Highland Heights. Early 1992
Mayor Virgina Swanson wants to appoint a new law director (Tim Paluf).
Council prefers Dale Feneli, who has served as the city’s law director since 1980.
Twice Swanson attempts to appoint Paluf; twice Council refuses to confirm that appointment.
Swanson is unwilling to budge. She wants Paluf, no ifs, ands or buts.
Council comes up with a unique solution to end the impasse. It adopts an ordinance declaring a vacancy in the law director position. It then fills that vacancy---with Feneli.
Swanson cries “foul” and the matter ends up in court. The case is entitled, “State ex rel. Paluf v. Feneli."
Highland Heights. November 1993.
An election is held while the Paluf v. Feneli lawsuit is working its way through the courts. Every sitting council member is defeated. On December 31, 1993, the law director’s term expires by operation of law.
Highland Heights., January 1994.
The newly elected Council approves Swanson’s appointment of Paluf as law director.
Columbus, April 1994
Although it doesn't finally decide the case (it sends it back to the appellate court for further review), the Ohio Supreme Court rejects Swanson’s and Paluf’s contention thatCouncil has only a limited power of approval over mayoral appointments. (Swanson and Paluf had argued that Council could reject the mayor’s choice on one ground only---that the law director candidate was not licensed to practice law in Ohio.) Interpreting the Highland Heights Charter, the Ohio Supreme Court notes that:
the appointment process appears to be a practical outworking of the doctrine of separation of powers, with the mayor appointing the law director subject to council confirmation.Cleveland 1995.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District, declares Paluf v. Feneli moot, bringing the litigation to an end.
Highland Heights, November 2000
Highland Heights voters approve amending the Charter to give the mayor a four year term of office, but reject a proposal to have council members serve staggered, four year terms. The main reason voters rejected expanding Council terms? One word: accountability. Voters believed that the best way to ensure that Council made decisions in keeping with residents’ wishes, priorities and desires was by keeping council members on a short leash.
FLASHFORWARD
March 8, 2011. Highland Heights.
The Charter Review Commission (CRC) meets to review the city Charter.
Two of the CRC members present are: 1) John Nawarskas—one of the Council members who was voted out of office in November 1993; and 2) Linda Citraro---the daughter of former Mayor Virginia Swanson, whose clash with Council let to Nawarskas’s ouster.
Also in attendance: Law Director Tim Paluf.
Up for discussion is Charter § 5.05. Entitled, “Executive Power,” it reads in part:
The Mayor shall …appoint the Finance Director (and) shall appoint all other department heads, subject to the approval of a majority of the members of Council….In the event of a vacancy occurring in a position subject to the appointment power of the Mayor, the Mayor must exercise such appointment power within thirty (30) days from the date on which the Mayor receives official notification of the vacancy or within thirty (30) days after refusal of confirmation by City Council; otherwise, Council may fill the vacancy by majority vote§ 5.05 is pretty straightforward. It clearly reflects the “separation of powers” doctrine that the Ohio Supreme Court previously recognized was a fundamental cornerstone of the Highland Heights Charter.Nevertheless, § 5.05 prompted some pretty interesting discussion last Tuesday night.
In the first act of active lobbying among CRC members that I’ve seen so far, former Mayor Swanson’s daughter, Linda Citraro, worked hard to rally support for changing § 5.05.
What did she want to change?
Citraro thought that the mayor should have unfettered power to fill vacancies without Council interference. She pitched removing the Charter language that gives Council confirmation authority and the language that allows Council to fill vacancies if an appointed position remains vacant after 30 days.
In other words, Citraro wanted to forget all about the balance of power and, as one CRC member summarized, give the mayor “carte blanche” instead.
The changes Citraro proposed were characterized by some CRC members as setting up a mayoral “dictatorship” ---at least with regard to the appointment of city officials working on the public dole.
Citraro was pretty persistent in trying to get support for her idea. She even went so far as to suggest that maybe the CRC could change the language of § 5.05 on its own.
She seemed a bit taken aback when a fellow CRC member reminded her that Highland Heights voters have the final say with regard to all changes made to the Charter.
Clearly, even after all this time, the wounds inflicted during the Paluf v. Feneli battle have not completely healed or gone away. They still exist---as shown by last Tuesday's discussion. What surprised me most was that the one still looking for retribution was not the CRC member who lost his council seat due to that squabble more than a decade ago. Nope, the ones apparently having a hard time letting go are ones from the mayoral side of the equation---even though, in fact, former Mayor Virginia Swanson emerged as the victor in that battle.
As far as I am concerned. there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the wording of § 5.05.
What went wrong back in 1993 is that former mayor Virigina Swanson and the soon-to-be ejected council members lost sight of what § 5.05 and the rest of our Charter is all about: a balance of power.
Why do I drag up all this stuff from the city’s past?
Well, I've always thought that one of the real values of history is the lessons it teaches.We don’t need to change Charter language. We can avoid future mistakes simply by taking note of our past pitfalls.
This is the lesson that Paluf v. Feneli teaches:
In this town, residents expect Council to respect the mayor’s authority and vice versa. We are not a city of mayoral dictatorships or Council rubber stamps. The mayor can appoint, but Council must approve. It’s as simple as that.
Most importantly, residents expect the mayor and Council to work through their differences and, when necessary, to compromise in order to move forward and get things done. And woe to our elected officials if they fail to do that.
Coming Events:Tuesday March 15, 7 pm, City Hall. Residents are invited to come and discuss their ideas for the city’s new green space with landscape architect Doug Nemeckay.
Tuesday March 22, 7 pm, Community Center.The next meeting of the Charter Review Commission.
Saturday April 2. 9am-1pm, Service Department. Residents are invited to bring personal papers, documents, and old files for free, confidential shredding by a commercial shredding machine. Helpers will be available to assist, as needed. If you are looking for someone to thank for this service, you need look no farther than Council President Scott Mills. Mills is responsible for bringing this free service to our city, and he’s usually there to give residents a helping hand with unloading their stuff.
