Is Council Listening? Citizens Demand Answers on Leaked Audio, Finances in Heated Confrontation
Marion Council Faces Public Outcry: Leaked Audio, Financial Warnings, and Calls for Accountability Dominate Session
MARION, OH – April 29, 2025 – Marion City Council endured a barrage of criticism from frustrated citizens during a tense and lengthy meeting Monday night, April 28th. Representatives from Marion Watch Investigates and allies attended the session, witnessing firsthand the deep concerns voiced by residents in an atmosphere heavy with palpable tension. Some council members appeared visibly tense as citizens challenged their conduct and decisions.
The “We the People” portion of the meeting, which began around the 2 hour and 27 minute mark as observed by Marion Watch, saw speaker after speaker approach the podium. The focus was primarily on issues of transparency, accountability, council conduct, alleged administrative failures, and financial management. The meeting also included significant discussion regarding addiction treatment resources in the city.
Leaked Audio Sparks Accusations, Legal Threats
A controversial leaked audio file served as a major flashpoint. Citizen Naomi Craig delivered harsh words, accusing council members of defamation related to the recording and of improperly silencing elected officials – an act she argued affects thousands, not just one individual. Ms. Craig noted she was gaveled down again last night, as she had been the previous week, when attempting to address the audio issue, and reminded council members, particularly Council President Mary Stoneberger who dismissed it as hearsay, that the conversation was recorded.
Significantly, during the exchange, Ms. Craig was accused of potentially violating Ohio Revised Code section 2921.03. This specific statute addresses Intimidation, a serious charge.
Understanding this law is key to grasping the gravity of the accusation. ORC 2921.03 prohibits any person from knowingly attempting to influence, intimidate, or hinder public servants (like elected officials or city employees acting in their official capacity), political party officials, or witnesses/victims involved in criminal cases. This interference must be attempted through specific unlawful means: the use of force; an unlawful threat of harm to any person or property (meaning a threat to commit a crime or tort, distinct from harsh criticism or threats of lawful action); or filing, recording, or using a materially false or fraudulent writing with malicious purpose, bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner (e.g., filing fake liens or complaints). The law requires the accused to have acted “knowingly,” aware their actions were intended or practically certain to improperly influence or hinder. A conviction for Intimidation is a felony of the third degree, carrying potential prison time (typically 9-36 months under current guidelines), significant fines up to $10,000, and the lasting consequences of a felony record. Furthermore, the statute allows victims harmed by the intimidation to pursue a separate civil lawsuit against the perpetrator for damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs. This accusation was quoted as being “defamation” by Ms. Craig.
Ms. Craig also informed the council that the State Auditor’s office had advised her to sue the city, adding another layer to the legal complexities surrounding the council. She further echoed financial concerns that would be amplified by others throughout the evening.
Accountability Demanded: Recordkeeping Failures and Sunshine Laws Invoked
Telly Haynes, representing the Moms And Dads Network, also condemned the council regarding the audio recording, reminding them forcefully that “elected officials work for We the People.” Haynes highlighted systemic issues, including concerns about potentially frivolous Child Protective Services cases her agency assists with, dating back over a decade.
She shared a compelling personal story of being victimized by poor city recordkeeping, where her information was allegedly mixed with another person’s, leading to devastating personal losses including her home and job. Haynes emphasized that this type of administrative error is a known and serious issue within the community.
Underscoring the need for openness, Haynes explicitly invoked Ohio’s “Sunshine Laws,” demanding transparency from the council. Understanding these laws is crucial to appreciating the calls for transparency, accountability, and truth heard throughout the meeting. Ohio’s Sunshine Laws primarily encompass two vital statutes:
- The Public Records Act (ORC 149.43): This law is founded on the principle that government records are “the people’s records.” It grants transparency by giving any person the right to inspect public records promptly during business hours and to receive copies within a reasonable timeframe, generally without needing to provide ID or state a purpose. This ensures citizens can see the factual basis for government actions. “Public records” are defined broadly to include documents, emails, electronic files, etc., created or kept by a public office that document its activities. While requests can be verbal, written requests are advisable. Public offices must provide copies at the actual cost of duplication/delivery (not usually staff time) and must provide a specific legal reason (citing a statutory exemption) if access is denied or information is redacted (blacked out). Common exemptions protect information like medical records, certain law enforcement details, and attorney-client privilege. Electronic records, including emails about public business on personal devices, are generally covered. If access is improperly denied, citizens can file a court action (mandamus) or seek mediation, potentially recovering attorney fees and statutory damages. This right of access is fundamental for holding officials accountable.
