The 3 Things Madeira Voters Need to Know
Fully Endorsed by 6 Former Mayors of Madeira
While six current Council members voted to place this bundled package on the ballot—expanding administrative spending leeway and removing voter guardrails—six former Mayors of Madeira urge residents to vote NO on Issue 16:
THE BOTTOM LINE: Intentional or Sloppy?
Voters do not need to guess whether this flawed bundle was calculated or accidental:
Origin of Issue 16: How a Manager's Memo Became a 6-0 Council Vote
Issue 16 is a Council-initiated Charter amendment, not a citizen petition. It began as an internal review and was placed on the November 3, 2026 ballot by Ordinance 26-05. Look at how former City Manager Michael Norton-Smith's memorandum was rubber-stamped onto your ballot—even though the legal text doesn't match what the City promised:
Madeira Would Be the ONLY City in Ohio with an Uncapped Annual "Agreement"
Under Article IV, Section 5 of our current Charter, the $10,000 limit is the fixed threshold requiring Council approval by public ordinance or resolution (separate from Ohio's competitive bidding limit, which is $79,568 in 2026). Across Ohio, municipal charters establish spending guardrails either through a fixed Charter dollar limit, by requiring a formal legislative ordinance, or by tying directly to state law.
A review of Ohio municipal charters shows that Madeira is the only municipality proposing that Council and the Manager "shall agree, annually, on an administrative threshold amount" with no dollar ceiling in the Charter.
Why would 6 Council members vote to reduce their own legislative oversight?
Under our current Charter, every controversial consultant study, legal expenditure, or purchase over $10,000 requires a public roll-call vote on an ordinance or resolution—putting Council members on the public record.
Raising the Manager's administrative spending power to $50,000 or $79,568 allows mid-sized contracts (like the $36,000 realtor and consultant reports on the historic houses) to be executed via internal purchase orders without Council members ever having to cast a public roll-call vote.
The 5 Charter Safeguards Repealed by Issue 16
The City claims that existing controls and checks remain in place. A direct reading of the 27-page redline of Ordinance 26-05 proves five fundamental safeguards are repealed:
1. Independent Fiscal Watchdog Abolished (Art. IV, § 2 & Art. V, § 2)
Eliminates the independent, Council-appointed Treasurer (~5 edits). Despite official mailers and the June 22 Manager's memo, the title "Finance Director" is never mentioned anywhere in the Charter amendment. Any finance staff will report solely to the City Manager.
2. Dual-Signature Check Control Erased (Art. IV, § 4)
Deletes the requirement that city checks and warrants be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Manager. Replaced with: "All expenditures of municipal funds shall be made only upon authorization of the Manager."
3. Mandatory Performance Bond Removed (Art. XIV, § 3)
Deletes "and the Treasurer" from the constitutional requirement to post an official faithful-performance bond protecting city taxpayers.
4. Fixed $10,000 Legislative Approval Guardrail Deleted (Art. IV, § 5)
Replaces the voter-approved $10,000 threshold requiring Council approval by ordinance or resolution with an uncapped annual "agreement" between Council and the Manager, while deleting mandatory newspaper notices for competitive bids (~10 contracting/threshold edits).
5. Historic Protections & 5-Year Capital Plan Wiped Out (Art. VII & Art. XVI)
Deletes the citizen Planning Commission's mandatory 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (~4 edits) and strikes the 2014 voter mandate (~12 edits, passed by 57.8% of voters) protecting the Hosbrook House, Muchmore House, and Railroad Depot on their original ground.
Why Voters Question Removing Guardrails Right Now
Supporters of Issue 16 ask voters to simply "trust Council and the Administration" with uncapped spending agreements and historic property decisions. Yet a closer look at Council's recent track record shows why we need more neighborly oversight and Charter guardrails, not less:
Setting the Record Straight: Rebuttals to Common Claims
1. The "Blue Ash, Montgomery, & Norwood" Comparison (Chamber & Council Claim)
The Claim: Chamber Executive Director David Peterson and Council supporters frequently point to commercial cities like Blue Ash, Montgomery, or Norwood to argue for stripping historic protections and loosening administrative spending rules—while Vice Mayor Ramzi Takieddine simultaneously claims "Madeira isn't Blue Ash or Montgomery, and we don't want to be."
