Written by The Marion City Council’s Finance Committee voted unanimously (3-0) on Monday to advance a “cleanup” ordinance openly accusing the Auditor’s office of “misfeasance, malfeasance, and or nonfeasance” for paying a $58,000 bill without council approval.
The strongly-worded legislation now moves to the full City Council, escalating a months-long conflict over unapproved spending and other violations. This dispute is the latest in a series of financial failures that have already cost the City of Marion nearly $600,000 in penalties and fees alone. The explosive controversy was the main event of back-to-back committee meetings held on October 20, 2025.
This action comes as new, unconfirmed reports circulate regarding further “information systems” control issues said to be directly tied to more recent events, the term “quite similar” was used on several occassions. Multiple oficials have advised Marion Watch that they are not allowed to comment on the matter at this time but advised they would be happy to once permitted.
The $58,000 ESID Dispute
The finance committee took up a revised ordinance to fix a fund for the ESID (Economic Special Improvement District) that had a negative $58,000 balance.
Councilman Ratliff, who proposed the new version, said it was a “cleanup ordinance” to deal with money that was “spent that was not appropriated.” He argued that the Auditor’s office “knowingly made a payment” it was not allowed to make, calling it an “act of bad faith to spend $58,000 of taxpayer dollars with no appropriation.”
The major conflict came from the new wording. Mr. Ratliff’s version of the ordinance includes the legal terms “misfeasance, malfeasance, and or nonfeasance.” These terms mean wrongdoing, misconduct, or failing to perform a required duty.
This language was immediately questioned by Councilman Jason Schaber. “That’s a pretty high bar,” Mr. Schaber said, warning that the council was creating a permanent “legal document” that accuses an official of wrongdoing.
Mr. Ratliff defended the language, stating, “It’s not an accusation. Exactly. I mean that it’s exactly what he said that he did.”
The City Law Director, who was asked if he approved the ordinance, said he approved its form but not necessarily its content. He clarified that the language is the “opinion of the council” and not a formal legal finding to remove an official, which would have to be done in a probate court.
The committee members—Ms. Laing, Mr. Rollins, and Mr. Ratliff—voted 3-0 to approve the amended ordinance and send it to the full council.
Context: A Pattern of Financial Issues
This $58,000 dispute is not the first time the City Auditor’s office has been in the spotlight for financial problems. According to Marion Watch research, the city has a long history of financial mismanagement:
- Current Auditor: The current auditor, Miranda Meginniss, has faced accusations of “misappropriation of funds” and “coding an expense in a way that would hide the payment of an IRS penalty.” This is part of what led to an 8-1 “Vote of No Confidence” from the City Council in January 2024.
- Prior Auditor: The previous auditor, Robert Landon III, had a $154,399 Finding for Recovery issued against him after his office mistakenly sent $1.28 million in federal payroll taxes to the State of Ohio instead of the IRS for seven months. This error was missed because the “bank reconciliation module” of the city’s software was reportedly broken.
- Auditor Before That: The auditor before Mr. Landon, Kelly Carr, had a $22,500 Finding for Recovery issued against her for penalties from late IRS filings in 2019.
This long-running pattern of financial errors and penalties helps explain why the council is now using such strong language as “misfeasance” to describe the latest unapproved payment.
Other Committee Business
Finance Committee:
Before the ESID debate, the committee received a confidential update on the 2021 state audit. The committee also quickly approved:
- An ordinance to finalize the sale of a surplus Parks Department vehicle.
- An application for a TAP grant to fund the Barks Road path project, which was described as having “zero out of pocket” cost to the city.
- An ordinance to accept reimbursement funds for the new downtown arch being built by Tri-River students.
- The committee ended by going into a private executive session to discuss “imminent and threatened litigation” related to the Barks Road TIFF fund.
Codes and Regulation Committee:
The night began with the Codes and Regulation committee, which:
- Approved a new C2 liquor permit for Busybe Operations at 301 S. Main Street. A member of the public, Dan Clark, clarified that a C2 permit is for carry-out wine and mixed beverages.
- Approved a liquor permit transfer for 810 David Street. Both items passed after the police and law director stated they had “no reason to object.”
Discussed the city’s Flock license plate cameras. Councilors raised concerns about a lawsuit in Virginia over how long police can legally store camera data. The Police defended the cameras, stating they are grant-funded, not used for traffic tickets, and have been vital in solving major crimes, including finding a missing child and investigating a shooting.