone deserves their day in court. The case against Mark Fitzgerald never went to trial so Fitzgerald’s guilt or innocence was never determined by a judge or jury. 

    Also, of note is that attorneys use a lot of hyperbole in their pleadings to a judge and some of that is reported here. They also know better than the rest of us not to throw around charges haphazardly. They choose their words with caution.

    The court case against the Loveland Mayor only became newsworthy when a Loveland citizen wanted to talk about it at a council meeting and wasn’t allowed to do so. Add to that, the Mayor’s angry diatribe directed at Neil Oury for daring to repeat quotes he found in a lawsuit – escalated what had happened to “newsworthy.” 

    Add to that, Loveland Magazine believes that the most important thing that ever happens at any city council meeting is when citizens rise to speak what is on their mind. We believe that council must listen, listen with respect, pay attention, and no shuffling papers. When asking voters for their support they told them they would listen to their concerns. Vice-Mayor Settle made this “newsworthy” when she would not let Neil Oury speak his mind and attempted to cover up what had happened to Fitzgerald while employed at NCH. Oury has every right to bring up the subject and no one at the council table should ever censor a citizen’s speech. It’s not Angie Settell’s microphone, podium, council chamber, or city building. 

    They were bought and paid for by the people.



    Below is a scanned copy provided to Loveland Magazine of the full remarks Neil Oury wanted to present at the Loveland Council meeting on February 14. Oury marked the words he was able to say in orange. Oury marked “Quotes” he found from other sources, including court documents, in yellow.

  • Up-date on joint meeting of Council and Community Improvement Corporation

    Up-date on joint meeting of Council and Community Improvement Corporation

    Loveland, Ohio – Today at 10:26 AM, Loveland Magazine received the following email from Loveland Clerk of Council, Misty Cheshire:

    The meeting(s) were advertised to be held at 3 p.m. at the Safety Center.  The location or time can’t be changed without providing 24 hour notice to the public.  Today’s meetings will be held at the Safety Center.

    Misty Cheshire

    The announcement pertains to a point meeting of City Council and the Community Improvement Corporation that was called without the advice of three council members who said they could not attend the meeting because they have jobs outside of the City that prevents them from attending mid-day meetings.

    Read background: Weisgerber and Bailey accuse Mayor of calling for special meeting at a time they cannot attend

    There were efforts by several of the city officials to have the meeting date and time changed to be more accommodating to those who could not attend. Those efforts failed.

    There was also confusion about where the meeting was going to be held and the agenda for the meeting, however, the City has now published the agenda:

  • Weisgerber and Bailey accuse Mayor of calling for special meeting at a time they cannot attend

    Weisgerber and Bailey accuse Mayor of calling for special meeting at a time they cannot attend

    “It is disappointing that this is the direction the Mayor has chosen to go on a matter of such importance.”

    – Councilwoman Kathy Bailey

     

    Loveland, Ohio – After Loveland Councilmember Rob Weisgerber received the City Newsletter announcing that there was going to be a joint meeting of Council and the Community Improvement Corporation scheduled in the middle of a weekday afternoon, he wrote an email to City Hall staff and all of Council saying the meeting was deliberately called by Mayor Mark Fitzgerald at a time he could not attend. He also said he was told when the meeting would be held and not consulted beforehand. He said in his email, “If the meeting is maintained on this date and time it is clear not everyone’s opinion on council is being sought by intent (as usual with Mark and this majority).”

    Weisgerber elaborated, “To value everyone’s opinion the meeting availability should be a request and not an ultimatum by the Mayor.”

    Councilwoman Kathy Bailey also protested the time of the meeting in her own email to Council and staff. She said, “It appears this meeting time was chosen for the express purpose of, at the very least, making it difficult for us to attend, at worst, to make sure our voices were not heard.

    Bailey said that herself, Weisgerber, and Councilmember Ted Phelps all have full-time jobs outside the City, and cannot attend a meeting held at 3 PM in the afternoon.