The Fact-Check Rebuttal: In heavy commercial cities like Blue Ash, residents only make up about a third of the tax base—so when commercial groups want redevelopment, citizens often come in second or third place. In Madeira, residents are the backbone of our community and tax base. Yet look at how Council acted just like Blue Ash: when the Chamber of Commerce asked Council in July 2025 to insert the historic houses into the ballot package, Council bent over backwards to grant their wish—even though the Chamber owns 0% of the properties, the lot is small, and much of the land is already used by Swingline and A Tavola for parking. Meanwhile, when citizens asked for a clean, unbundled ballot, Council refused. And as for Norwood—which has struggled with state fiscal emergency oversight—our departing City Manager left abruptly before even transitioning to our newly hired City Manager from Norwood, making this the worst possible time to strip Madeira's independent Treasurer and $10,000 spending guardrail!
2. The "$14,000 Ballot Cost" Excuse for Bundling 100+ Changes
The Claim: At Council's public meeting, officials defended bundling 100+ changes across 14 articles into a single vote by claiming it is "too expensive" to put separate questions on the ballot.
The Fact-Check Rebuttal: How much does Hamilton County charge per ballot issue? Just $14,000 per issue. Splitting these 100+ changes into 3 clean, logical buckets (Administrative, Financial, and Zoning/Historic District) would have cost only $28,000 additional—less than the $36,000 Council spent on realtor reports to document their own neglect of the historic houses, and a fraction of our 61% unassigned cash reserve (which sits more than double the city's 27% policy target). Paying $28,000 to give Madeira voters a fair, democratic choice pays for itself many times over.
3. One Former Mayor's "Yes" Post vs. 6 Former Mayors Voting NO
The Claim: After we announced that 6 former Mayors of Madeira endorse voting NO, "Yes" supporters circulated a post from former Mayor Doug Moormann urging a Yes vote.
The Fact-Check Rebuttal: Voters deserve the full context: Mr. Moormann is not an uninvolved former official—he was the sitting Mayor in 2024 and 2025 who presided over the short-notice special meeting to transfer the historic houses to a CIC without competitive bidding and the 2025 decision to hold the Charter update over for the Chamber! By day, he serves as Vice President of Development Strategies Group (a commercial development consulting and lobbying firm) after serving as a Vice President at the Regional Chamber of Commerce, and he championed Madeira's CIC agreement in 2020. Meanwhile, six independent former Mayors (Michele Schneider, Mary Anne Christie, Sherry Mattes-Jansen, Sarah Evans, Rick Staubach, and Ken Born) stand united in urging a NO vote.
4. "State Audits Are Enough" & "We Don't Need Line-Item Choice"
The Claim: Some argue that routine state audits replace the need for an independent Treasurer or a $10,000 ordinance threshold, and that a Council-Manager government means voters shouldn't have line-item choice.
The Fact-Check Rebuttal: Under a Council-Manager government, the Manager handles daily operations and Council legislates—but the City Charter is our local constitution and belongs exclusively to the voters. Furthermore, state audits are backward-looking compliance checks that verify past math; they do not provide proactive public discussion before $50,000+ is spent on consultants. Relying on an audit after the money is gone instead of representative citizen input is backwards. If residents do not hold Council accountable through our Charter, who will?
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What is a City Charter, why is it important, and doesn't state law supersede it?
The City Charter is our local constitution. Under the Ohio Constitution's Home Rule Amendment, a voter-approved municipal charter supersedes general state statutes on matters of local self-government, property preservation, and local contracting rules. As Council Member Logan Junger noted, it is the ultimate "rule book for our city government."
Q2: Would voting YES give more or less power to Madeira residents?
