Episode Twenty — Council Wrap-Up (5/21/26)

Episode Twenty is the wrap-up from the Wilmington City Council meeting of May 21, 2026. This episode opens with a disclosure: Matt served ten years on council, knows people involved, and is not neutral about Wilmington. This was not a usual meeting and this episode does not follow the usual format.

The meeting itself covered a new law director introduction, a state-mandated housing council creation, a $380,000 emergency supplemental appropriations package, a public comment on Ohio's new nondisclosure mandate that received no response from council, and routine legislative business. Combined workshop and regular meeting ran just over an hour.

At the end of the meeting, following an executive session added to the agenda by motion that same night, council voted 4-3 to remove Annen Vance as Clerk of Council. No public explanation was given. The city's video recording did not capture the return to open session.

The episode covers the full sequence of public record events, the process questions those events raise, and what the executive session education section of the show has been building toward all season. It closes with an update on the federal litigation surrounding the data center project, including a court order restricting Planning Commission action on data center site plans and Amazon's motion to intervene.Episode Twenty is the wrap-up from the Wilmington City Council meeting of May 21, 2026. This episode opens with a disclosure: Matt served ten years on council, knows people involved, and is not neutral about Wilmington. This was not a usual meeting and this episode does not follow the usual format.

The meeting itself covered a new law director introduction, a state-mandated housing council creation, a $380,000 emergency supplemental appropriations package, a public comment on Ohio's new nondisclosure mandate that received no response from council, and routine legislative business. Combined workshop and regular meeting ran just over an hour.

At the end of the meeting, following an executive session added to the agenda by motion that same night, council voted 4-3 to remove Annen Vance as Clerk of Council. No public explanation was given. The city's video recording did not capture the return to open session.

The episode covers the full sequence of public record events, the process questions those events raise, and what the executive session education section of the show has been building toward all season. It closes with an update on the federal litigation surrounding the data center project, including a court order restricting Planning Commission action on data center site plans and Amazon's motion to intervene.

Transcript

Opening and disclosure

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Hey everyone, it's Matt. This episode doesn't follow my usual format. This wasn't a usual meeting. Before I get into this, I want to acknowledge something up front. I served on council for ten years. I know people involved. I have opinions about executive session and how local government should work. I also know I'm not neutral about Wilmington. I care what happens here. I care as a taxpayer. I care as somebody raising a family here. And I care as somebody who sat in those meetings for a decade and knows how difficult local government actually is. So I want to separate what happened publicly, what I think, and what I can actually support.

Workshop recap

SPEAKER_00 0:48

The may twenty first meeting was two meetings, per usual. A public workshop at six, followed by a regular council meeting at seven. Combined, they ran just over an hour. For the volume of business on the table, that is a short night. The workshop opened with a swearing in of Clayton J. Storer as a new Wilmington police officer. A nice moment. He's 21 years old, born in Clinton Memorial, grew up in Highland County, a local. Welcome to the apartment, CJ. From there, the workshop moved into the law director introduction. Desmond Cullimore. Construction attorney, engineering background, municipal zoning experience, an 18 month contract through the end of 2027, starting June 1st. That's important because the next law director term coincides with that. Osborne noted that it had been a long search. Council had one question, confirming the duration. That was the extent of the discussion. Josh Roth from the Clinton County Port Authority presented on the creation of a state mandated housing council to oversee the city's two community reinvestment areas, CRAs. We talk about them a lot. The older CRA dates to 2015 and covers residential properties within Wilmington's boundary at the time. The newer one, the Southwest Connector CRA, was established last September. It covers the parcel currently owned by Amazon Data Services. Roth noted that the annual report to the state of Ohio, required by law, has not been filed since the original CRA was established in twenty fifteen. Eleven years. The Housing Council consists of seven members, two appointed by the mayor, two by council, one by planning commission, and then all five pick two more. Council's discussion consisted of three questions residency requirements, what kind of expertise is needed, and whether there's overlap with Planning Commission. Then they moved on. The supplemental appropriations package came next. What started as a ninety three thousand eight hundred dollars emergency ordinance tied to an ODOT crossing project grew significantly before Thursday's meeting. The final package totaled just under $380,000 across eight line items. The ODOC crossing items were still in there. So were $100,000 for income tax refunds, $100,000 for consultant services, $25,000 from the hotel lodging tax fund, and $61,100 across two waste fund items. On the consultant services line, Osborne addressed it directly. His words, this is mainly legal fees used by various departments. And so that line item is down to a couple thousand dollars. And so to replenish it based on the litigious society that we exist in, we went ahead and went for that amount at this point. And hopefully we won't spend it. Mayor Haley added, We've just had a lot of lawsuits, and when we have lawsuits, we have to have attorneys representing the city of Wilmington, in addition to the law director's department. The supplementals passed unanimously on three readings as an emergency. No further discussion.

