[ back ]
Neutral City Council back off complaint
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - November 05, 2008)
Neutral City Council back off complaint
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Chardon City Council dropped its threat of filing an election complaint last week, instead choosing to adopt a resolution stating a neutral position on a rezoning issue for the Nov. 4 ballot.
Council tabled for a second time a resolution that would have authorized Councilman Jefferey Campbell Jr. to bring an election complaint against developer Rollin Cooke.
Council then unanimously passed a resolution stating that it "neither endorses nor opposes" Issue 13.
Mr. Cooke has proposed a mixed commercial and residential development for 62 acres that spreads between Wilson Mills Road and Water Street (Route 6). He had asked for the least restrictive commercial zoning, which is C-3, for a portion of the property that fronts Water Street to allow an auto dealer, but city officials approved the most restrictive zoning, which is C-1, for the ballot.
In October, a campaign headed by Mr. Cooke's Willo Tree Development Inc., sent a flier that said City Council and the city's planning commission endorsed the rezoning.
Chardon Law Director James Gillette said the "endorsement" caught his attention, and he brought it to several council members, questioning whether it constituted a campaign violation.
Mr. Gillette said that, when the issue was approved by council for the ballot earlier this year, some members had concerns with it but agreed to allow it to go before voters for the ultimate say.
He said he was asked by Mr. Campbell to have something prepared for council's consideration at its Oct. 23 meeting. At that meeting, council members tabled the issue, saying they were pressed for time and it would involve a rather lengthy discussion.
Mr. Cooke responded to the issue in an Oct. 24 letter to council, saying that, if he made a mistake, it was not intentional.
"To put it plainly, I did not intend to 'mislead' or 'use false statements' in my campaign literature," Mr. Cooke wrote. "To the contrary, I have made every attempt to try and be as open with the public as possible. In that respect, I pledged to work with the city by moving away from my original proposal of C-3 zoning and pursue C-1 zoning. I have campaigned to inform the public of my issue with a Web site and also through a public forum. I'd prefer to continue working with the city than working at odds with you all."
Mr. Cooke said, if he misued the word "endorsed" or confused it with an approval, he would have pledged in his letter to never do it again.
Councilman Robert Cromwell said he was "confused" when the second, resolution stating council's neutral position on the issue, was introduced. "What's the point of this?" he asked. "Two weeks ago, we were going down one road" with an election complaint, "and now we're on a totally different road."
Mr. Campbell said, when he first received Mr. Cooke's flier in October, he gave it little notice. Not until some residents called, he said, did he look closer at the endorsement issue. The second resolution cleared up any confusion on where City Council stands on the issue, he said.
Mr. Gillette said he initially brought the matter to the attention of Councilwomen Mary Bramstedt and Deborah Reiter after personally receiving the flier. He said it appeared that there may be a campaign violation, because he did not believe council had endorsed the issue.
"It was an off-the-cuff comment that I made," he said. "I probably shouldn't have done it in that manner." Mr. Gillette said he should have put down his concerns in a memo to council instead and then discussed it with council.
He said a conversation with Mr. Cooke raised questions whether there was a valid complaint. Complaints are two pronged, he said. There must be a false statement, and it needs to be made "knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement," Mr. Gillette said.
He said it would have been difficult to prove the second requirement for a campaign violation.
He said he and Mr. Campbell agreed after the Oct. 23 meeting that the issue would not meet the standard for a violation.
Mr. Cooke addressed council on the issue, saying he went to the city "honestly" to present his plans and to work with the officials.
"I don't appreciate questioning my integrity, especially Mr. Campbell," Mr. Cooke said. "I don't think you're qualified to sit on the board. I don't think you have enough miles underneath you," he told Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Cooke said there was nothing to gain by misleading the public, because he still would have to return to work with the city on his plans once the rezoning issue is decided. "There was no reason to do that. That's the kind of person I am," he said.
When asked directly whether the flier was intended to mislead, Mr. Cooke replied, "Oh God, no."
[ back ]
