2005-022 Ordinance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 — Veto Ord. 2005 -22 substantive reason for qWy automatically referring to the Ohio Ethics Commission the Law Director in the event there is a charge of a conflict of interest and/or unethical conduct. Given the fact that the City Charter makes clear that the Mayor is the chief executive and is the ultimate supervisor of all the divisions and departments of the City (which would include the commission), there exists an irreconcilable conflict that would preclude the commission from investigating its superior /chief executive. Any politics in the process and the type of circus environment that resulted over the past few years would thereby be greatly minimized by directing that any charges against any elected officials should be automatically referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission for proceedings and determinations of any violations. As a maximum, I profoundly urge that the present North Ohnsted Ethics Commission be eliminated in "total" and all ethic questions referred directly to the Ohio Ethics Commission. If a charge of unethical conduct and/or conflict of interest has been made and properly placed before the commission, the Ohio Ethics Commission is well equipped to handle the matter and has sufficient safe guards to protect the accused and accuser from adverse actions and local implications — something that the North Olmsted Ethics Commission did not, does not, and cannot have, given the current ordinance and the City's Charter requiring open meetings. The Ohio Ethics Commission is well equipped to handle any charges and protect all individuals involved, something the North Ohnsted Ethics Commission does not have the legal and/or the apparent practical ability to do. It is to be noted that in the most recent action of the North Ohnsted Ethics Commission, it appears that a determination was made that it is not an investigatory body (contrary to the 1981 ordinance creating the commission), and that apparently the Ethics Commission made its decision based upon only unworn statements/other limited evidence from the Police Department given to the Ethics Commission. So much for due process. Further, despite the intent of the 1981 ordinance to protect against injuring the reputation of "any person so charged ", permitting an opinion and determination of the commission to be published contravenes the entire purpose and intent of the commission. As I have repeatedly attempted to make clear, including in the current mandamus action on appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, is the problem associated with the commission and the interaction with the open meetings laws and public records law. All proceedings of the North Olmsted Ethics Commission, excepting any properly invoked and conducted executive session, are required to be open and public under our Charter and under O.C. Sec. 121.22. Therefore, it is clear that the provision of 107.14 (b)(2) — "All meetings, except the organizational meeting, shall be private and closed to the public" is in conflict with our Charter and O.R. Sec. 121.22. Lastly, has our Ethics Commission ever formally convened, motioned and established by minutes an executive session during its meetings prior to 12/31/04? 2