2005-022 Ordinance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M March 24, 2005 Memo To: Record From: Mayor Musial Re: Veto of Ord. 2005 -22 re Change in the Composition of the City Ethics Commission I hereby apply my veto to Ordinance No. 2005 -22. It is quite evident that the North Olmsted Ethics Commission needs to be substantially revised if it is to remain a separate commission/division of the City, and it is my understanding that the Ethics Commission wants to take the lead. While I applaud the law Director and the Commission in recognizing that the current provisions of sec. 107 of the City Ordinance places the Law Director in conflict of interest by making the Law Director a voting member of the Ethics Commission as well as being the legal advisor to the Commission, the Commission and its proceedings have more fundamental flaws that simply cannot be ignored nor should be permitted to continue. The Law Director's conflict was first pointed out, not by the Law Director himself but by outside legal counsel, during proceedings of an Ethics Commission review of a complaint. While the Law Director voluntarily stepped down from his role as a voting member of the Ethics Commission, which was organizes for the first time in my memory, that voluntary act did not cure the infirmaries with the Commission and the manner in which the Commission conducts its proceedings. Give n the significant and potentially devastating effect that proceedings before the North Olmsted Ethics Commission could have on an individual, ones family and ones employment (regardless of whether the Ethics Commission ultimately determines that no probable cause exists) and the potential abuse without any checks and balances on proceedings, including providing an accused individual with due process, the current system if permitted to Continue must be completely revamped. With regards to proposed Ordinance 2005 -22, the revision consists of the subject Ordinance modifying the North Olmsted Code of Ethics to 1) removal of the Law Director as a voting member and substituting the Personnel Director in his place, 2) retaining the Law Director as the legal advisor of the Ethics Commission, and 3) directing that any charge of a conflict of interest and/or unethical conduct against the Law Director shall automatically referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission for an opinion, etc. It does nothing to carry out the apparent original intent to be a "check and balance" system. As a minimum, I strongly urge that Council take, at the very least, another step, the action of revising Ordinance No. 2005 -22 by deleting — or the Law Director (proposed 107.14(s) — and substituting therefor — any elected official. In my opinion, there is no