43
Ohio, Struthers law do not seem to support mayor’s claim
By Sarah Lehr
STRUTHERS
Struthers Mayor Terry Stocker suggested during caucus that city council could not legally vote to override a salary ordinance during a meeting Wednesday.
Both Ohio law and Struthers city ordinances do not seem to support that claim.
Stocker warned council they risked violating Ohio open-meetings law, a subset of Ohio Sunshine law, if they took action on the override at the regular meeting that night. He urged them to “wait” for legal clarity before taking legislative action.
Councilwoman Carol Crytzer said it would be unfair not to override the mayor’s veto, saying it would leave the street supervisor and his family in limbo until council reconvened Sept. 14. Stocker had vetoed an ordinance setting 2016 salaries for department heads, including a $5,200 raise only for the street supervisor.
Stocker said he believed all department heads should get raises.
Stocker referenced a section of Ohio law, which states in part, “A resolution, rule, or formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an open meeting of the public body.”
Law Director Dominic Leone left caucus to investigate the mayor’s assertion so he could provide council with an opinion before the regular meeting started in less than an hour. Leone returned to report he disagreed with the mayor’s interpretation.
Leone said the section Stocker referenced stated votes conducted in executive session are invalid, but did not invalidate votes in regular session.
Executive sessions are closed to the public.
Council then convened in regular session Wednesday and voted 5-2 against Stocker’s veto, successfully overriding the mayor’s previous action.
The law director issued a news release Thursday, reaffirming the opinion he gave Wednesday and stating unequivocally that no Sunshine law violation took place at any stage of the salary ordinance’s 7-0 passage.
The release adds Leone will seek an additional opinion from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to “settle the issue more fully.”
The release continues, “The Mayor alluded to possibly taking ‘Executive Action’ on a violation of Ohio Sunshine law. There is no executive action in the Law that can be taken here. Mayors have their vetoes overridden all the time, all over the country. The Executive branch and the Legislative branch may not always agree, but we must respect the legislative process and their decision.”
During caucus, Stocker invoked the importance of transparency to the public and said council might be violating state law because nothing on the public agenda issued prior to the meeting explicitly referenced the veto override.
Councilman Michael Patrick made a motion for the veto override during the “unfinished business” portion of the meeting.
Council often uses “unfinished business,” a section listed on the agenda, for similar purposes and typically invokes “new business” for matters that have not been listed on the agenda or discussed at previous meetings.
Stocker acknowledged prior use of “unfinished business” for a variety of purposes, but said, “That doesn’t make it right.”
Dan Tierney, a spokesman for the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, told The Vindicator he could not pass legal judgment on a specific instance, but referred to a section of the Ohio Sunshine manual, stating, “A public body must establish, by rule, a reasonable method that allows the public to determine the time and place of regular meetings.”