THE BOTTOM LINE: Intentional or Sloppy Drafting?
Voting NO is the lowest-risk vote on your ballot: it costs taxpayers $0, leaves our current Charter safeguards intact, and tells Council to bring clean, separate amendments back next year instead of bundling 100+ edits across 14 articles into one all-or-nothing package:
Madeira Would Be the ONLY City in Ohio With No Fixed Charter Spending Limit
Across Ohio, municipal charters protect taxpayers by establishing spending caps through a fixed Charter dollar limit (currently $10,000 in Madeira's Article IV, § 5 requiring Council approval by ordinance or resolution), by requiring a formal Council ordinance, or by tying directly to state law. A review of Ohio charters shows Madeira is the only municipality proposing that Council and the Manager "shall agree, annually, on an administrative threshold amount"—with no ordinance required, no dollar cap in the Charter, and mutual veto power for the City Manager over their own spending limit.
Why Would 6 Council Members Vote to Reduce Their Own Spending Oversight During a Manager Transition?
1. Avoiding Public Roll-Call Votes on Controversial Contracts: Today, every consultant study, legal contract, or purchase over $10,000 requires a public roll-call vote on an Ordinance or Resolution. Raising the Manager's unilateral spending power up to $79,568+ (nearly an 800% jump, and professional consultants/lawyers are exempt from state bidding!) lets mid-sized contracts get signed behind closed doors without a Council vote.
2. Handing Unchecked Power to a Brand-New City Manager: Former City Manager Michael Norton-Smith has already departed, Assistant City Manager Lori Thompson is serving as Interim Manager, and a new City Manager does not start until mid-November. Eliminating the independent Treasurer, erasing dual-signature check controls (Art. IV, § 4), and removing the $10,000 cap right before a brand-new Manager takes over is the worst possible time to strip financial guardrails.
Charter Safeguards & Spending Cap: City Claims vs. Ordinance 26-05
Why Six Former Madeira Mayors Oppose Issue 16
Former Madeira Mayors Michelle Schneider, Mary Anne Christie, Sherry Mattes-Jansen, Sarah Evans, Rick Staubach, and Ken Born have all publicly endorsed voting NO on Issue 16.
The Treasurer Change: Today vs. Under Issue 16
2-Page Documented Inaccuracies & Primary-Source Proof (Searchable PDF)
Submitted into the permanent City Council record on October 26, 2026. Full-text searchable below (single-pane full-width view):
VOTE NO ON ISSUE 16: KEEP YOUR VOICE
Madeira deserves a modern, clean city rulebook without giving up our historic protections or financial safety checks.
THE LOWEST-RISK VOTE ON YOUR BALLOT IS "NO"
Voting NO does not block modernization—it leaves our charter exactly as it is today. Nothing changes. Voting NO simply asks our Council to bring these changes back next year grouped by topic, giving voters fair and clear choices.
THE 5 MAJOR RISKS OF ISSUE 16
1. THE BAIT-AND-SWITCH & DENYING VOTER CHOICE
Issue 16 bundles over 100 changes into a single ballot issue. Routine office cleanups are held hostage to force historic protection changes and weakened spending rules.
2. WEAKENED FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT & TREASURER REMOVAL
Issue 16 removes the rule requiring a public Council vote for spending over $10,000. It also permanently deletes the independent Treasurer position. This does not just move daily math to a finance clerk—it eliminates a crucial, independent dual-signature safety check on city spending, handing all financial control directly to the City Manager's office.
3. ERASING HISTORIC PROTECTIONS & PUBLIC ASSET NEGLECT
In 2014, voters passed a rule that the historic houses be "preserved, protected, and left standing." Issue 16 strips away those protections. Council withheld maintenance to justify selling them, even though one holds 3 active businesses today and one housed a commercial gelato shop subject to strict health and safety inspections just 3 years ago.
4. FINANCIAL CONCERNS & THE WATER LAWSUIT
Madeira sued Indian Hill, risking a $13 million exit fee (about $1,370 per resident). Yet, city management claimed the lawsuit has "no material effect" on finances. Madeira also spent over $800,000 fighting residents in court, hiding these massive legal costs in a broad budget line instead of listing them clearly.