    Public also in the shadow

    As of the time of this story, it is not clear where the meeting will be held, nor the agenda. In an email to Loveland Magazine from the Clerk of Council on March 16, the calendar for City meetings says the special joint meeting will be at the Loveland Safety Center on Lebanon Road. However, the Straight from the Heart newsletter issued from the City on March 15 says the meeting will be at City Hall. The City website only says there will be a meeting on March 20 at 3 PM, but does not say where the meeting will be held. None of these notices issued by City Hall lists the agenda of the meeting – which is a requirement of Ohio’s open meeting laws.

    Rob Weisgerber wrote on March 15 at 7:54 PM to City Hall staff and all of Council:
     
    I can not attend as I am scheduled to be in New York all week. While there is a chance the trip may be canceled, I have other commitments I am required to manage at work during the work week and specifically on this day and time.
     
    To be inclusive and transparent the meeting must be after hours or on the weekend when all are available. If the meeting is maintained on this date and time it is clear not everyone’s opinion on council is being sought by intent (as usual with Mark and this majority).
     
    To value everyone’s opinion the meeting availability should be a request and not an ultimatum by the Mayor.  
    Rob Weisgerber wrote on March 15 at 8:02 PM to City Hall staff and all of Council:
     
    I just saw the posting in the news letter announcing the joint meeting a good number of us can not attend.
     
    I can not express how upset I am at the continued disregard for all of City council as equal members being elected by OUR residents.
     
    This is nothing short of intentionally neutering of some members of council not in the group of 4, no independent thought, no inclusiveness or transparency majority.
    This behavior will only result in a very vocal response and probable delays due to us not all being on the same page.
    Kathy Bailey wrote on Mar 15 at 2:20 PM to City Hall staff and all of Council:
    I am curious as to the reason this particular time was chosen for the meeting. As the Mayor is well aware, Council Members Phelps, Weisgerber, and myself have full time jobs, not located in the City of Loveland. It appears this meeting time was chosen for the express purpose of, at the very least, making it difficult for us to attend, at worst, to make sure our voices were not heard. While I understand the desire to move forward, there is no emergency that would justify choosing a meeting time in the middle of a workday. It is disappointing that this is the direction the Mayor has chosen to go on a matter of such importance.  I cannot attend the meeting, as I will be at work.
     
     

     
  • Councilmember Pam Gross: Community needs to address these questions

    Councilmember Pam Gross: Community needs to address these questions

    Pamela Gross is a Loveland City Council Member 

    by Pamela Gross,

    I would like to thank Dave Kennedy and staff for reviewing the current fee ordinance for events held within the City.

    While it seems we may have come to a solution that is amicable to everyone, I think it’s important to review how we have gotten to this current point.  We need to acknowledge how this issue could have been handled better. 

    I am dismayed that this entire conversation regarding the special events policy and fee structure has veered so far away from the real issue that the administration and council were attempting to address. 

    All of us bear some responsibility for this misdirection – the administration for not effectively communicating to those most affected by the new policies and fees, council for not communicating the big picture behind the necessity of such a policy and fees, certain council members, who have apologized for not being prepared for a discussion on the issue and not fully understanding the effects of the policy and ordinance.  Hopefully all of us have learned from this and we will do a better job next time difficult decisions must be made. 

    To the many supporters of the Loveland Amazing Race, Farmers Market and the LMRCA, while this policy and fee structure affects you it was not targeted at you.  I want you to take a step back and look at this from a different point of view. 