Regular meeting recap

SPEAKER_00 4:04

The regular meeting opened with a public hearing on the zoning text amendment, the one requiring zoning permit approval before building permit applications can be accepted. There were no public speakers. Service Director Crow gave a brief overview, noting that Warren County, which handles the city's building inspections, recommended the change. The exchange between Crow and the council members touched on what happens when someone assumes a use is permitted and isn't. Nobody asked what happens when zoning approval is actively in dispute. The hearing closed. The amendment got its first reading. Second reading is scheduled for June 4th. Public comment brought one speaker, John Brunke addressed Council on Ohio Revised Code 9.66 section D, a state imposed nondisclosure mandate that became law on March 20th of this year. This is not a nondisclosure agreement that a city chooses to sign. It's a state mandate where economic development assistance is requested, a broad range of information must be treated as confidential. Residents can be denied access to that information even when a project could affect their property, taxes, utilities, traffic, schools, or general quality of life. Brunky asked council to adopt a public procedure for situations involving this statute so residents at least know when the city is operating under a state mandated confidentiality restriction. He warned that legal challenges were likely coming. Council did not respond during the meeting. At the last meeting, Treasurer Paul Fear gave a budget one hundred one presentation that included a husband and wife analogy. He gets the money, the auditor spends it. Auditor Mary Kay Vance was not at that meeting. She was watching while out of town. Thursday night she had a response. Her words We're breaking up, Paul. The room left. Some jokes write themselves. Safety Director Evelyn reported on the bomb threat that happened at Clinton Memorial Hospital, believed to be a swatting incident, with PD and FBI working on it. He raised the EMS protocol question. If the hospital locks down, where does the life squad take patients? The city is working on that. Kettering Health is also opening an emergency room in July of this year in the city, which adds another variable to that equation. The police department has secured a 75% grant for new body armor. The fire and police organizational plans are coming together and should be ready by next meeting. From there, the meeting moved through its business quickly. The CHIP grant partnership passed unanimously. Supplementals passed unanimously on three emergency readings. The RTA grant and health insurance contract got their first readings. The law director contract passed unanimously on three emergency readings. Osborne caught a typo in the draft that had the word mayor where it should have said city in the description of who the law director serves. Worth noting that distinction. It was corrected. No committee reports from any committee.

And then, item 13

SPEAKER_00 7:11

And then item 13. At the beginning of the meeting, before any business was conducted, Councilmember Jeff Early moved to add an executive session to the agenda. The stated purpose was to consider the dismissal or discipline of a public employee under Ohio Revised Code 121.22 G1. Councilmember Tolliver seconded the motion. The agenda was amended unanimously, and the meeting proceeded. That's worth pausing on. The executive session was not noticed in advance, it was added by motion at the start of the meeting. At the end of the meeting, after all other business was complete, Osbourne invited Early to make the motion. Early moved council into executive session. Tolliver seconded. The vote to enter executive session was seven to zero. Every member of council voted yes, including the three who would later vote no on what came next. Then, Osborne asked Early to help select who needed to stay. Early named three people The Mayor, Service Director Crow, Safety Director Eveland. That is all in the transcript. Those are the words. Three members of the administration, no council employees. Osborne asked if there was a finance component, Early said no. The video ends there. What the city's public meeting recording captured after that point is nothing. The camera did not come back on. What we know from the Wilmington News Journal is this. Council voted four to three to remove Annon Vance as clerk of council. German, Wells, Tolliver, and Early voted in favor. Knowles, Schleibau, and Snarr voted against. No public explanation was given. Councilmember Early confirmed to the News Journal that Vance was released from her role. Council President Osborne confirmed the action was effective immediately. Osborne also told the news journal, I'd like to thank Annan for all the help in the transition for a new council president, all the organization and the time spent. The clerk of council serves council. The council president is the presiding officer. Make of that what you will. She was appointed clerk in October 2023, reappointed in 2024, reappointed again in 2026 to a two year term. She remains employed by the city as service coordinator. The meeting was short, as was the workshop. A lot surely happened in about an hour or video. What I'm noticing are a few trends growing together at the same time. I've mentioned this before, and it continues. Council is having less and less discussion on any topic. Thursday night council authorized the mayor to hire a law firm to perform law director duties. There were virtually no substantive questions about it, save for a typo correction and a comment hoping that legal fees go down moving forward. That's it. No clarity on what it means to the city, no question about what it means to have a contracted law firm rather than a dedicated law director. I can think of a lot of questions that weren't asked that people, including council members, should know the answer to. The Economic Development Director shared that the city needs to create a housing council to be compliant with state CRA regulations. A question about residency, who is fit to serve, and whether there was any overlap with Planning Commission. That was it. No questions about when, how, or where to get started. No questions about that 11 year compliance gap on annual reporting. No other questions. And that was just from the workshop.

