In the small city of Fostoria, a troubling conflict of interest has surfaced, threatening the very foundations of transparency, accountability, and democracy. At the heart of this issue is Zach Stumpf, the owner of Scanner Media, a popular local news organization with a significant online following—30,000 Facebook followers and 11,000 YouTube subscribers. This influence has granted him a unique position within the city, one that raises serious questions about the integrity of local governance.

The Dual Role of Zach Stumpf / Scanner Media

Zach Stumpf, through Scanner Media, has become a prominent figure in Fostoria. His platform’s reach and engagement have positioned him as a key source of local news. However, his involvement extends beyond that of a typical media owner. Stumpf has been performing duties that are traditionally handled by a city public relations officer. This arrangement lacks official documentation, leaving his responsibilities and the extent of his authority ambiguous and unregulated.

The absence of clear, written duties for Stumpf is particularly concerning. Without official guidelines, there’s a lack of transparency about what exactly Stumpf is authorized to do on behalf of the city. This opens the door to potential misuse of power and creates a fertile ground for conflicts of interest.

A Conflict of Interest

Stumpf’s dual role as a volunteer performing city duties and as a media owner is inherently problematic. His access to the City YouTube account and his profit from Scanner Media’s YouTube channel blur the lines between his public service and private business interests. The benefits his public duties confer on the online image of Scanner Media are evident, giving him a competitive edge that other media entities do not have. For example, he receives preferential camera angles during city meetings, a privilege not extended to other reporters.

Moreover, Stumpf’s selective coverage during the last mayoral election, where he chose not to interview mayoral candidate Shaffer, further highlights the conflict. If Stumpf was acting in any official capacity for the city during this period, it raises potential civil rights violations, given his partial coverage could influence public perception and electoral outcomes.

The City’s Non-Response

In an effort to address these concerns, an inquiry was sent to the city of Fostoria. The inquiry detailed the conflict of interest and requested clarification on Stumpf’s duties, responsibilities, and the risks posed by this arrangement. Specifically, the inquiry sought to determine the date Stumpf began conducting duties for the city and whether the city had considered the potential risks of maintaining this relationship.

The city’s response was disappointingly non-committal: “Thank you for sharing your concerns. The City administration and Council will continue to act in the best interests of the citizens of Fostoria in an ethical and legal manner.” This vague reply does little to address the legitimate concerns raised and fails to provide the necessary transparency.

The Threat to Transparency and Accountability

The lack of clear boundaries and official documentation regarding Stumpf’s role undermines transparency and accountability. Citizens have a right to know who is performing public duties and the extent of their authority. This is fundamental to ensuring that public servants act in the best interest of the community without personal or financial biases.

Without written duties and responsibilities, there is no transparency in the relationship between the city and Scanner Media. There are no official guidelines delineating the boundaries of Stumpf’s duties, making it impossible to hold him or the city accountable for any overreach or misconduct.

A Call for Action

To protect the principles of transparency, accountability, and democracy in Fostoria, it is imperative that the city takes immediate action. At a minimum, a document should be created to clarify in detail Stumpf’s duties, responsibilities, and administrative access privileges for city online accounts. This document should be publicly accessible to ensure full transparency.

Before taking legal action, there is an opportunity for the city to thoroughly examine all risks and declare all conflicts of interest in written form. Failure to address these issues will only further erode public trust and undermine the democratic processes that are vital to a healthy community.

Conclusion

The case of Zach Stumpf and Scanner Media in Fostoria is a stark reminder of the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between public duties and private interests. The city’s current arrangement with Stumpf poses a significant conflict of interest that threatens the integrity of local governance. It is crucial for the city to act decisively to restore transparency, accountability, and trust in its administration.