    As you all acknowledge our city is a growing, vibrant community and events are an important part of this vibrancy.  The Loveland Amazing Race and the Farmers Market have been here for many years, and hopefully for many more.  The city expends considerable time and resources hosting the events.  Some are direct costs, most are indirect costs.  For instance, our police chief spends 40 hours and public works spends 20 hours planning and coordinating the Loveland Amazing Race. The Farmers Market is located in the heart of our city and uses a public financed property.  Because of the success and beauty of our community, many other groups are discovering what we have to offer.  The city gets calls regularly from organizations who want to host various events in our city. It now becomes crucial for city officials to start asking important questions: 

    • Does the city have the resources to accommodate everyone?
    • Do we have the infrastructure?
    • Is our staff able to handle all the logistics of the various events and also take care of regular city responsibilities and residence concerns?
    • Do we have policies and procedures in place to assess the events?
    • Do we know if the event costs more than the city can sustain?

    If we don’t address these questions, than the events become more and more expensive to the city because there is no economic engine attached to it.  It becomes more and more attended but what does it mean to the city without a revenue piece attached to it. As it becomes more and more expensive it’s no longer an investment, it’s a cost.  So, yes it brings people into the city but it doesn’t bring dollars in for the city. 

    I recognize any organization that has a sustainable path of growth has to have a solid foundation which isn’t just operational but is also financial.  If we invest in all of these activities but don’t have a way to recoup the cost of investment what ends up happening is that Loveland has a more and more expensive liability. 

    For me, that is what this entire discussion should have been about.  I believe we must have a structure and plans for the future.  Fees cannot be zero or some other random number, they must be based on cost vs. benefits.  Our city will not be a vibrant and financially sustainable city without this analysis. 

    Loveland is different from 10 years ago, it’s different from 5 years ago.  My responsibility as an elected representative is not only to handle matters of today but to have an eye on tomorrow.  That is good governance. 


     


     

  • EXCLUSIVE VIDEO] Highlights of council debate on public event policy and fees

    EXCLUSIVE VIDEO] Highlights of council debate on public event policy and fees

    Lower fees to be introduced Tuesday

    Loveland, Ohio – The public showed up and overflowed into the hallways at the January 24 Loveland council meeting to show displeasure with new fees and terms for holding “Public Events” on private or public property in the city of Loveland.

    These three videos are excerpts and highlights of both the public showing displeasure with the fees and policy and City Council’s sometimes acrimonious debate that followed.

    Because of this discussion, City Manager Dave Kennedy has proposed amendments to the fee structure and has recommended that City Council vote on them as “Emergency” legislation at the next meeting on February, 14. The meeting begins at 7 PM. View the meeting agenda HERE. Read and download the proposed amendment: Event Fees. Read what the current fees are: Previous Fees.

    This first video is excerpts of the public urging that the fees be lower.

     

    This second video is more excerpts of the public urging that the fees be lower.

     

    This third video is excerpts and highlights of the sometimes acrimonious debate among council members.

    BACKGROUND
    Amazing Charity Race gives City Hall ultimatum and February 28th deadline
    Former City Manager Threatened to Cancel Loveland’s Amazing Race
    EXCLUSIVE: Amazing Charity Race to return to Loveland in 2015


    Loveland Magazine is a sponsor of the Amazing Charity Race. This video below was produced by LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV highlighting the 2016 race.

    “In its 11th year, 500 volunteers and a dedicated board of directors, guided about 1,400 racers on a 15-mile labyrinth of mental and physical challenges on June 18 in the Amazing Charity Race. From Loveland, through Miami Township, and into Milford, each team member must be physically fit, but also master the mental challenges of goofy brain games all along the course. Nearly all of the physical challenges are most easily handled by problem solving team mates as well. Think, Navy Seals teamwork – – sort of.”

    Tossed around like pinballs while inside giant balloons

    They were challenged to games of Donkey Kong at the Boy Scout’s Camp Friedlander, being tossed around like pinballs while inside giant balloons, reciting movie lines at the Loveland Stage Company, shooting a giant sling shot using their legs, and much, much more. Teams come from all over the country to race in the Fathers Day Weekend event.

     

    You can watch all of the other people opposing the public event fees at the Council meeting on LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV

     



    10% off New Year classes for children at VisionArts studio in Loveland!