09/07/2004 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 9/7/2004 Y Therefore, any advice that he has given to the city from January 1, 2002 and any advice that Mike Gazeau Sr. may have given or not given to any private property owners does not place either one of them in a conflict of interest situation. 12) On September 2, he provided advice to the Police Chief regazding the Mayor's request for information from the Police Dept. regarding the North Olmsted's Ethics Commission. One of the important things in the memo was that he provided advice on chain of command. He thinks it's important in all requests for information coming from the Mayor's office or from the Safety Director's office to the Police Dept. and members of the Police Dept., that the chain of command be followed and that all requests go through the Police Chief and that he retain the control and the authority to indicate which members of his department aze going to respond on a particulaz issue. He thinks it's very important for a good police departmem to operate well. 13) A bill was received from Walter & Haverfield regarding the city's defense in the public records action, and the bill has come in a little bit higher than what Council has appropriated for that particular issue. He will provide a memo or otherwise get information to Council on what the bill is and' work with the Finance Dept. on that issue. 14) The city Law Dept. did collect an additional $3,000 on the Suleiman claim. He commends Assistant Law Director O'Malley on his good collection work. The individual who damaged city property had only 57,500 of insurance to cover $12,000 of damage. However, Mr. O'Malley aggressively pursued the matter and managed to get an extra $3,000. Councilman Gateau made several inquiries of the Law Director. First, he asked whether the Law Director was at liberty to publicly discuss the nature of information the Mayor requested from the Police Chief which appears to relate to the public records case. The Law Director said it is a public record and nothing that is covered under attorney-client privilege. It was simply a request of any documents and verbal communications between Chief Ruple or Lt. Gallagher and anyone regarding the North Olmsted Ethics Commission investigation. Councilman Gazeau asked if this was deemed to be a request by the Mayor in his capacity as Mayor and not as an individual and did the Mayor indicate what legitimate purpose this could possibly have that would serve the government of North Olmsted as opposed to himself? Law Director Dubelko said it was requested in the capacity of Mayor, but he considers that discussion to beattorney-client privileged. Councilman Gazeau said perhaps he would reserve that question for the Mayor when he returns because it seems to him that, when one is engaged in litigation concerning public records and one then in turn in the capacity as mayor begins to ask questions and requires a commitment of time on the part of city employees, we have people who aze public servants who aze now spending a considerable amount of time doing the legwork for the Mayor, which on its face appears to be nothing more than an attempt to just assist him in his private litigation. He finds that to be offensive. He inquired as to the cost of defending the Mayor's claim, and Mr. Dubelko said the invoice received was azound $20,000, and $15,000 was appropriated. Mr. Dubelko said that the Police Chief did respond with a memo, and it does not appear that he put a lot of hours into the response. Regarding the grievance filed against the Law Director, Councilman Gazeau noted that is a matter which is generally confidential with the Ohio Supreme Court and an attorney is under no obligation to disclose that publicly. He commends Mr. ,... ,:. ._ .,,:. ~k F,~, ~,, . 3, - i,