43
Campbell law director defends legality of executive session, citing lawsuit threat
By SARAH Lehr
CAMPBELL
Campbell Law Director Brian Macala defended the legality of a closed-door executive session earlier this week, saying it involved discussion of an “imminent” lawsuit.
Before the regular public meeting Wednesday night, Council President George Levendis called an executive session to discuss “pending litigation,” which he said related to proposed amendments to the city’s charter.
Ohio Open Meetings Law allows for closed meetings to occur in certain circumstances, one of which is to discuss “pending or imminent court action.”
The Ohio Attorney General’s Sunshine Manual states, “Court action is ‘pending’ if a lawsuit has been commenced and is ‘imminent’ if it is on the brink of commencing. Courts have concluded that threatened litigation is imminent and may be discussed in executive session.”
Macala said Thursday, when further questioned by The Vindicator, that he determined court action was “imminent” because of an oral threat of a lawsuit made by Attorney Michael Maillis, chairman of the city’s Charter Review Commission. Macala said Maillis warned he might file a lawsuit if city council violated the law by not submitting the commission’s recommendations to the Mahoning County Board of Elections.
Dan Tierney, a spokesman for the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, said an oral remark could be sufficient to constitute an imminent threat of legal action.
Maillis, who also chairs the city’s Civil Service Commission, declined to comment on whether he had spoken with Macala regarding a potential lawsuit. Maillis added he is confident the commission will reach a resolution with city council.
Macala said Maillis discussed a lawsuit, after 2nd Ward Councilman Bryan Tedesco asked the law director for clarity as to whether Campbell Council is obligated to approve all recommendations from the Charter Review Commission during a regular Council meeting May 4.
Macala, a former charter commission member, said his interpretation of the charter is that council is obligated to submit any proposal from the commission, an independent body, to the Board of Elections. After being approved by the board, the amendments would go before Campbell voters in November.
“You are not saying you endorse [the amendments], approve of them or disapprove of them,” Macala said, according to the May 4 meeting minutes. “The commission does not have the authority to have something put on the ballot. Only council does.”
In 2012, Youngstown City Council voted down all but four of 17 amendments recommended by Youngstown’s Charter Review Commission for submission to be on the ballot.
Macala noted Youngstown’s charter is different from Campbell’s, so as to allow for more discretion on the part of Youngstown City Council.
Among the commission’s 15 amendments, one amendment would extend the mayor’s term of office from two years to four years and another would establish seven city council positions rather than five.
After meeting in executive session Wednesday, council voted unanimously for a second reading of a resolution to submit all 15 amendments to the Board of Elections. Council typically votes on final passage after three readings.
Fourth Ward Councilwoman Juanita Rich said she did not necessarily agree with the amendments, but that Macala explained during executive session that her role was simply to place the amendments before the electorate.
Levendis, council president, expressed confidence in the wisdom of voters.
“As we get closer, I’m going to make my feelings known and campaign for the amendments I agree with,” Levendis said. “Campbell people are very smart.”