Less power. Voting YES permanently transfers direct constitutional power away from residents and hands significantly more unchecked spending and property authority to City Council and the City Manager. Once granted in a Charter, power is extremely difficult to rein back in—requiring a 2/3 Council vote or a 10% citizen petition plus another citywide election. Our Charter was last amended 9 years ago in 2017.
Q3: I heard the 2 historic houses can already be sold anytime—is that incorrect?
Yes, that is incorrect for teardowns or commercial gutting. In November 2024, Council used a special, short-notice meeting (bypassing the standard three public readings) to transfer the Hosbrook and Muchmore properties to a Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) for a $340,000 deal ($280,000 sale plus $60,000 in repairs) for a private wine bar. However, in March 2025, the buyers backed out specifically because Article XVI of our current Charter requires the houses to be "preserved, protected, and left standing on the same ground." Our Charter worked! Because state authorities confirmed neither house qualifies for the National Register, passing Issue 16 erases their Charter protection on day one (while keeping the Railroad Depot protected, as it joined the National Register in 2022).
Q4: What are the positive community ideas for the 2 historic houses if we vote NO?
Voting NO gives our community time in 2027 to build a resident-led plan without surrendering our financial guardrails. Properly maintained, these public assets can serve as vibrant community spaces—such as free after-school student tutoring, maker spaces, local art displays and speaker series, First Friday downtown stroll exhibits, or civic club meeting rooms. The city could even partner with a local trade school so students gain supervised, hands-on historic preservation experience while lowering city repair costs!
Q5: Who is funding the "Yes on 16" PACs vs. "Neighbors for a Transparent Madeira"?
Both "Yes" PACs were created and funded by sitting politicians: Madeira Residents for Yes on 16 is funded by Vice Mayor Ramzi Takieddine and Council Member Logan Junger, while Madeira Supports Issue 16 is funded by Mayor Tom Henning ($1,888.48 in-kind for postcards and postage). By contrast, Neighbors for a Transparent Madeira is a grassroots committee led by Madeira residents. (Note: Former Councilman Doug Oppenheimer has no official capacity or role in our campaign, and the Madeira Historical Society is a separate entity not involved in this campaign.)
Q6: I already voted early. Can I change my ballot?
In Ohio, early in-person voting is considered absentee voting. State law strictly prohibits anyone who has already submitted an early ballot from casting a replacement ballot.
If you made a mistake on an unsubmitted mail-in absentee ballot, you can request a replacement ballot up to two times by contacting the Hamilton County Board of Elections (513-632-7000).
Learn more about Ohio absentee ballots (Ohio Secretary of State PDF) →Q7: How can I verify all of these facts on my own?
Bypass the political spin and inspect the primary public records yourself:
Search the Full 27-Page Redline PDF
Read the exact text of Ordinance 26-05 below. Press Ctrl+F (or Cmd+F on Mac) to search for keywords like "Finance Director", "Treasurer", "$10,000", or "Hosbrook".
Get Involved
Help your neighbors cut through the confusion before Election Day on Tuesday, November 3rd.
🏛️ 6 Former Mayors Say NO
Former Madeira Mayors Michele Schneider, Mary Anne Christie, Sherry Mattes-Jansen, Sarah Evans, Rick Staubach, and Ken Born all endorse voting NO on Issue 16.
See why experienced city leaders oppose this bundle →Text a Neighbor
Tap below to open a pre-written text message on your phone ready to send to friends and family in Madeira.
📲 Tap to Text Friends on Your StreetFund the Grassroots
Neighbors for a Transparent Madeira is funded by grassroots contributions to cover yard signs and printing (any excess funds will be donated to a local Madeira community cause).
💳 Donate via PayPal / Venmo / Card📱 Donate via Zelle (No Fees):
Send to: 513-309-2678 (Mark Lloyd)
✉️ Donate by Check:
Payable to:
Neighbors for a Transparent Madeira
7241 South Mingo Lane
Madeira, OH 45243
Direct Contact
-
Email:
TransparentMadeira@gmail.com -
Phone / Text:
513-309-2678 (Mark Lloyd) -
Facebook:
facebook.com/NfaTM