One of three charter amendments proposed by the Charter Review Commission has been challenged. About fifteen residents addressed City Council on the matter at their April 15 meeting and three pieces of correspondence from residents were read at that meeting, opposing the proposal.
The charter amendment recommendation would amend the qualifications of City Council, prohibiting some members from serving in any other elected or appointed public office, with some exceptions.
Current Charter Language:
THE COUNCIL
(b) QUALIFICATIONS.
Candidates for Council shall have resided in the Municipality and have been an elector thereof for a period of at least two (2) years next preceding his or her election. Each ward Council member must have lived in his or her ward at least one (1) year prior to election and must continue to live in the ward he or she represents during his or her entire term of office. No member of Council, except as hereinafter provided in this Charter, shall hold any other elected public office or be employed by the Municipality, except that of notary public or member of the State Militia, or Reserve Corps of the United States, or be directly or indirectly involved in the disbursement of public moneys of North Royalton, except while performing his or her duties as Councilperson.
To the extent as provided by law, no member of Council shall directly or indirectly solicit, contract for, receive or be interested in the profits or emoluments of any contract, job, work or service with or for the Municipality. Any member who ceases to possess any of the qualifications herein set forth, or who removes from the Municipality, shall thereby forfeit his or her office.
If passed, the new language will read as follows:
(b) QUALIFICATIONS.
Candidates for Council shall have resided in the Municipality and have been an elector thereof for a period of at least two (2) years next preceding his or her election. Each ward Council member must have lived in his or her ward at least one (1) year prior to election and must continue to live in the ward he or she represents during his or her entire term of office. No member of Council, except as hereinafter provided in this Charter, shall hold any other elected or appointed public office or be employed by the Municipality, except for employment with a Board of Education or a school district or that of notary public or member of the State Militia, or Corps of the United States, or be directly or indirectly involved in the disbursement of public moneys of North Royalton, except while performing his or her duties as Councilperson.
To the extent as provided by law, no member of Council shall directly or indirectly solicit, contract for, receive or be interested in the profits or emoluments of any contract, job, work or service with or for the Municipality. Any member who ceases to possess any of the qualifications herein set forth, or who removes from the Municipality, shall thereby forfeit his or her office.
Of the correspondence from residents that was read into the minutes, one asked “why would we prevent candidate just because they work outside of North Royalton?” Another stated that there was “no data to support this position.” Another said the proposal was “a ridiculous change and is not in the best interest of the City.”
Of the comments made by those residents at the April 15 meeting, one stated “I don’t agree with the language. It appears to be a difference in wording between the actual and the ballot language.” A resident said that the amendment would effectively be “telling a police officer, EMT, fire fighter, you’re good enough to serve in another community, but not in your home town.” They went on to address the issue that the current Council President, Paul Marnecheck, would have to step down if the amendment was passed as written, saying that their biggest concern was that in 2022, there were articles written about Marnecheck’s position as Economic Development Director in the City of Brookpark, yet he ran a successful campaign and won. “He did not hide information and was not deceitful. The public knew his position and they voted for him and he won. They added that to not put a grandfather clause in is wrong. “I don’t like silencing the voter – I think it’s wrong, telling them you don’t trust their judgement.” Ward 2 Council Rep Linda Barath commented, “all we’re doing is putting it on the ballot.”
One resident asked, “what problems have existed in the past that you are trying to solve?” It was noted that there was never any inquiry or complaint by Council that Marnecheck had done anything wrong, relative to his position with Brookpark. It was also stated that Supreme Court has a recusal process that would address the problem. Another resident concurred, “when there is a conflict of interest, you recuse yourself. We already have a process in place.” They added that “if you’re going to eliminate one member with conflict, then you better look at all of them. Strongly look across the board at any North Royalton resident that could have a conflict of interest…we potentially closing out a lot of good people.”
Another resident stated that “there is not a conflict of interest in play right now. There are other avenues if there is a conflict.” They said that the basis of the amendment was a “phantom conflict on interest,” such as that brought up in 2023. “I don’t know why this is coming back up again when the residents have already spoke about it. I don’t think that we are being listened to. I think we are being told to shut up.” They added that “there is an agenda at play that is not supposed to be prominent and relevant in North Royalton. Language is very clear on conflict of interest . . . let the system play out. Look at the time we’re wasting right now. We need to look into other employees in the City. A current conflict of interest with our Economic Development Director who is also hired by the City of Olmsted Falls.”
Ward 6 Council Rep Mike Wos stated that “there are business and economic things that come to Council, including him sitting on Planning Commission.” Marnecheck no longer sits on the Planning Commission. A resident responded, saying, “we have Realtors that sit on Council.” Ward 1 Council Rep John Nickell responded, “he does get to sit on executive sessions.” He also noted, “I’m not a commercial realtor.” Another resident asked, “are we going to create legislation to deal with every possible situation?” The resident then stated, “we are not going to go after that, but we will go after this? We’re going to eliminate some very good, hardworking people, for this phantom conflict.”
One resident stated that the amendment was inconsistent, “why is it not across the board?” The resident then said if confidential matters were the concern, “Nickell, being a licensed realtor sitting on Planning Commission. Wos works at PNC and contracts in 2021, he did vote on a banking contract, but he did not recuse his vote. . . a few of you should get off.” Wos rebutted that he is in the bank’s tech department and is not associated with contracts. The resident went on to talk about other people sitting on other boards, receiving special interests, seeking economic gains. “Every one of you have received money, political donations from people who you employ.” The resident then stated examples. The resident then noted that “Charter Review Commission members contributed to various Mayor and Council races. These people are your friends and that’s who you picked to sit on the commission.”
One resident said they witnessed a “conflict of interest in action. Marnecheck voted No regarding Domino’s Pizza,” but did not go into detail. Previous Ward 5 Council Rep Vince Weimer stated that “we have great legal counsel that helps with that, as well as Code of Council, that gives Council the ability to investigate.” He added that there was none from Council to investigate Marnecheck. “To say that all public employees should be banned from running from office is absolutely ludicrous. There is vitriol in that decision. You have the opportunity to fix it.”
One resident urged Council to vote No, stating that it was “unnecessary and unfair and not what the people want. We showed you that when we voted him. There is no grandfather clause. It seems completely unfair. . . . it’s discrimination against public employees – why some and not others?” Another resident concurred, stating the amendment was “bad for our City. It’s a ban on hard working residents from running for office.”
Previous Ward 3 Council Rep Gary Petrusky asked Law Director Tom Kelly to define the term ‘public office.’ Kelly said there were different definitions and couldn’t give an off-the-cuff decision. Petrusky then noted that the Mayor is allowed to sit on a Board, but then prohibits Council the same allowance. He then stated, “doesn’t legislation have to have a sponsor? If whoever withdraws the sponsorship, it would pull it off. That could nip it in the bud.”
The measure was placed on second reading for further discussion. Law Director Tom Kelly noted that Council has the ability, through a Charter Amendment, which was passed by the voters in 2021, to amend any Charter Review Commission recommendation that comes before them. According to the then-amended City Charter, “In the event of a disagreement between the Commission and a majority of Council over the language of a proposed amendment, two members of the Commission and two members of the Council majority and the President of Council shall meet and work collaboratively to determine by majority vote on the actual text of the amendment. The text determined by this committee shall be that submitted to the voters.”
By GLORIA PLEVA KACIK
Contributing Writer