Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/231043259/Walter-Haverfield-Letter-06-13-14-From-Joseph-Szeman
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 16:11:30
Document Index: 251235022

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§135', '§9', '§121', '§135', '§3', '§5705']

Walter Haverfield Letter 06 13 14 From Joseph Szeman | Mayor | Local Ordinance
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinwww.hsklawyers.com 10 West Erie Street, Suite 106│Painesville, Ohio 44077│t 440.210.5005│f 440.210.5008 writer’s e-mail: szeman@hsklawyers.com June 13, 2014 Sara J. Fagnilli, Esq. Walter Haverfield LLP 1301 E. 9
Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1821 Re: City of Richmond Heights Dear Ms. Fagnilli: I am writing to you as I am Mayor Headen’s appointed Director of Law. As I write this, Council has not yet acted to disapprove that appointment. For reference, the Mayor’s appointment was made pursuant to her power of appointment contained in Article VI, §2(a) of the Charter: “The Director of Law shall be appointed by the Mayor subject to approval of a majority of the members of Council.” While I wait on Council’s decision, I am nonetheless a mayoral appointment and am acting under that inherent authority with a limited purpose and intent because it appears the Council will not approve any mayoral appointment, including me, unless you approve the confirmation ordinance. Since my appointment apparently is contingent on you acting in a favorable manner related thereto, I thought I would write and let you know that I do not agree with this analysis; it is unlawful, and a legal action against Council is imminent. I understand that you drafted Ord. No. 39-2014. It raises serious legal issues, specifically, that it is unlawful and void. Article VI, §2(b) of the Charter establishes the duties of the Director of Law: Duties. The Director of Law shall serve the Mayor, the various administrative departments, boards, and officers of the Municipality in all proceedings in court or before any administrative body. He, or such assistants as Council may provide, may act as prosecuting attorney before the Mayor’s or other courts or upon appeals from the decision of the Mayor. He shall perform all other duties now or hereafter imposed by law upon directors of law of municipalities unless otherwise provided by ordinance of www.hsklawyers.com 10 West Erie Street, Suite 106│Painesville, Ohio 44077│t 440.210.5005│f 440.210.5008 Council, and shall perform such other duties as the Council or Mayor may require consistent with the Director’s office. The City’s Code, at §135.02, further details those duties: The Director of Law shall serve the Mayor, Council and the various administrative departments, boards and officers of the Municipality in all proceedings in court or before any administrative body. He shall perform all other duties now or hereafter imposed by the Charter or by general law upon solicitors of municipalities unless otherwise provided by ordinance of Council, and shall perform such other duties as Council or the Mayor may require consistent with his office. Ord. No. 39-2014 takes all of the powers and duties of the Law Director and attempts to vest them in a new position of special counsel. Per the ordinance, special counsel reviews and drafts legislation; provides legal advice to the Council, Mayor, department heads, boards and commissions; attends all meetings; and all other services “customarily performed by legal counsel for municipal corporations under the laws of the State of Ohio.” All of which is exactly what the Law Director does. The additional services include litigation; drafting contracts; services related to public construction projects; Charter revisions; drafting new codes and revisions to existing codes; real estate matters; and collective bargaining matters. It is such a comprehensive list that the conclusion is inescapable that this special counsel appointment is intended to be a permanent replacement for the Law Director. There are no shortage of legal issues with this ordinance, but just to highlight the major ones, I will start with the fact that it is contrary to Article IV, §9(a) of the Charter insofar as it attempts to assign the duties of the Law Director to the new position of special counsel: “The Council by ordinance may assign additional functions or duties to offices, departments or agencies established by this Charter, but may not discontinue or assign to any other office, department or agency any function or duty assigned by this Charter to a particular office, department or agency.” The ordinance was also passed in violation Richmond Heights Codified Ordinance §121.22, which states: (a) Approval. A legal opinion on all ordinances, resolutions and contract documents shall have been rendered as to form and legality by the Director of Law or his authorized representative, before passage by Council. www.hsklawyers.com 10 West Erie Street, Suite 106│Painesville, Ohio 44077│t 440.210.5005│f 440.210.5008 Again, I was the appointed Law Director at the time of enactment of this ordinance. If anyone had even an arguable legal right to review and approve this ordinance, it would be me. I did not render any legal opinion on this ordinance and, if I had, I think the discussion contained herein is clear with respect to what that opinion would have been. The Code, in §135.03, also details how special counsel may be appointed: When it becomes necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the Mayor or Council, to employ assistants and/or special counsel to assist the Director of Law in the performance of his duties, the Mayor, with the approval of Council, shall be authorized to employ such assistants and/or special counsel, including any law firm with