- The Open Meetings Act (ORC 121.22): This law mandates that public bodies (like city council and its committees) conduct their deliberations and take official action in meetings open to the public. This ensures accountability and truth by allowing citizens to witness the decision-making process. A “meeting” includes any prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of the body’s members (including work sessions or retreats). Proper notice of meeting times, places, and (for special meetings) purposes is required. While the public has the right to attend and observe, the right to speak is typically governed by the body’s rules. The Act allows public bodies to hold private “executive sessions” only for a limited list of specific reasons (like discussing certain personnel matters, pending litigation with legal counsel, property acquisition/sale details, bargaining sessions, security arrangements, or legally confidential matters). A formal motion stating the specific valid purpose and a majority roll-call vote in an open session are required to enter executive session. No voting or official action can occur in executive session. Violations can lead to lawsuits to enforce openness, invalidate actions taken improperly, and potentially recover attorney fees or impose fines on officials.
Haynes connected the principles of openness inherent in these laws to the community spirit highlighted by Marion’s recent “Strongest Towns” national win, arguing that accountability, transparency, and truth are essential for continued progress. She vowed to hold officials accountable and urged more citizens to attend meetings.
Mr. Higley echoed the call for transparency and invoked the “Strongest Towns” contest as a positive example of unity that needs continuation.
Financial Alarms Sounded
Councilman Ayres Ratliff (Ward 2) delivered pointed remarks regarding the city’s finances. He reminded the council of his previous warnings about decisions that would prove financially devastating – warnings he asserted have now come to pass. Ratliff criticized past attempts to exclude elected officials from meetings (noting one such vote failed by only one vote) and expressed deep concern about the lack of clarity regarding the city’s true financial state. He specifically cited an instance where $2 million was dispersed without council being notified. Ratliff suggested the Treasury Investment Board should meet concurrently with council for better oversight. Financial issues are amongst Marion City’s top community concerns.
Addiction Treatment: Unity on Need, Debate on Approach
Discussion also arose regarding addiction treatment resources, likely tied to a public hearing for Ordinance 2025-036, which amends zoning code to include opioid treatment facilities in Office-Institutional districts. While speakers seemed united on the profound need for robust treatment options – a necessity underscored by Marion’s hard-hit history in the opioid crisis – concerns were voiced.
Councilman Mike Neff (At Large) relayed concerns from his ward’s residents about locating such facilities in residential areas, while also noting the presence of other doctor’s offices and businesses. This prompted responses, including from Councilman Ratliff, arguing that stigma is the primary differentiator between medical offices and treatment centers. Many in attendance appeared to agree with this sentiment. Ratliff stressed that Marion needs more, not fewer, paths to recovery.
Calls for Change Persist
The lengthy meeting (about 3 hours) underscored a significant level of public distrust and frustration directed at the current council. The overarching theme, echoed by citizens and council members like Ratliff and Jason Schaber (Ward 3), was a demand for increased transparency, functional administration, and genuine accountability from the city’s elected leadership. Marion Watch will continue to follow up on the serious allegations and concerns raised during this meeting.
Path Forward Demands Truth and Transparency
The April 28th council meeting served as a stark reminder that for many Marion residents, effective governance and community trust must be rebuilt upon the bedrock principles of truth, transparency, and accountability. While the recent “Strongest Towns” recognition showcased the city’s potential for positive unity and collaborative success, the evening’s testimony revealed a deep-seated demand for these same principles to be rigorously and consistently applied within City Hall itself. Moving forward, the public’s expectation, voiced clearly and passionately, is for leadership that operates openly, answers directly for its actions and financial stewardship, and prioritizes factual reality over obfuscation or deflection. Marion Watch Investigates remains committed to reporting on whether these expectations are met.
Ultimately, ensuring council adheres to these principles may require sustained public engagement. Marion Watch encourages residents to attend future meetings – because if we, the people, do not speak up now, our grounds to complain about what happens next are diminished.
Responses