5. ERODING LONG-RANGE PLANNING & CORRIDOR CHAOS
Issue 16 deletes the rule requiring an annual 5-year city improvement plan. Removing citizen oversight during simultaneous, poorly coordinated street construction projects harms local businesses and frustrates residents.
Voter Q&A & Campaign Funding Comparison
1. Why does Issue 16 matter so much for our city?
The City Charter is our local constitution and "supersedes many of the statutory laws of Ohio relative to municipal government." As Council Member Logan Junger has noted, it serves as the ultimate "rule book for our own city."
2. If Council reviewed this for over 2 years, how did they miss these problems?
Council approved Ordinance 26-05 by a 6–0–1 vote on July 13, 2026 (Yea: Henning, Camper, Junger, Shaffer, Takieddine, Whitted; Abstain: Rowe). Yet it took concerned residents less than four weeks of reading the actual redline to discover that "Finance Director" is never written into the Charter, dual-signature check controls are struck out, the enacting ordinance has duplicate section numbers, and key historic protections are repealed.
3. If Issue 16 passes, can Council easily fix any mistakes later?
No! Under Article XIV, Section 5 of our Charter, Council cannot fix a Charter error by ordinary ordinance. Any fix requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of Council or a citizen petition signed by 10% of Madeira voters, followed by another costly citywide election. Our Charter was last amended nine years ago in 2017.
4. I already voted early or have a mail-in ballot. Can I change my vote?
In Ohio, early voting is considered a form of absentee voting. Ohio law prohibits anyone who has already submitted an early ballot from casting a new or replacement ballot. However, if you made a mistake on an unsubmitted mail-in absentee ballot still in your possession, contact the Hamilton County Board of Elections (513-632-7000) before 7:30 PM on Election Day for a replacement ballot (permitted up to two times).
View Official Ohio Secretary of State Absentee Ballot Rules (PDF) →5. Who is funding the two "Yes on 16" PACs vs. our grassroots "No on 16" campaign?
| Committee / Entity | Who Funded It | Reported Spend / In-Kind |
|---|---|---|
| Madeira Supports Issue 16 (Yes PAC #1) | 100% Funded by Mayor Tom Henning (0 resident donors) | $1,888.48 (2,000 postcards, stamps & labels) |
| Madeira Residents for Yes on 16 (Yes PAC #2) | 100% Funded by Vice Mayor Ramzi Takieddine & Councilman Logan Junger | $1,442.98 ($693.82 signs + $749.16 print/web/phone, plus unreported MadeiraExplained.com) |
| City of Madeira Taxpayer Funds (Public Funds) | Madeira Taxpayers (Ballot fee, Sept. 25 citywide mailer, staff hours) | $14,000+ (Ballot cost + citywide postage/printing) |
| Neighbors for a Transparent Madeira (Grassroots NO PAC) | 100% Everyday Madeira Residents & Former Mayors | ~$1,050 Pre-Election Report (Small-dollar neighbor checks & yard signs) |
Note on the Chamber of Commerce Letter: As disclosed on YesOn16Madeira.com, Council Member and Yes PAC co-funder Logan Junger also serves as Volunteer Secretary on the Madeira Chamber of Commerce Board and personally signed the Chamber Board's endorsement letter alongside Executive Director David Peterson.
6. What would a court challenge over poorly written Charter language cost taxpayers?
While Ohio law sets a high bar to overturn certified elections, any legal dispute over ambiguous or defective Charter language is paid for by Madeira taxpayers on both sides. The City has already spent over $800,000 on litigation in recent years, and court appeals routinely take 1 to 3 years. Voting NO costs taxpayers $0.
Search All 27 Pages of Ordinance 26-05 Yourself (Searchable PDF)
Press Ctrl+F (or Cmd+F) to search for "Finance Director" (0 results), "Treasurer", "10,000", or "Hosbrook":
Opened to Page 11 (Article IV, §§ 4 & 5) showing the deletion of dual-signature warrants and the $10,000 spending cap. Scroll up or down to inspect all 27 pages.