MOUNT VERNON – In what seemed to be one of the more contentious local issues on this November’s general election ballot, Mount Vernon residents voted down the proposed charter commission issue by a wide margin.

READ: 2018 Knox County Midterm Election: Final Results

According to unofficial election night numbers provided by the Knox County Board of Elections (with all 52 precincts reporting), 66.43 percent of city voters said ‘No’ to the question, ‘Shall a commission be chosen to frame a charter?’ This amounts to 3,318 voters. Only 33.57 percent (1,667 voters) said ‘Yes.’

Voters were then asked to select 15 of the 21 listed candidates to form the city’s charter commission. However, because city residents voted down the initial question, a commission cannot be formed.

The top five vote-getters among commission candidates were Cindy Cunningham (1,526 votes), Todd Hawkins (1,440 votes), Clint Bailey (1,275 votes), Gordon Yance (1,253 votes) and Bruce Malek (1,231 votes).

Citizens for Responsive City Government, the campaign group that opposed the charter issue, issued a statement following the release of Tuesday night’s election results:

“The Citizens for Responsive City Government campaign would like to express our appreciation to all the citizens who supported our efforts to defeat the City Charter issue, especially with signs, comments on Facebook, and by voting,” treasurer Dennis Swingle said.

“We feel we were able to educate and inform people about what a charter is. No one can say what touched each voter to vote the way they did, but the common thread we saw was the voters’ recognition that a charter form of government often takes power away from the citizens, and the government structure we have already gives us ‘home rule.’”

Citizens for Mount Vernon, the campaign group that advocated for the passage of the charter issue, issued a statement on Wednesday morning.

“The campaign against the issue was impressive and definitely had an impact, so full credit to them for a hard fight. I don’t know that our group expected such opposition to take place before a charter was drafted,” campaign organizer Clint Bailey said.

“That the opposition came out so strong led to a lot of speculation on what a charter might be, rather than voters having a chance to attend or follow the meetings to draft the charter over the next year and review it to make a decision before the next election.

“This issue wasn’t an emergency reaction to a bad situation, it was an opportunity. We saw it as a chance to keep the things that work while adjusting to a more nimble government to support, among other things, streamlined municipal projects and promote economic development in the city – essentially, getting away from obsolete processes where possible and doing more to attract and keep good jobs and good job candidates here.

“It’s a missed opportunity, but we’re not discouraged. Those involved in promoting the charter commission are an engaged group with a lot of love for the city. I have no doubt these individuals will keep supporting the community and the people here, leading businesses, working on development, and representing clients like we have for a lot of years. It’s just back to work.”

On July 23, city council voted 5-2 in favor of putting the question ‘Shall a commission be chosen to frame a charter’ on the ballot. A charter would have essentially served as the city’s constitution, stating the rules by which Mount Vernon’s city government would have operated.

The commission would have been tasked with researching other city charters, holding public meetings and considering community feedback over the next year while framing the charter. Upon the charter document’s completion, the commission would have campaigned for it to be passed on the November 2019 ballot.

Those who chose to run for charter commission could not be employed by the city and could not have held an elected position within city government. Commission candidates had to collect 50 signatures from people who are both Mount Vernon residents and registered voters and file their petition with the Board of Elections by September 4 to appear on the ballot. Filing a petition cost $45.

Over the past three months, the charter issue became increasingly divisive in Mount Vernon, as yard signs expressing support and disapproval for the idea lined the city’s streets. Community members packed Knox County Memorial Building on October 10 for an informational session on the issue, hosted by Kenyon College, during which municipal government experts discussed the pros and cons of having a charter government.

According to Citizens for Mount Vernon’s website, the last time residents voted on electing a charter commission was in 1963. The issue was approved by voters, and the 15 commission members crafted a charter that appeared on the 1964 ballot, but it was voted down. Citizens for Mount Vernon’s website states that the charter proposal likely failed because “the charter commission took on too much,” as it proposed installing a city manager and an additional seat on city council (for a total of eight seats).

The charter question also came up on the 1951 ballot, but the measure was not passed. Therefore, no commission was seated at that time.

Local leaders who supported the charter idea during this election cycle claimed it would increase local government flexibility. Mount Vernon currently operates under statutory rule, meaning that the way its local government operates is dictated by the state. By passing the charter issue, advocates said it would have given not only the 15 commission members, but also the public, an opportunity to determine how their city government is structured.

“Statutory government ties our hands in so many ways,” councilman Matt Starr said at the October 10 town hall. “Until you sit in the city’s seat, you don’t see just how many decisions you can’t make here without having to jump through a lot of hoops.”

Those who opposed the charter idea questioned the need to amend a statutory system that Mount Vernon has used since its inception. They cited the risk of such reform, as experts at the informational meeting said some charter governments fail due to financial failure, poor management and political upheaval.

Councilwoman Nancy Vail, who voted against putting the charter issue on the ballot originally, stated at the town hall that Mount Vernon is “one of the very best cities in which to reside and rear families,” and that voters should “not risk spoiling it by thinking the unknown might be better.”

Of Ohio’s 251 cities, 188 operate under charter rule.

Speaking on behalf of the Citizens for Responsive City Government campaign group, Swingle said Tuesday night that the group was pleased with the general election results, especially considering the fact that nearly twice as many residents voted ‘No’ than ‘Yes.’

“We’re really happy that we won, particularly by the margin we did,” said Swingle, who noted that the majority of his group’s campaign efforts focused on educating the public on the basics of the issue.

“We did it, we won, we’re happy about it. And I just hope we don’t have to fight it again next year.”

The result is unofficial until certified by the elections board. To see all local election results, click here.