The trend is striking

SPEAKER_00 10:59

The trend is striking. Over my 10 years on council, I got used to a certain level of public discussion. Not always productive, not always efficient, but public. What I'm watching now is something different. That could mean preparation, efficiency, trust in the administration, or something else entirely. But when major decisions consistently receive limited public discussion, I think it's fair to ask where the real understanding is being

Executive session sequence

SPEAKER_00 11:27

built. Which brings me to executive session. One council member, one of the newest members of the body, moved to add an executive session, named who needed to stay, and emerged with a 4-3 vote to remove a clerk who had been reappointed just months earlier. The people named to remain were the mayor, the service director, and the safety director. The deputy law director, who was serving as the city's in-house legal counsel at the moment, was not named. No public explanation was given. No statement from the chair. So I'll ask the question plainly. The clerk of council works for council, not the administration. Why was the administration in that room? And if understanding around a significant personnel matter was formed somewhere other than a public meeting, where did that happen? And if the answer touches on where understanding is built around personnel, does it also touch on where understanding is built around everything else? The law director contract, the supplemental appropriations, the housing council, the zoning amendment? I don't know the answers. But I noticed that when Early moved to amend the agenda, some members of council were watching him intently. Others were already looking down at their desk. I can't assign motive to body language. The news journal's reporting later gave additional context to what I thought I was seeing.

Process and executive session

SPEAKER_00 12:59

On may seventh, Council entered an executive session under the Economic Development Exemption. Ohio law generally starts from the position that public business should happen in public. Executive session is a narrow exception to that rule, a carve out, if you will. It allows certain discussions to happen privately. It doesn't create a whole separate category of government, and it doesn't automatically make things discussed legally secret forever. One response I received repeatedly when reaching out to council members was some version of I can't talk about it. And honestly, I understand that. Personnel matters can be sensitive, attorney client communications can be privileged, confidential business information can be protected. Nobody should be casually repeating private conversations. But those are not the same as saying the executive session itself creates a blanket legal gag order. Executive session generally allows certain discussions to happen privately. It does not automatically prevent elected officials from explaining process, describing which exemption was used, helping the public understand how decisions are made, or explaining what can and cannot be shared. I'm not asking anybody to reveal personnel details or repeat private conversations. I'm asking something narrower than that. I think it's fair to ask public officials to explain process. Because there's a difference between saying I'm choosing not to discuss this and saying the law prevents me from discussing anything. Those are two different statements that bring me to the actual question. I wasn't in the room on May 7th. I'm not making a legal conclusion or accusing anyone of violating Open Meetings Act. But I do think it's fair to ask where the line is. At what point does discussion stay inside the exemption being used? At what point does the conversation become something else? That's a process question, not an accusation. Then, on May 21st, Council held another executive session, and later voted four to three to remove the clerk. No public explanation was given. Separately, the return to open session was not captured on the city's usual video recording. I'm not suggesting that proves motive or intent. I don't know whether it was technical, procedural, or something else. But when process questions are followed by major personnel decisions and limited public visibility, people naturally ask more questions, not fewer. And I want to say one thing because I think people deserve to know where I'm coming

I am loyal to Annen

SPEAKER_00 15:41

from. I'm loyal to Annan. I think she is exceptionally smart. I think she has done a tremendous amount of work for this city. I think people inside government who know procedure and are willing to raise concerns are valuable. Even when that makes meetings harder or decisions slower. That doesn't mean she was always right. It doesn't mean counsel was wrong. But I do think local government works best when people inside the system feel safe saying, I think we should slow down and look at that again. Whether you agree with those concerns or not, healthy institutions need people willing to ask uncomfortable questions. And my concern here isn't that one person lost a position. My concern is that the institutional knowledge is hard to replace. Good process is hard to replace. Trust is hard to replace. If this turns out to be nothing more than disagreement over management style, I'll say that. If records change my understanding, I'll say that too. I've submitted public records requests, not because I think executive sessions should be public, and not because I want private personnel discussions exposed. I'm trying to understand process. Local government usually leaves a paper trail. Minutes, messages, documents, timelines. Over time those things tend to tell the story. My goal here isn't to tell you what to think, it's to help ask better questions and apply the same standards no matter who is sitting in the seats. I care about this community. I've said that. I mean it. And I believe Wilmington can do better than this. Right now, I worry we may be making choices that make it harder rather than easier. I hope I'm wrong.

Closing

SPEAKER_00 17:31

One more thing before I go. Outside of Thursday's meeting, there have been significant developments in the federal litigation surrounding the data center project. A minute entry filed may eighteenth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case Sharp et al. v. City of Wilmington, confirms that the parties agreed and the court ordered that the Wilmington Planning Commission shall not meet to consider or approve any site plan for proposed data center until further order of the court. That language covers informational presentations as well as formal votes. The preliminary injunction hearing has been set for June 16th. Amazon Data Services has also filed a motion to intervene in the case, represented by firms out of Cincinnati and Washington, D.C. The court will rule on that motion. June 16th is shaping up to be a significant date. I'll have more as the record develops. Thanks for listening to Wilmington Weekly.