which the Director may be connected or a member, and to agree, on behalf of the Municipality, to pay such assistants and/or special counsel such reasonable compensation as shall be approved by Council. (Emphasis added). The above section is clear that the Council has no power to unilaterally appoint special counsel. It is also explicit that special counsel assists the Law Director, special counsel does not act independently of that office. In further reference to Ord. No. 39-2014, it must be noted that this new position of special counsel may only be terminated by the Council. The ordinance has no end date for this appointment. It is, in substance, permanent unless the Council decides to terminate it. It therefore fully usurps the power and duties of the Law Director contrary to the Charter and general laws. Ord. 39-2014 also purports to enter into a contract for your special counsel services. The Finance Director has not issued a certificate of available funds for this expenditure as required by law. The Charter is explicit in Article IV, §3(h) that any contract, agreement or other obligation entered into contrary to this requirement is void – not merely voidable. This Charter provision is consistent with the general laws and case law discussing same is clear that a municipality has no duty to honor a contract entered into in violation of such law. Further, R.C. §5705.41 prohibits the issuance of any warrant in payment for such void contracts. Regardless of what someone may ask of an attorney, there is an obligation to never act contrary to law. There are serious questions related to why you would undertake representation under these circumstances. Richmond Heights is now in a Charter crisis over this issue. The courts will have to sort it out. www.hsklawyers.com 10 West Erie Street, Suite 106│Painesville, Ohio 44077│t 440.210.5005│f 440.210.5008 If there is any way as the Mayor’s appointee to help resolve this issue, I am more than willing to help however I can. The reality is that if Council disapproves my appointment, the Mayor will have to appoint an alternate. And if Council disapproves that appointment, she must appoint yet another Law Director. And so on it may go. I hope that no one expects Council will simply have its own de facto law director performing all of the City’s legal work and being compensated for same as this plays out. It will not be so easy and it will only result in further legal entanglements of a very serious nature. Thank you. Very truly yours, Joseph P. Szeman Hennig, Szeman & Klammer Co., L.P.A. More From This UserBrunner Office Building ProjectCommissioner Daniel P. Troy StatementProposed Kirtland Animal Law AmendmentMentor Wholesale Vehicle Sales Storage AmendmentChardon Living Memorial Park FinancesShibley Preliminary Site PlanErie Commons Staff ReportCenter Street Development ProjectHeritage House Reservation Form 2017Cleveland Area Auto SalesMentor Medical Marijuana OrdinanceMedical Marijuana MoratoriumAutoZone Staff ReportChardon Grass Cutting Ordinance AmendmentChardon Parking Ordinance AmendmentHeritage House Usage 2016Landeg LetterGolden Treasures Staff ReportMentor Police Appreciation ResolutionMentor-on-the-Lake CRA OrdinanceMentor-on-the-Lake Housing SurveyLagoons Charter AmendmentCoreLife Restaurant ReportFCC Chairman StatementLoreto Development vs. City of Chardon
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulWalter Haverfield Letter 06 13 14 From Joseph Szeman by The News-HeraldEmbedDownloadDescriptionLetter sent from Mayor Miesha Wilson Headen's appointment for law director, Joseph Szeman to city council's legal counsel Sara J. Fagnilli.Letter sent from Mayor Miesha Wilson Headen's appointment for law director, Joseph Szeman to city council's legal counsel Sara J. Fagnilli. Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedSymaco vs. Aquinoby Judiel ParejaPeople vs Fajardoby KristinaCuetoCanet v. Decenaby Emelson MaranesEstate of Gregoria Francisco v. CA (G.R. No. 95279)by Rache Gutierrez023-2011 Creation_legal Officer 1 (2)by SBGuinobatan2000 Proceedingsby rsc77ord-07-14by Ewing Township, NJjune 15, 2010 committee agendaby Greg aymondCouncil Agendaby kim_lueddekeCity Council Agenda for May 8by Krystal MarieDraft Res. Recalling All Isulan Ordinances Ultra Virezby jimmy_andangLewiston Charter Report (LCC packet 7/11/2012)by Scott TaylorCitizens Bill of Rightsby al_crespoPacketby Preston LewisCasino v. CA Digestby cmv mendoza10 - Mathay v. CAby kenken320march 9, 2010 committee meetingby Greg aymondSabong Committe Reportby jojo50166Full Text Of Measure Lby Capital Public Radio31 AUG 04 SPEC MINby williamblue021-2011 Amending Housing Program Ordinanceby SBGuinobatanord-08-02by Ewing Township, NJAnchorage Mayor Veto Power Opinion - Boness 06-011by Steve10-21-13 Packetby Preston LewisHOMERULE_March_2013.pdfby GranicusLabsRA 9028by joannecatimbang2009-02.26CWAby gunnerclarkMinutes August 2, 2016by L. A. PatersonSimilar to Walter Haverfield Letter 06 13 14 From Joseph SzemanSymaco vs. AquinoPeople vs FajardoCanet v. DecenaEstate of Gregoria Francisco v. CA (G.R. No. 95279)023-2011 Creation_legal Officer 1 (2)2000 Proceedingsord-07-14june 15, 2010 committee agendaCouncil AgendaCity Council Agenda for May 8Draft Res. Recalling All Isulan Ordinances Ultra VirezLewiston Charter Report (LCC packet 7/11/2012)Citizens Bill of RightsPacketCasino v. CA Digest10 - Mathay v. CAmarch 9, 2010 committee meetingSabong Committe ReportFull Text Of Measure L31 AUG 04 SPEC MIN021-2011 Amending Housing Program Ordinanceord-08-02Anchorage Mayor Veto Power Opinion - Boness 06-01110-21-13 PacketHOMERULE_March_2013.pdfRA 90282009-02.26CWAMinutes August 2, 2016mun. ord. no. 011-2011001 2. Social Justice Society vs. Atienza GR No 156052Walter Haverfield Letter 06 13 14 From Joseph Szeman